Town of Fryeburg Maine
Settled 1763,  Incorporated 11 January 1777

   Thank you for visiting the Fryeburg Planing Board archive page.

Back

Minutes Fryeburg Planning Board
August 28, 2007 7:00 pm
Molly Ockett Middle School

ATTENDEES: Gene Bergoffen, Kathleen Heggie, Carol Gregory, David Andrews, Ed Price

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm and a quorum was declared.

A hearing on a two lot subdivision on Gary Whitten’s property was presented. Mr. John Bliss represented Sally and Gary Whitten. One lot has a house on it and each lot is four acres in size. An application has been accepted with a two lot subdivision. The hearing was declared closed. A motion was made to approve the application with conditions indicated (sidewalks and the re-bars). A motion was made to approve and it was seconded. Kathleen Heggie commended them for a well-written, well-addressed application with a covenant in the deed. All were in favor of the application and it was approved.

Gene Bergoffen wanted to change the order of the agenda to the Nestle suit.

Bill Dale will act as counsel to the board. The board will be dealing with the scope and the procedure. Comments will come up by the representatives of the two parties. There will be public comments made using a procedure. E-mail regarding this topic will be shared. Mr. Ed Price has recused himself from the Nestle’s project. A motion was made and the vote was in favor to recuse Mr. Price.

David Andrews was asked to serve as a regular member. Bill Dale will circulate an e-mail to the parties tonight. Note that the meeting is being recorded. We will ask Bill to explain the procedure.

Bill Dale was contacted by Phil, the town manager, about a month ago. Bill looked at the courts remand and talked to the chairman once or twice.

Mr. Dale is making it clear that this is just a recommendation but it is up to the Planning Board to make the decision. The matter from Denmark and Fryeburg went to the Superior Court. Judge Cole said the Denmark matter is fine but Fryeburg has to go back to the Planning Board. The case is a remand to the Planning Board regarding the truck activity; is it in compliance with the neighbors in the loading district in light of the Comprehensive Plan? Is it a low impact business to the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Board must consider if 50 trucks a day is a low impact in the rural residential comprehensive plan. The procedure is outlined in the 8/23 e-mail.

1. The board must consider this matter
2. The turnover in board members means that the new board members need to go to the office and look up the tapes and review them.

After the Planning Board receives all the information they can come back around 10/1 and let the parties make a presentation to the Planning Board and then they will deliberate and decide.

The Planning Board needs to look at the issue of omitted use and the standards applying to the omitted use. We have to look at the language of the Comprehensive Plan and what the scope is for the remand.

The procedure outlined here gives the parties two weeks to submit the comments.

The parties can respond to each other before we meet on the 9 th. It is critical for the planning board know about what the scope is. The Planning Board will make that decision tonight.

There is no new evidence being submitted. There is no legal proposal saying that you can’t look at the old records. We need to decide to go forward with the procedure in an e-mail. Tonight we will accept a three-page memo and in a couple of weeks we will come back and discuss the nature of the remand.

The plan for the next meeting is to introduce any issues with the scope. On 10/9 it will give us the opportunity for the parties to give 2-3 pages of replies. The next session would be the input hearing stage. Attorney Dale suggests that we have the lawyers submit three-page memos two weeks from Friday. These memos are all public information.

We should be sure that the board members review the records. After doing that and reviewing the memos if you have questions for the parties they can then address those questions on the meeting on the 9 th. A question we have to answer is what is a finding and conclusion to a low impact use?

Maine law states you must disclose if you are own 10% stock of Nestle/Poland Springs.

Respectfully Submitted, Virginia Manley

 

Back