VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 15 POSTED ON: 6/5/2010
SELECT BOARD Minutes of Meeting Tuesday, September 7, 2004 PRESENT: Chairperson John R. French, Jr., Vice Chairperson Susan Dorr, Secretary Sidney G. Lindsley, Karen Grove, Parker Laite, Jr., Town Attorney William Kelly, and Town Manager, Roberta Smith. Contents 1. Public input on non-agenda items. 2. Minutes of Select Board Meetings June 7, 2004, June 21, 2004, July 6, 2004, July 19, 2004, August 2, 2004, August 10, 2004, and August 16, 2004 OLD BUSINESS 3. Consideration of the request of Ted Panayotoff of the Camden Rockport Historical Society to support a request to the Navy for the naming of a new U.S.S. Conway, and endorsement of the planning for a 2006 Conway Day. NEW BUSINESS 4. Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments: a. Proposed amendment to Article III to add a definition of “Tributary Stream”. b. Proposed amendment to Article VI, Non-Conformance, by replacing Section 6. c. Proposed amendment to Article X, Performance Standards, Part (i) Section 1 (9)(j), third sentence. d. Proposed amendment to Article VIII, Section V, Coastal Residential District, C, by adding a new subsection 8. e. Proposed amendment to Article VIII, Section 13, River Business District, B. f. Proposed amendments to Chapter VIII, Police Ordinance, Town of Camden, Part XI, Ordinance Authorizing Names for Private Roads and Fire Roads. 5. Appointment of one School Board Director to fill the vacancy on the MSAD 28 Board as a result of the resignation of Pamela Pleas.. 6. Bob Topper, representing a group of concerned citizens, regarding the need, logic, and feasibility of making underground placement of all utilities an integral part of the Route 1 renewal project. 7. Consideration of the request of the Parks & Recreation Department for the surplus DPW 1 ton truck. 8. Approval of the purchase of a replacement Trackless machine for the DPW and for shared use by the Rockport DPW. 9. Award of the following bids: a. Road Salt for 2004-2005 Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 2 September 7, 2004 b. Liquid Calcium Chloride for 2004-2005 10. Consideration of new computer software and designation of contingency funds to cover the purchase. 11. Consideration of the following items relative to the Route 1 MDOT project: a. Appointment of John Tooley as Assistant Tree Warden for the project. b. Use of the town-owned property on Sea Street for the temporary location of the MDOT construction office. c. Use of the old town-owned gravel pit off Sagamore Farm Road for a construction excavation disposal site. 12. Discussion of site distances at intersections. 13. Committee Reports 14. Manager’s Report a. Atlantic Avenue recap b. Lincolnville Band use of Village Green 15. Executive Session with representatives of the Camden Conservation Commission regarding a Megunticook River Green Space Proposal. Minutes of Meeting Chairperson John French called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM 1. Public Input on Non-Agenda Items Susan Beebee came forward to express her opposition to the plans for cutting trees along Route One as part of the road construction project that was to begin the next day. Using a painting she had done as an illustration of “before the cutting”, she stated that she does not believe that enough is being done to protect as many trees as possible. The area near the State Park shown in her picture, she believes, could be saved. She noted that High Street is on the National Register of Historic Places and should be preserved. She referred to an upcoming agenda item (#6) concerning underground power along the construction route, and hoped that the Board would act favorably on this request. She then presented a petition to the Board containing 742 signatures asking for a moratorium on this project and quick MDOT cutting. 138 of those signatures were from Camden residents, 146 from other Maine towns, and 111 from visitors to the area. 2. Approval of Minutes of Select Board Meetings of June 7, 2004, June 21, 2004, July 6, 2004, July 19, 2004, August 2, 2004, August 10, 2004 and August 16, 2004. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Susan Dorr to accept the Minutes of June 7, 2004, June 21, 2004, July 6, 2004, July 19, August 10 and August 16, 2004. VOTE: 5-0-0 Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 3 September 7, 2004 MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Susan Dorr to Table consideration of the Minutes of August 2, 2004. VOTE: 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS 3. Consideration of the request of Ted Panayotoff of the Camden Rockport Historical Society to support a request to the Navy for the naming of a new U.S.S. Conway, and endorsement of the planning for a 2006 Conway Day. Mr. Panayotoff informed the Board that the U.S.S. Conway Veterans Association has begun a campaign to have a third U.S. Naval vessel named after the former William Conway of Camden. The Camden Rockport Historical Society, as stewards of the ship’s archives and memorabilia, would like the Town’s official support of this project. Mr. Panayotoff presented a draft of a letter prepared for this purpose. He also informed the Board of discussions by the Camden Rockport Historical Society and the local Chamber of Commerce regarding plans for celebrating the 100 th Anniversary of Conway Day in the year 2006. He asked for the Board’s endorsement of both proposals. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Karen Grove to support the Camden Rockport Historical Society’s request for a letter to the Navy for the naming of a new U.S.S. Conway, and to endorse the planning for a 2006 Conway Day. VOTE: 5-0-0 NEW BUSINESS 4. Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments: The Chair read the procedure for conducting Public Hearings and announced that each amendment would receive its own hearing with the procedure applying in all cases. The CEO gave a brief summary of the first three amendments which will be included as one warrant item on the ballot if approved by the Board. a. Proposed amendment to Article III to add a definition of “Tributary Stream”. b. Proposed amendment to Article VI, Non-Conformance, by replacing Section 6. c. Proposed amendment to Article X, Performance Standards, Part (i) Section 1 (9)(j), The first item is “housekeeping” and adds to the “Definitions Section” a definition required by the State DEP. The second item has been before the Board previously with a recommendation from the ZBA not to proceed to hearing. The Board asked the CEO to meet with the ZBA to discuss their concerns, and the ZBA reversed their vote – although not unanimously – and supported the amendment. It is back before the Board now with the recommendation of both the Planning Board and the ZBA to send it on to Public Hearing. The third is also a revision to the Shoreland Ordinance and brings Camden’s calculation for permitting expansion of a non-conforming structure within the Shoreland Zone into compliance with the State’s 30% expansion rule. Mr. Lindsley asked if neighbors would receive advance notice with the change in procedure outlined in Proposal b. The CEO replied they would not. The only notice they would have that the permit had been issued was when they saw the posted permit. Neighbors do have the right to Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 4 September 7, 2004 appeal a building permit to the ZBA. In response to a question from Ms. Dorr about the burden to the abutter of pursing an appeal, Mr. Kelly responded that a neighbor who does not know the permit has been issued (they may live out of Town and not see the posted permit) will not have the right to appeal if they miss the stated deadline to do so. Although the current procedure keeps the ZBA busy with minor applications, he noted that the appeals process might be more cumbersome to the ZBA than hearing the original permit application. PROPONENTS: John Scholz, Member, Planning Board: As a member of the Planning Board he supported this change. He does not believe the change will impact neighbors because the approvals for which the CEO would have authority are minor in nature. Mr. Lindsley asked if the applicant could request a full 30% expansion and have it approved by the CEO without review by a Board. The CEO replied that they could. Mr. Lindsley was concerned that a neighbor could loose a view of the water or have a structure expanded closer to their property. The CEO replied that he could only approve what the Ordinance allowed under a strict formula. If the expansion was allowed, even the ZBA could not deny the application as long as all criteria were met. Mr. Lindsley asked if the change in procedure that allowed the CEO to grant the permit could be amended by adding a requirement to notify abutters in advance of the permit being issued. If there were any objections, the application would then go to the ZBA for a hearing instead of to the CEO. The CEO responded that it could. Peter Gross, Chair, Planning Board: Notified the Select Board that the Planning Board had voted unanimously to support all three of these amendments. The change in procedure to allow the CEO to issue these permits is covered by the Zoning Ordinance that is in effect now – if the application meets all the required calculations for expansion then the permit must be issued. OPPONENTS: Jane LaFleur, Friends of Mid-Coast Maine: Believes that if the change is approved the Board will sacrifice notification to abutters for expediency, and will be sacrificing abutters’ enjoyment of the Shoreland if an application is approved that blocks a view. She believes there should be Public Hearings by the ZBA. Leonard Lookner, Member, ZBA: He was one of the members that voted not to approve this amendment. The current Zoning Ordinance has been working well for many years in spite of the pressures of growth and development. The Ordinance has worked to keep the small community atmosphere residents want. Any application that jeopardizes that should be scrutinized by more than one person. These applications are not a burden to the ZBA, and the money to hold the hearings is well spent. He might have supported this amendment if it had a limit to the percentage of expansion below the 30% level that the CEO could approve without ZBA review. He also believes that appeals of building permits are time consuming and expensive. He will work to defeat this item if the Board approves it for the warrant. Mr. Lindsley asked if he could support an amended version that included notice to abutters. Mr. Lookner replied that he could not. The scrutiny an application would receive depends upon who is the CEO. He believes that Mr. Nims is very careful to follow the ordinance provisions – someone else may not be. The ZBA is a check on this process. Mr. Kelly added that if an abutter were to appeal a building permit, the ZBA would hear the case Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 5 September 7, 2004 de novo - as if it is being heard for the first time - and in just the same manner as applications are heard today. He does not think that abutters will appeal these kinds of minor changes. The first portion of the Public Hearing was closed and opened to comments from the Board: Susan Dorr: Supports Mr. Lindsley’s idea of notice and suggests that there be a 2-week delay in issuing a permit to allow for time for out-of-state property owners to respond. The CEO replied that the ordinance allows him 60 days to issue a permit from date of application, so the time frame is already there. He also reiterated that any substantial change to a non-conforming building such as demolition and replacement, would require ZBA review – these are the changes that neighbors are most interested in. Both Mr. Laite and Ms. Grove supported Tabling the Amendment for further discussion. Mr. French asks if his understanding that if the Ordinance allows the expansion as long as all the criteria are met, then the application must be allowed no matter who is hearing the request is correct – it is. He thinks of the decisions the CEO would be making as an automatic approval. Appeals are available whether the Application is approved or denied. There was no further Public comment and the Hearing was closed. Amendment a. Proposed amendment to Article III to add a definition of “Tributary Stream”. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Parker Laite, Jr., to amend Article III by adding a definition of Tributary Stream as presented. VOTE: 5-0-0 Amendment c. Proposed amendment to Article X, Performance Standards, Part (i) Section 1 (9)(j), third sentence. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Parker Laite, Jr., to amend Article X, Performance Standards, as presented. VOTE: 5-0-0 Amendment b. Proposed amendment to Article VI, Non-Conformance, by replacing Section 6. MOTION by Susan Dorr seconded by Sidney Lindsley to amend Article VI, Non- Conformance, by replacing Section 6 as presented and adding a new section “Notice to Abutters” that would allow for 14-day notice. VOTE: 4-1-0 with Mr. French opposed. d. Proposed amendment to Article VIII, Section V, Coastal Residential District, C, by adding a new subsection 8. The CEO explained that this amendment would allow Inns in the Coastal Residential District within structures existing as of November 2, 2004 on lots of 2 acres or more abutting Route One. The Planning Board had, after hearing several versions of the same proposal over the years, voted to send this one forward to the Board with a recommendation that it be place on the Town Warrant. Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 6 September 7, 2004 OPPONENTS: Deb Dodge: Asks the Board to consider how and why this request is being made. Is it being made within the context of the Comprehensive Plan? Has it been made with input from the Community and has the Community decided that it wants to expand commercial uses in a residential district? This residential district is the Gateway to Camden as you come from the north and zoning changes need to be considered as seriously as the Route One project was in this regard. Only one property owner has brought this request forward. Increased traffic will be created and its impact on an already congested corridor must be considered. Even though there is little chance that all 33 properties that meet the criteria will come forward to apply as an Inn, the Board must consider that they are allowing 33 properties to make this conversion. She sympathizes with the challenges of property owners in getting the best use of their property, but the impact on the whole zone must be considered. Leonard Lookner: He was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee and helped rewrite the Land Use Ordinances based on that Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Committee had been concerned about finding uses for the large old homes on High Street and wanted to introduce uses for them in this area - a provision permitting Bed and Breakfasts was added. With the explosion of large B&Bs along the street, traffic became a problem and the definition of B&Bs was changed allowing only 2 rooms or less. The existing larger B&Bs were reclassified as Inns allowing up to 10 rooms. Based on the discussions among residents at this time, he does not believe that public sentiment will support this amendment. It would create many problems with additional traffic and signage. Mark Bedner: He is already concerned about the physical changes proposed for Route One with the reconstruction project, and is worried that traffic will be moving faster and that the character of Camden will change. He believes that this proposal will add commercialization to the road and will be setting a precedent that this change is supported just as Route One is expanded – bad timing. PROPONENT: Felicity Hyde, initiator of the requested amendment: She made this request over 5 years ago and has been waiting for the revised Comprehensive Plan to be approved because she believes it will support her request. She informed the Board that there are only 2-3 houses that have 10 bedrooms and believes that there will not be a large number of properties taking advantage of this change. Right now she can accept overnight lodgers for no less than one week. She also noted that this change would not affect the Historic District and it is north of the State Park where there are already a large number of motels. The first portion of the Public Hearing was closed and opened to comments from the Board. Parker Laite, Jr.: Sees both sides and believes issue should be sent to voters to decide. Sidney Lindsley: Wonders if this could be one of the issues that the Planning Board takes up when they look at the full zoning question with Public input. They could look at all zones and determine the effect this would have Town wide. Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 7 September 7, 2004 Peter Gross: Responded to Mr. Lindsley’s question by saying that the Planning Board had a full list of proposals for zoning amendments to consider, but they would look be happy to look at other suggestions of public interest in their review. He invited the public to attend the Board’s meetings as they work on the amendments. He then referred to the amendment under consideration and noted that the wording in this version of the amendment is different that it was when the Planning Board had voted against sending it forward. Ms. Hyde had addressed the opponents concerns and had not included the Historic District. In addition, he noted that all applications for this proposed variance must go before the ZBA for full review. John French, Jr.: Asked if a building approved as an Inn under this provision would then be a non-conforming structure eligible for expansion. The CEO responded that the way the amendment was written is that there would be no expansion of the use allowed – only the use of the building that existed that day would be allowed. MOTION by Parker Laite, Jr. to pass this amendment on to the Voters to be put on the ballot. The Motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Grove suggested Tabling consideration of the Amendment so it can be looked at with the revised Comprehensive Plan in mind. The review needs to be done as a Community. e. Proposed amendment to Article VIII, Section 13, River Business District, B. The CEO explained that this amendment would apply to the old Apollo Tannery as well as to a section of Mt. Battie Street. He informed the Board that the Planning Board supported this amendment which would allow multi-family use at street level where only commercial use was currently allowed. PROPONENTS: Jeff Brawn: Mr. Brawn is currently a Lincolnville resident and asked permission to speak – it was granted. He feels very strongly that this should be approved because he has observed Camden’s struggle to provide affordable housing over many years. When property is evaluated for development possibilities, the fact that the ground floor can be used for elderly housing or transitional housing purposes will be an important factor to making housing development more attractive to developers. It is important that these properties be utilized, and this is a necessary change – the Planning Board’s recommendation should be given consideration here. Beedy Parker: Wants to see both businesses and residents in the former Knox Mill and in the Tannery as well. There were no opponents and the first portion of the Public Hearing was closed. The floor was opened to comments from the Board. Sidney Lindsley: He was part of a group that wanted to put a business in this district originally. There was much discussion in Town at that time, followed by two votes that supported business here. Towns people want a place for businesses to operate in Town, and this is the only few places left where that can happen. If this change is made there will be no community use of these Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 8 September 7, 2004 properties, only residential – that will be a great loss to the Town. Susan Dorr: Some of the ideas the Board has heard regarding possible uses of the Tannery have included mixed use – she thinks this change will open the property up to a greater range of property buyers and make the property more attractive to developers. Karen Grove: She is in favor of the property remaining commercial on the 1 st floor at both locations. There is not a good balance in Town now with regard to commercial and residential property, and this will tip that imbalance even further to residential. Parker Laite, Jr.: In favor of keeping first floor commercial – these are some of the only places left in Town to develop businesses and jobs. John French, Jr.: Has heard requests for this change from developers and believes the change would allow for more options for development. Is in favor of commercial, but the Town has gone through a lot of proposals for the old tannery that haven’t gone anywhere. He’d like to see the property used and perhaps this change will help. Sidney Lindsley: Believes the Board should wait until there is an actual request for this change brought forward by someone who has an actual plan and can make a specific request based on the plans. John French, Jr.: If the developer doesn’t know the change might be allowed, they may not ask and the Town may lose a prospective bidder. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Parker Laite, Jr. to Table consideration of the Amendment. VOTE: 3-2-0 with The Chair and Susan Dorr opposing. f. Proposed amendments to Chapter VIII, Police Ordinance, Town of Camden, Part XI, Ordinance Authorizing Names for Private Roads and Fire Roads. The CEO notified the Board that there was no formal policy put in place for naming streets after the 911 addressing system was set up. A committee was formed to draft the policy and that should come before the Board for their approval soon. Before that, though, the Committee suggests changes to the Town's Road Naming Ordinance. The definition of Private Road expressly prohibits naming a driveway to a single residence. The committee believes that for public safety reasons, this would be a good change to make. The other minor changes suggested to the Road Naming Ordinance delete reference to Fire Roads and correct inconsistencies – nothing substantive. No one came forward to speak for or against the amendment. The Board had no comments. MOTION by Parker Laite, Jr. seconded by Karen Grove to approve the amendment to the Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 9 September 7, 2004 Police Ordinance as submitted. VOTE: 5-0-0 At this point Mr. Lindsley asked the CEO about a Motion that had been made at the Select Board Meeting of August 2. This had to do with the proposed review of the Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance by the Planning Board as recommended by the CEO. It was hoped that this could be done for the November vote. Mr. Nims replied that he took the recommended change to the Planning Board to discuss, but that they felt uneasy about being able to review it properly in time to meet the warrant deadline. 5. Appointment of one School Board Director to fill the vacancy on the MSAD 28 Board as a result of the resignation of Pamela Pleas. 6. MOTION by Susan Dorr seconded by Parker Laite, Jr. to appoint Karen Brace to fill the vacancy on the MSAD 28 Board. VOTE: 5-0-0 6. Bob Topper, representing a group of concerned citizens, regarding the need, logic, and feasibility of making underground placement of all utilities an integral part of the Route 1 renewal project. NOTE from the Recorder: Bob Topper, Maryanne Shanahan, Paul Mentag and Joanne Ball prepared a slide show presentation accompanied by a document titled High Street Historic District “Context Sensitive Design?” dated September 7, 2004. The oral/slide show presentation followed the outline of the written text – a copy of which is attached to these Minutes. Also part of the official record is a memo from Joyce Taylor, MDOT dated 09/07/2004 outlining MDOT’s objections to any delay in the proposed construction schedule. What follows is a brief summary. Anyone interested in the specific details of the presentation should refer to the document above and/or to the tapes of the meeting. Mr. Topper is the resident/owner of a Bed and Breakfast on High Street. Neighbors there are very concerned about the impact of the pending Route One reconstruction project on their historic neighborhood. The purpose of the presentation is to convince the Select Board to approve funding for a Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) study to determine the actual cost of putting power, cable and phone lines underground at the same time the work to replace water and sewer lines is done. Mr. Mentag is from North Conway, New Hampshire and has been working with local utilities there to put their services underground as roadwork is done to the downtown area. The group focused their arguments on the fact that no cost estimates had ever been obtained, and they believe that the actual cost will be much less than the figures “tossed about” during discussions. The group argued that underground lines would be safer, have less problems in snow and ice conditions, save trees from being drastically thinned or cut down all together, and would return the roadway closer to the way it appeared before power lines came through. The audience was filled with vocal supporters urging the Board to act on the request before tree cutting for the project began the next day. Part of the presentation included a suggested revision to the agreed upon construction schedule to give the group time to do the required study. If underground power were approved, the group would begin raising funds to cover as much of the cost as possible. Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 10 September 7, 2004 MDOT had given a figure of $10,000 to conduct the engineering study to determine costs and the group asked the Board to consider taking that money from contingency funds. Mr. Topper then presented the Board with a petition with 170 signatures requesting that the Board delay the High Street portion of the project until the study could be done. He then proposed that the Board Move to petition the MDOT to rearrange the construction schedule for the Route One project to accommodate underground utilities in the Historic District. He supported this request by summarizing the group’s arguments: Costs based on similar projects are far below those mentioned previously and are not unreasonable There is time to adjust the construction schedule and still stay on track for completion Monies for the project can be raised from a variety of sources This is the “context sensitive solution” required by MDOT and the Federal Highway Authority in their own regulations The Chair then asked Rick Knowlton of Aqua Maine to address some of the issues raised: The proposal calls for putting the lines into conduit to be laid in the same trench as water or sewer lines. Encasing the conduit in cement, suggested by an option by the group, is permitted for line crossings only, and cannot be done for the entire length of the run of the project up High Street. When lines are taken underground they are usually put in the right-of-way directly under their current location. In this case, that puts them under the High Street sidewalk or directly under the tree line. He wonders if there might not be more impact to trees going underground that there would with the current re-design because of the additional excavation that would be required to bury the lines. There are issues of accommodation for placement of sewer and water lines that involve spacing requirements. Some of these issues might be addressed in trying to find a “context sensitive design”, but standards for safety must be addressed first. Before utilities take lines underground an up-front monetary commitment is required from the Town. They also require payment for the additional costs to go underground – removal of poles, etc. He believes that CMP estimates costs for going underground at about $1M mile. Then there are the other providers – cable and phone – and their policies and costs must be dealt with as well. The revision to the construction schedule proposed by the group is not practical in that it requires water and sewer replacement work on High Street to now begin in September. Aqua Maine and the sewer department have a very complicated and coordinated schedule planned well in advance to ensure that all work is done before freeze up. This project requires a spring start and fall completion. There would be “delay penalties” incurred for changes to this schedule. He noted that Maine Public Utilities Commission has not endorsed the concept of “franchising” the conduit as “rental” property put forth by the group as one way to cover costs. He finished by saying that there are many more issues than were raised here this evening to consider. Aqua Maine will help the group explore those issues if the Town decides to support the group’s request. The Chair recognized members of the Public who wished to speak: Deb Dodge: Requests that the Board asks MDOT for time to do the study. Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 11 September 7, 2004 Jane LaFleur, Friends of Mid-Coast Maine: Shared her experience from South Burlington, Vermont, where the cost to go underground downtown was about $1M/mile. She is not convinced that doing this will help save trees on High Street, but believes it should be done to preserve and enhance the Historic District which is very important to the economy of the Town. Mark Bedner: Reminds the Board that there were not Public Hearings to give the townspeople a chance to question DOT and CMP and to get all the information on the table to be discussed. Doug Johnson, Assistant Tree Warden: Mr. Knowlton’s new information about where the lines would go means that he has not had time to study the actual impact of burying the lines closer to the trees. He believes that a study would show that this historic landscape could be saved with some creativity. Andy MacPhearson, President, Chamber of Commerce: Believes that this would be an aesthetically important change to the project and would be safer for all with the lines underground. He wonders what the impact of more excavation would have on businesses in Town if traffic was further disrupted. In the end, however, he thinks this area is so important to the Town as a whole that in balancing aesthetics and traffic, aesthetics win. This is an incredibly important area to the Town. Joanne Ball: Thinks that the Town should follow the lead of North Conway and bury the conduits underground ready for the wires to be taken down and pulled when the funds have been raised. That makes the initial cost less and perhaps would make the entire project more feasible. NOTE: There were a number of comments about the impact of the higher utility poles planned for the area. Mr. Lindsley stated that this was misinformation. The Town had been notified in writing that the new poles would be the same height as the old. Therefore, those comments are not entered here in detail. The Board offered comments: Mr. Laite: Believes that it is unfair to ask the rest of the townspeople to pay $1M to bury power in this one part of Town. He also believes that the group’s estimate of $1,000 per home to rewire their service to accommodate new power lines is very low. Many of these homes are very old and will need to be completely re-wired – a very expensive proposition. This is an unacceptable burden on taxpayers. Ms. Dorr: Asks the Board to consider approving using $10,000 from the Contingency Fund to pay for the requested study. They have used money from that fund to pay for things that don’t have nearly the impact than cutting all the trees on High Street will have. She believes that this is of major importance to the Town. She believes that property values will be enhanced by this proposal and looking at the bigger issue – the Town will benefit. Mr. Lindsley: The plans for this work have been studied for over 20 years. He has worked on it at Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 12 September 7, 2004 various times for 12 years. All involved have tried to make it a good project and MDOT has helped make it the best the Town could hope for. Even if the project were to come in at the lowest end of the proposed cost spectrum at $800,000, that is a lot of money to spend right now. Going underground may kill even more trees – won’t know for years the full effect. He says go ahead as planned. Ms. Dorr: Argues that the Town doesn’t even know the costs. The Town has spent thousands of dollars on other projects and $10,000 is just not that much for such a hugely important project. MOTION by Susan Dorr to appropriate $10,000 from Contingency for an engineering study to look at the cost of underground utilities on Route One in the Historic District. There were offers made from those in the audience to put up part of the money to defray costs to the Town. A total of $3,000 was offered with the suggestion that more might be raised amid calls from the audience asking members to support the Motion. The Motion died for lack of a second. Manager Smith said the Petition that the Board received asks them to take immediate action to delay the start of the renewal project until an objective evaluation of placing utility lines underground in the High Street Historic District can be completed. MOTION by Parker Laite, Jr. seconded by Sidney Lindsley to not delay the project at all. VOTE: 4-1-0 with Susan Dorr in opposition 7. Consideration of the request of the Parks & Recreation Department for the surplus DPW 1- ton truck. Manager Smith presented a letter from Frank Morong, Interim Director at the Snow Bowl, requesting permission to acquire a surplus 1996 GMC dump truck with snow plow and wing to use to clear the parking lots. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Parker Laite, Jr. to give the surplus DPW truck to Parks and Recreation for use at the Snow Bowl. VOTE: 4-1-0 with Susan Dorr in opposition. 8. Approval of the purchase of a replacement Trackless machine for the DPW and for shared use by the Rockport DPW. Manager Smith presented the final cost proposal for the joint purchase with Rockport of a 2004 4x4 Holder Trackless Vehicle. Also presented was the proposed Agreement between the Towns of Camden and Rockport Departments of Public Works for the schedule of payments and use of the machine. The payments are to be divided in thirds with Camden paying 2/3’s of the total cost of $72,450 and Rockport 1/3. (Net cost after Camden is credited with trade in is $69,959.00.) $24, 186.94 is due upon delivery and that amount is in the budget approved in June. Manager Smith is asking the Board to approve the entire purchase price now that the details are known. Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 13 September 7, 2004 MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Karen Grove to approve the purchase of a replacement Trackless machine at a net cost of $69,959.00 VOTE: 4-1-0 with Susan Dorr in opposition. 9. Award of the following bids: a. Road Salt for 2004-2005 b. Liquid Calcium Chloride for 2004-2005 Manager Smith presented the results of bids solicited for the FY 2005. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Parker Laite, Jr. to accept the bid of International Salt Company for road salt delivered at a cost of $45.85 per ton and the bid by Sicalco for liquid calcium chloride at $0.795 per gallon. VOTE: 4-1-0 with Susan Dorr in opposition. 10. Consideration of new computer software and designation of contingency funds to cover the purchase. Manager Smith alerted the Board to the continuing and serious problems the Town Office staff is experiencing with their current hardware and their software provider with regard to performance and support during the process of updating the file server. The system has become unreliable and the back-up server is not working. There is concern that there is not sufficient time to send out requests for proposals for upgrades of the system according to the previously discussed schedule. The Finance Department highly recommends TRIO Software Corporation. With this software the backup server won’t need to be replaced. The window for making this conversion is small and is based on getting tax bills out on time. If the Board approves spending of up to $24,000 from Contingency the billing and collections portion of the program can be up and running in time for the work that needs to be done. The contract with Northern Data has been revised to allowed for support on any systems still in use until the entire conversion is made. MOTION by Parker Laite, Jr. seconded by Karen Grove to approve up to $24,000 out of Contingency to purchase Trio Software. VOTE: 4-1-0 with Susan Dorr in opposition. 11. Consideration of the following items relative to the Route 1 MDOT project: a. Appointment of John Tooley as Assistant Tree Warden for the project. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Karen Grove to appoint John Tooley as Assistant Tree Warden for the Route One MDOT project. VOTE: 5-0-0 b. Use of the town-owned property on Sea Street for the temporary location of the MDOT construction office. Manager Smith informed the Board that Lane Construction has asked for permission to place a 10′ x 32′ trailer and park 2 vehicles on Town property on Cove Road. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Karen Grove to allow Lane Construction Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 14 September 7, 2004 permission to place a trailer on the Town’s property on Cove Road. VOTE: 5-0-0 e. Use of the old town-owned gravel pit off Sagamore Farm Road for a construction excavation disposal site. Parker Laite, Jr. abstained from voting on this matter because the property in question belongs to the family business. The proposal is to use the old town-owned gravel pit on property belonging to Laite Construction as a disposal site for the fill that will be removed for the utility trenches along the Route One project. The advantage to a local site to the contractors, Lane Construction, is the short hauling distance. The advantage to the Town is that the dump trucks will not be going back through downtown to the Lane site on Route 17. At the end of the project, Lane will reclaim the old gravel pit, spread loam and re-seed. The project will require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. MOTION by Sidney Lindsley seconded by Karen Grove to approve the use of the old town-owned gravel pit off Sagamore Farm Road for a construction excavation disposal site. VOTE: 4-0-1 with Parker Laite, Jr. abstaining. 12. Discussion of site distances at intersections. Mr. Lindsley suggested contacting people who hedges and other plantings that were encroaching into the Town rights-of-way and hindering lines of site for traffic. They should be given the time and opportunity (2 years perhaps) to plant replacement hedges or trees back onto their property before the Town requires the removal of those plants obstructing views. Manager Smith informed the Board that the Police Department is in the process of identifying bad corners where these planting cause problems. The Public Works Department continues to work with property owners to trim back plantings to improve site lines. Mr. Lindsley wants to know where the rights-of- ways are so that property-owners know where they can safely plant. Mr. French asked the Manager for a list of the bad intersections when the Police complete their review. 13. Committee Reports 14. Manager’s Report a. Atlantic Avenue recap With extra money allocated at the Town Meeting, the share of the costs to be borne by Aqua Maine and the Town Wastewater Department and those monies already in the budget, there will be enough funds to cover the biggest part of this project. Mr. Laite noted that lawns are still covered with gravel and insulation and that there are still some property owners that need to reimburse the Town for work done to their property. Re-stripping needs to be done and some angle iron needs to be redone. Members felt it was important to know where the property lines are on Atlantic Avenue – it appears that one project may be encroaching into the right-of-way. b. Lincolnville Band use of Village Green Camden Select Board Minutes of Meeting – Page 15 September 7, 2004 Manager Smith informed the Board that, based on Board approval of a similar request earlier this summer, she had approved a last-minute request by the Lincolnville Band for the use of the Common for a concert. She felt it would add to the enjoyment of the public during Windjammer Weekend festivities. 15. Executive Session with representatives of the Camden Conservation Commission regarding a Megunticook River Green Space Proposal. The Board adjourned at 10:40 PM and went into Executive Session. Respectfully Submitted, Jeanne Hollingsworth, Recording Secretary
"View Minutes for this Select Board Meeting - Camden Select Board"