Limington Planning Board Minutes
<--Prev       Index       Next-->




AUGUST 14, 2000
AUGUST 24, 2000



[Note: already approved on 9/9/00]





These minutes were approved at the October 26, 2000 Planning Board meeting with the following changes:

Page 12, paragraph 5, last line - The cost of the study is not the responsibility of the Town.

Page 13, paragraph 5, Donna Delude should be Dulude.



The meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson at 7;00 P.M. on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:10 P.M. at the Limington Town Hall.

Regular members present: Wendy Walker, Chairperson; Diane Hubbard; Stanley Blake, Jr.; Raymond Coffin.

Regular members absent: Chris Clark; Harold Jordan; Kreg Rose, Vice-Chairperson.

Alternate members present: Ronald Perkins.

Also attending: Freeman Abbott, C.E.O.

Secretary, Priscilla Tucker was absent

The meeting was videotaped.

The first order of business was the review of the application of Olivia Daicy for a junkyard on Ossippee Trail. Mr. Daicy was present. There was no deed and Mr. Daicy was instructed to provide a copy. The map and lot numbers were needed. Need a map showing where the property lines, boundaries are located. He was instructed to show where the junk is in relation to his house and property.

Mr. Daicy said he is not bringing in junk but is slowly removing what was there when Mrs. Daicy purchased the land.

Wendy Walker explained to Mr. Daicy that in order to consider the application complete the Board needs the map and lot number and copy of the deed and map. Mr. Daicy said that the information should be included in the last application he made. The Public Hearing is scheduled for September 28, 2000.

The Board next addressed the application of Edward and Lisa Smith to operate a hair salon in their home. The application will be scheduled for Public Hearing on September 28 meeting.

Regarding Webster Mills, Wendy Walker was asked if the letter went out to Mr. Egan. Wendy stated that she contacted him by phone and had a long conversation with him. She said she made requests that he said he would take care of. She has not received anything back from him as yet. She said that at this point she has done what she can do and now it is up to Webster Mills to get what is needed from Mr. Egan.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 2

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION: To approve the Minutes of the August 14, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Raymond Coffin and carried unanimously.

The Minutes of the August 24, 2000 meeting will be carried over because there were not enough members who had attended the meeting to approve them.

The next order of business was the Webster Mills Place application. Wendy Walker explained to Jean that she had contacted Mr. Egan and he was suppose to send information but did not send anything. Wendy Walker said Mr. Egan was suppose to send her information on how the scoring worked. He was going to do some research for her, thought he had some documents where the crime rate studies had been done, where the projects existed. Wendy Walker said that she would appreciate Jean's help.

Jean said that Mr. Egan had sent the documents so she was puzzled. Wendy said she had given Mr. Egan her home address and as yet nothing had arrived.

Wendy Walker said that a number of issues were brought up at the last meeting that had to be dealt with.

Mr. Greer said that he had hoped they could finish the public comment and then go over the list. Wendy Walker said that because a lot of the public were not in attendance she felt that it would be appropriate to hear the answers to the concerns.

Mr. Greer said that he will go through the issues but is not making a submittal tonight to address them 100%. Their hope was that they could get the issues out and that they would make a revised submittal that will address each one of the items and make sure that they do have a complete application addressing each item to the satisfaction of the Board.

Wendy Walker said that one of the issues which was brought up, Mr. Blake split the land off in two pieces, lot one a small one and lot two a big one. When he did that he did not come before the Planning Board because it was only two lots. The sub-division doesn't kick in until the third lot is created. The point where Webster Mills decided to sub-divide the big lot into unique dwelling units, it became a sub-division even if they only

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 3

put up two dwelling units. It became a sub-division for both of those lots not just the lot number two. Your plan has to officially cover lot one as well as lot two. This means there are twenty dwelling units in your project. There will also be a recreation hall which has to be considered a structure which is another unit. This is really a twenty-two unit sub-division that the Board is looking at. This is a revision of what the Board originally thought they had.

Matt M., attorney for Webster Mills, said he had a question for clarification. He was curious about the community building as you are qualifying the community building as a separate unit. Wouldn't that be treated as an accessory use to the principle uses, therefore, not requiring separate but part of the sub-division review. Would it not be treated as an accessory use so you would not treat it as a separate unit.

Wendy Walker said that it is a structure on the lot so by the Town standards it is considered a unit. The attorney said he was trying to get an understanding of whether it needs to be treated as one of the sub-division units.

Wendy Walker said that according to the sub-division ordinance it says "... the term sub-division shall include the sub-division of land for non-residential purposes, mobile home parks and the re-subdivision of land." Whether it is a building that is going to be lived in or not it is still a building.

The attorney said that you need a division of land. Wendy Walker stated yes. The attorney said he was just raising the item for thought. He is not sure that accessory use will be a separate division. He said there were twenty divisions and the Blake lot and the question to him is whether this is another division.

Wendy Walker spoke to Mr. Greer on whether there was enough land to accommodate what Webster Mills is trying to accomplish. The size of Lot 2 was questioned. There are 3.4 acres. It could be two lots in the commercial zone. There is a sign up which states "lots" for sale. Lot one is the site for the project. There has been confusion as to what is the dwelling unit and what is a dwelling, multi-family dwelling

Mr. Greer stated that the ordinance has the dimensional requirements for multi-family dwelling in the commercial district at 60,000 for the first dwelling unit and 40,000 for each additional unit. He wanted the Board to consider the intent of the provision of the ordinance. Was it to look at each structure on the lot. This is a Land Use Table. It is talking about uses on the property. This is a multi-family dwelling that is proposed. There will be five multi-family dwellings. He feels the intent of this is to have a basic threshold in size for any property that is going to have a multi-family use. He said

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 4

according to the ordinance the first dwelling unit needs to have 60,000 sq. feet and each additional, remaining, nineteen, will need to have 40,000 sq. feet. He feels this section is ambiguous. He said you could have five buildings with two units which would be 60,000 and 40,000. He did not feel that it was logical to have 60,000 sq. feet for each new building. The intensity on the property will still be the same. He said Town's could not zone out multi-family, low income housing. They are asking that the Board reasonably interpret it to be consistent with the case law which says you cannot zone out low-income housing

Diane Hubbard stated that first, the reason that the ordinance is written this way is because each of these is called a unit. Your first unit is 60,000 square feet and if you have three additional units which would be 40,000 sq. feet. Each one is a separate building.

Mr. Greer said that what she is saying is logical but it is not logical in the application because the intent of use on the property is the same impact on the town. There is no reason you should have the additional 60,000 sq. feet per building. This is a use table not a structure table.

Wendy Walker said that unfortunately, she has spoken to the attorney twice, if you look in the ordinance, which is what the Board has to follow, anything you ask the Board to be more lean on cannot come from the Board. She said the definitions in the zoning ordinance of multi-family dwelling unit, it says the first dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling requires this. She feels a literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance which is what the Appeals Board also has to do, then I have to read the definition of multi-family dwelling which states, a building which is used for dwelling units. She stated she would have no options. She cannot redefine what is there.

Mr. Greer said the problem is that the Board is reading multi-family dwelling as a building because the word multi-family is defined. He said in the commercial district if you have a gas station and a convenience store you don't double the lot size.

The Board responded that this was not true. You do double the lot size.

Mr. Greer said the words commercial are intended not to speak of the building it is in but the use of the property.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 5

Wendy Walker said that they would let Mike speak. She said she would like Mr. Greer to submit in writing how you would like the Board to interpret this and why. She said she would submit this to the Town Attorney for his opinion. He is the authority on interpreting the ordinance.

Michael York said taking 60,000 sq. feet for the first unit and 40,000 for each additional unit instead of creating multi-family units all in one area. You are only creating the availability of breaking off a separate, individual lot for each building. If you keep them together with 60,000; 40,000; 40,000 for each additional unit then you do not open up breaking this up into separate salable properties later. It would be similar to when he did his sub-division, he broke off five individual duplex lots. As to Diane's point about the 40,000 sq. feet, if you already own a house and you buy an additional 40,000 sq. feet you can put an apartment on that and so on.

Wendy Walker said the Board looks at the number of houses being built and apply the total acreage to the number of houses. They actually get a break here as they only have to say 60,000 sq. feet and 40,000 sq. feet.

Michael York said he would be afraid of their breaking off a piece. Wendy Walker said they would have to come back to break a piece off.

Lorraine Libby did not think the gentleman should try to interpret the intent of the ordinance. Wendy Walker said that he is entitled to the opinion that the Town Attorney can evaluate.

The attorney stated that he suggest that the Board, if they wish to continue their interpretation, think about this and review it at a later point because what they are actually doing is requiring multi-family housing to become more dense. If they decide to make them duplexes and still be multi-family housing, they would still need more land. The limits in a rural community counter to the whole idea of more spread out living and requiring a developer to come along and make a denser development.

Wendy Walker said it is to the benefit of the developer but the more buildings that go up on a piece of property that requires resources for leach fields and wells affect water supplies in a denser area. It does have an impact. The Town does not have a water supply. The Zoning Ordinance was built to accommodate that fact.

Mr. Greer said that you can't be more restrictive than the ordinance. The ordinances are to be interpreted so that they allow the property owner to have maximum use of the land.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 6

Wendy Walker said that the Board has the right within the ordinance to be more restrictive than what the ordinance requires.

Mr. Greer said he understood that and that conditions could be imposed.

Richard Jarrett said that he helped write the section. He said they wrote it that way because they intended it to be 60,000 for the first dwelling unit in a building and 40,000 for each additional one. The reason we wrote it that way was because it wasn't clear in the last ordinance. There were questions in the last ordinance. We struggled with the language to try and make it clear. It appears that it doesn't seem to be clear because we are still arguing about it.

The other thing that is being argued is single family houses. There is no advantage to multi-family housing is a completely false statement. Single family houses require more acreage than multi-family. So you are getting a break.

Wendy Walker said that another issue was that because we have lot 1 and lot 2 and it is part of one sub-division on Route 25, we cannot create more than one entrance of the Route, based on the ordinance. At this point there is no way short of a bridge that is going to allow access from the road to the other lot. The Board will need the answer to how the lots with the sign "for sale" will have access.

Mr. Greer was asked what the total road frontage was. He said it was 600+ feet. Wendy Walker said that according, to the ordinance the Board will allow one road because on Route 25 we are not allowed to put a road or street access any closer than two in a thousand feet. If the road for the sub-division goes where it is planned, there will be no allowed access to the other lots.

Mr. Greer said that this would be a new road but this will qualify as a new entrance to Route 25. This is an existing driveway between the Boston property and the Blake property. There will be a new road going into lot 1 to serve that lot.

Mr. Greer said that lot 2 (the Blake lot) to be divided in half the easterly half will be served by the easement driveway as well as the Boston lot. The new road will serve the westerly half of lot 2 and all of lot 1.

Mr. Greer said that they have to work with Mr. Blake on this. They are trying to address the concerns of the last meeting. They will come back and give a revised plan, assuming Mr. Blake is agreeable.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 7

Wendy Walker said to Mr. Greer that you're saying split the extra lot in two and the parent easement which is on the edge of the property will have to serve both lots. Mr. Greer said only one of the lots will be served by that and they will provide an easement to the other lot with access onto the street they have. You will come in and turn left to that property.

The attorney for Webster Mills said that says that entrances onto existing or proposed arterial streets, like 25, shall not exceed a frequency of one per one thousand feet of street frontage. The question is what is an entrance. For a couple of reasons this does not apply to us. It does apply to the easement to the existing driveway. That is an entrance. The word entrance is not defined. I think this means an entrance applies to only roads, public streets. It would not make sense if was applied to driveways for single family residences. Mr. Greer said that the roads need to be shared. What he is going to propose is that the westerly half of Lot 2 share access onto their collector road. When we are finished there will be two entrances on Route 25 one is the road and the other is the driveway.

Wendy Walker said you are saying that the existing easement is not an entrance. If a car comes out it will be an entrance. Mr. Greer said it is a driveway.

Freeman Abbott said that on new lots you must follow the ordinance and share entrances. Mr. Greer said that if that is the case he will have to redesign the project so that is where they will come out.

Mr. Greer said that it doesn't apply because this provision applies to new entrances for sub-division. They are proposing one new entrance, a new access road. Obviously, there will be existing roads that will be within one thousand feet but this provision doesn't apply to existing entrances. It is for new entrances that are being proposed for the sub-division, not an existing entrance.

Wendy Walker said that he was losing sight of the fact that we have had to declare both of these lots part of this one sub-division. Mr. Greer said he understands that but this is an existing entrance already. It serves the Boston lot and the fact that it is going to serve one lot in this sub-division doesn't mean that they are making a new entrance.

Mr. Greer said that these provisions only apply to streets. He said that a letter had been requested before about the lot size issue and maybe the street issue should also be included in the letter and you should discuss this with the Town Attorney.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 8

Lorraine Libby asked how wide a driveway had to be for a family dwelling. Freeman Abbott answered that it depended on how long the driveway was. The driveway has no standard unless it goes over one hundred (100) feet. Then, as he interprets the ordinance, it is a road. If it serves one or two families it is to be fifteen (15) feet wide.

There was a discussion of a driveway versus a road/street for access. Lorraine Libby said that when it comes to access onto Route 25, you must remember that the Comprehensive Plan's goal is to reduce the numbers of entrances onto Route 25 because of the amount of traffic there is and the problem that is already presenting itself on the northern end of town with all of the driveways coming, out onto Route 25.

Mr. Greer did not understand what the relevance was. The section of the sub-division ordinance regulates streets.

Wendy Walker said they were trying to differentiate between a road and a street. The easement to the properties is a road or street. If it is a street it is not a public way so it is not a street. What is the difference between a street and a road?

Mr. Greer said that it doesn't have to be a street or a road. The ordinance defines driveway separately from road and street. It must be addressed. The question is whether the easement is a street and it doesn't meet the definition of a street. It is something else and we have to decide what it is later on. He feels that the access for lot 1 is a street, the longer one that is going to access the multi-family dwelling. Must we decide what the easement is.

Wendy Walker said they do if it qualifies as a road/street. If it is a street it can't have more than one every thousand feet as we have already declared. If it is not a street then it doesn't fall into the one every thousand foot requirement. She stated that she needs some clarification as to whether this is a street.

Mr. Greer asked if it didn't have the right-of-way being offered for public. Wendy Walker said this could be potentially if the lot is sold as a commercial lot. It could be used for commercial use which would make it public access.

Mr. Greer said they intend to come back with an application, with Mr. Blake's approval, that has the remaining lot divided into two residential lots. That will be the approval we will seek. That would make it a driveway.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 9

Richard Jarrett said the Zoning Ordinance and Sub-Division Ordinance were written at different times and have different definitions. There is no specific definition of streets 'in the sub-division except on page 30 it defines street in terms of a street. It is not a very good definition. That is the closest definition you will get. If you don't have a definition then the common law thing to do is to take the dictionary definition.

Mr. Greer said that there is a definition of street on page 5 of the sub-division ordinance. It says it talks about rights-of-ways, streets, avenues, boulevards, roads, streets and other rights-of-ways. it is talking about public access.

Wendy Walker said what needs to be done is to decide what to do with the two places that go in and out. She told Mr. Greer to submit this in writing to her and she will have the Town Attorney make his decision.

Richard Jarrett said that if an easement is allowed through their property coming out onto their access road isn't that going to limit use of the rest of Blake's property? Again, the public couldn't use that so it couldn't be sold as a commercial property. Wendy Walker said that is what Webster Mills is proposing that it not be sold as commercial property. Richard Jarrett said you are limiting the use of the property and Mr. Blake would have to agree to that. Mr. Greer said he was going to try to get Mr. Blake to agree but if he doesn't then they would be out of luck.

Richard Jarrett said doesn't that change the zoning? Wendy Walker said that it is not a change of zoning but the Board would have to look at whether residential use could be allowed on a commercial lot. That is a whole separate issue.

Wendy Walker said that the Board will await a letter to include: 1) Lot size calculation; 2) whether or not we can have two prior access roads and whatever level of road they are whether it is a driveway or highway.

Wendy Walker said there is a question as to whether the recreational building is considered as a separate dwelling or accessory. The initial reaction was that it is a dwelling if it has facilities for living. It may not have a bed but it has a toilet. She doesn't have anything in writing from the Attorney. She asked Mr. Greer to address it in his letter and she would in her letter to the Town Attorney.

There was a discussion of whether the recreational building should be an accessory use or dwelling unit.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 10

Wendy Walker said that there is a toilet in the building and the Code Enforcement Officer will determine if it makes it a structure that requires an allotment of land.

Richard Jarrett said that it is probably safe to say it is not a dwelling unit. He described two scenarios which illustrated his statement.

Wendy Walker said the building will have computer labs, coin operated laundry and bathrooms. Mr. Greer said that the difference is it is accessory to a twenty unit apartment building versus a single family residence. There will be two washers and dryers in one room. There is a computer room 7x10 with counter that has several computers on it. There is no kitchen. Attached to the building is a boiler room for the whole facility. The building and the boiler room are over 1,000 feet.

Freeman Abbott said that if the building was under 1,000 square feet it would be an accessory structure. Now Mr. Greer is saying you have 700+ square feet for the building plus 700+ feet for the boiler room which is over the 1,000 square feet so it brings in site plan review. Freeman Abbott said that it is not, in his opinion an accessory structure.

Wendy Walker instructed Mr. Greer to include this in his document for review.

Richard Jarrett asked how they proposed to keep guests out of the building if it is only for residents. You have stated that the building is only for residents. Mr. Greer said whether guests were in there or not is not going to make it a principle structure.

Wendy Walker then asked about the nitrate calculation and Mr. Greer said that he would be submitting a revised nitrate report to deal with the additional lots out front. In reviewing the ordinance, he interpreted the provisions that Mr. Jarrett sited do not apply to this project. They apply to projects with soil severe. This project does not have soil severe with respect to subsurface disposal systems. The report that the Board has in front of them already meets the standards that are part of that Section 16. He is assuming that Section 16 is the correct one that was adopted by the Town. He cited the sub-division amendments. He said he had reviewed report with Cynthia Faire. He did not feel it was necessary to have her at the meeting but if the Board wishes he will invite her. The model that she used to predict the nitrate count that were shown on previous maps is actually based on a dispersion and mixing model that does not taken into account the precipitation and dilution. It is a model that will predict nitrate counts whether in a drought condition or a wet condition. If you have a wet condition you get dilution and actually get lower rates than those. If they did have severe soil and the standards did apply to the project, they would still meet the standards. Mr. Jarrett said at the last meeting that they do have to comply with it, but Mr. Greer feels that they do not.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 11

Wendy Walker asked how many milligrams per year nitrates are allowed when designing, a sub-division? She said the information in your plan says ten (10) milligrams per liter is what the Town ordinance requires and that you have beat it by say me you are at 5.5 milligrams per liter. Mr. Jarrett has said that the Town standard is five (5). What you showed us doesn't say ten (10). Mr. Greer said it has to meet drinking water standards and that is the drinking water standard even in the town ordinance. Section 10.6.1. Wendy Walker said' that she was not an Engineer and she wants to know where it is written that ten is the number she needs. Mr. Greer stated that the ordinance, Section 10.1 states you have to have adequate water for the project. This is what Webster Mills has demonstrated. Adequate drinking water means less than ten (10) milligrams per liter of nitrate. Mr. Manahan said these are State and Federal standards. Wendy Walker said that she would like to see them.

Mr. Greer said the new submittal and will address the extra two lots if Mr. Blake is agreeable. Mr. Greer said even if they leave the lot alone and don't do anything with it it will still be considered part of the sub-division.

An unidentified individual spoke of the Windham project and the problems with that development. Wendy Walker asked what the project was. It is a sub-division that they went through in Windham with a group of citizens opposing the project said Mr. Greer and he said that it was irrelevant. It was a residential sub-division consisting of forty (40) lots for single family homes.

Mr. Manahan said that at the Public hearing you accept public comment as opposed to having the public get up at every opportunity during the proceedings so the work cannot get done with the Planning Board.

Wendy Walker said that the Town does things a little different and the Town needs their comments restrained to the points we are talking about. We have allowed this approach if it is pertinent. The moment it stops being pertinent then it is stopped,

Freeman Abbott stated that the Planning Board policy was made that all meetings are Public Hearings.

Wendy Walker stated that they were sill in the discovery process and don't have a lot of answers to questions and the public is still involved. This is still pretty early in the process.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 12

The individual stated that in her conversation with a representative from Windham about their problems she explained some of the Limington concerns such as density calculation, nitrates and so forth. His remark was that we all make mistakes. He said he didn't see the problem that had developed at the end. He said he would be willing to talk to the Board but he would give some advise to ask developers for independent engineer to look at these problems.

Wendy Walker stated that Mr. Greer was going to provide the nitrate information and other items needed. She said she would figure out the standard drinking water issue so it will be in the record.

Jean will get the point item which got you here so that folks will be comfortable with the process that brought Webster Mills here.

If there are any other issues other than nitrates, lot size, driveway, legal liability, criminal information and whether this is a good location for the project. Honestly, she said she had a conversation with Mr. Egan about how Limington was classified in York County as part of the Greater Portland MSA which is Cumberland County. He said that Limington was classified as part of the Greater Portland MSA which is why we are considered a good location.

An unidentified individual in the audience asked why the Board was going through this Public Hearing for input from the public when it should have been before the public before. It, sounds like we are going to get something dumped on us. Wendy Walker said she was only part of the Planning Board and as such can only review the application. Kathy Maddocks said there were no Public Hearing requirements to go on with the project before it came to the Planning Board.

Lorraine Libby said she heard the mention of out having the independent Engineer to assist this Board with a very complicated project Is this something the Selectmen would address. Wendy Walker said that they were already considering it but had not requested it as yet. It would not be the Town's responsibility for that study. [Correction: The cost of the study is not the responsibility of the Town.]

Mr. Manahan said that if this is going to be done, they would like to have it done right away.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 13

An unidentified individual said that in Section 7.20 it states that the access road enters into 25 approximately 1500 feet from the intersection of Route 11. The existing speed limit is 35 miles an hour they stated but it is actually 50 miles per hour. My point is if school buses are going to be picking up and dropping off children it is a safety concern.

Ron Perkins asked what would happen if this did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Wendy Walker responded that it depends on what is not complying. If it is blatantly something that could be measured that we would have to go to the Town Attorney.

Ron Perkins said that the Comprehensive Plan states that government policy stresses the need to provide adequate services in the most economically and efficient manner possible. Right now we have a shortage of schools, don't have a police department, don't have adequate facilities for people here now. As far as accommodating low income people, I think we have done that very well. We have several mobile home parks here. He thought that the plans were very well done but he feels that the Town of Limington is not ready for this program right now. Housing for elderly would be another thing because you would not have the school and crime problems. He does not feel that this program comply with the Comprehensive Plan and what we are trying to do in the town right now.

Wendy Walker said that it is not how much we are in agreement, it's about how much weight it can carry in the decision and that is the part that she was not clear about. Wendy Walker said that Sue was suppose to give her a list of the projects they have because the Board wants to look at the new versus the old. She wants a list of several new and old projects. She requested that Sue be asked to prepare the list for her. She also wanted the age of the projects.

Donna Delude [correction: Dulude] asked if the application was complete and whether the fees were paid. Wendy Walker said the application was still preliminary and not final because there are too many outstanding items. The plan is being resubmitted. Mr. Greer said that the Board will get a plan back that is similar to the one they have and be what he would consider a complete application in terms of starting the process. It is quite common in the process to make changes as you go through. The issues on fees is one that has to be visited and whether it is a 22 lot sub-division or a major sub-division because we have 20 dwellings. It is actually a two lot sub-division. Wendy Walker said that as yet they do not know how many lots the Board will be dealing with.

Mr. Greer said that the fee issue should be addressed in their letter.

Planning Board Minutes
September 14, 2000 Meeting
Page 14

Richard Jarrett said that the preliminary plan has to be approved before you move onto the final plan, in his opinion. They haven't even submitted everything at this point. There is one standard that the soil mapping be provided. Mr. Greer said they did that.

Wendy Walker said the checklist for submission was determined to be complete. The stay with preliminary plan right now because you have to re-draft so many things. Mr. Greer said they want to make a submittal back to the Board that is as complete as possible. If there is going to be an outstanding issue we will address it and whether you vote to give us preliminary approval at the next meeting and then give a list of condition that we have to satisfy for final approval or not will be a procedural point of view.

Wendy Walker said let's make sure that we have everything for the preliminary plan. At this time the Board went through the requirements. It was determined that the Board cannot determine the fee until the lot issue is settled. We need a decision from the attorney.

Wendy Walker said that the Board could read over the final plan but there are missing items for the preliminary plan so it doesn't seem appropriate to go over it.

The final procedure is the inspection of submissions, Wendy said Section 7.3.2 which is in the final submission has items that will take some time once the Board gets to the final stage. If you are looking for preliminary approval it is going to take longer than one more meeting. Mr. Greer was told to review the section.

The tape ended and there is no further information.

Return to top of page

Please note that is not the official website of the Government of the Town of Limington.