The
South Berwick Citizen
An
unofficial website for South Berwick, Maine
www.southberwickcitizen.org
Archive of Town Council Meetings
Archive of Planning Board Meetings
Citizen
Commentary
Residents Concerned with South Berwick Sewer Treatment Plant
Comprehensive
Plan Community Vision Meeting |
No-Shows
at the Candidates' Forum |
Speed
Bumps and Safety at Old Mill | The Casino
Re-Zoning
Downtown | The Driveway at
the Sewage Plant |
Site for New Library | The
Playground Behind Town Hall |
Paving Bennett Lot Road |The
Budget |
Shoulder Paving on Old Fields and Vine |
Zoning and York Hospital |
Residents Concerned with Sewer Plant
To: The South Berwick Town Council
We, a group of concerned residents who live in the area surrounding the South Berwick Sewer District, are writing the Town Council to ask for help with several ongoing problems which we are having with the South Berwick Sewer District. We understand that the South Berwick Sewer District is a quasi-municipal organization and does not fall within the sole jurisdiction of the Town of South Berwick but the problem has become so widespread that we are hoping that the Town of South Berwick will help us in finding a solution to the following problems:
1.) Sewage and chemical odors emitted from the South Berwick Sewer District have become a daily problem. Residents surrounding the plant have had to keep windows and doors closed most of the summer and fall in an attempt to keep the smell out of their homes. Most activities outside of the home have been halted due to these strong odors. Now even in the colder months the problem persists.
2.) The massive increase in truck traffic created by an influx of septage haulers from four New England states to and from the South Berwick Sewer District treatment plant has turned Liberty Street into an industrial park and freeway causing safety concerns to neighbors and those visiting the new waterfront park. Engine brake noise and diesel pollution created by these septage hauling trucks has become a serious problem for those living on Portland Avenue, Middle, Pleasant, and Park Streets. (see pictures)
3.) The South Berwick Sewer District has not complied with public access laws requiring public announcement of workshops being held which has made it difficult for residents to find out when and where these meetings are being held and for what reason. The latest violation of this law just occurred on Tuesday November 16, 2004 when the South Berwick Sewer District held a workshop without a public announcement.
4.) The South Berwick Sewer District has not been operating within their original application for a conditional use permit granted by the Town of South Berwick's planning board in 1992. The permit allows for 1-2 trucks per day as declared by the South Berwick Sewer District yet 30-40 trucks per day have been the accepted for several years. (see attached application)
5.) The Town of South Berwick's odor ordinance has been violated nearly
everyday for months due to unpleasant sewage and chemical odors emitted
from the plant which travel almost a mile beyond their property lines.
These odors have impacted surrounding residents on Portland Avenue, Park,
Middle, Pleasant, Liberty, and Vine Streets and even as far as Old Mill
Road. (See attached odor ordinance)
6.) The South Berwick Sewer District has not complied with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's request that they cooperate with residents and work toward a prompt solution. This request by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection was written due to numerous odor complaints by concerned South Berwick residents. (See attached letter Matt Hight, Maine DEP)
The problems outlined above created by the South Berwick Sewer District have degraded the quality of life for many residents in South Berwick. The South Berwick Sewer District Trustees have heard our concerns expressed at monthly meetings from a smaller group of residents for nearly five consecutive years. When 40 residents showed up at a South Berwick Sewer District monthly meeting this past August asking that the problem be fixed, the South Berwick Sewer District indicated that they would try and do something.
It has been nearly four months and the problems continue daily. They are still violating odor ordinances, zoning requirements and requests made by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and numerous requests by South Berwick residents to correct the problem.
We are writing the South Berwick Town Council to ask for help in finding a solution to these problems. We believe that by requesting that the South Berwick Sewer District operate within the Town's laws and zoning requirements as they are written that these issues should be remedied.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.
Outgoing
Town Councilor John Rudolph
Endorses 2 Candidates for Council
To the editor,
All too often in recent years candidates for the South Berwick Town Council have run unopposed. But this year we are fortunate that we have a choice between four candidates running for two vacancies on the Council, including the seat I will be leaving in early November. The differences between the candidates are dramatic. Who we choose on election day will influence the direction our town takes over the next three years.
I know all of the candidates personally and I have studied their positions on many issues facing South Berwick including taxes, growth, the proposed new library, traffic, encouraging public participation in town government, economic development and the delivery of town services. It's clear to me that two of the four, Norma Tutelian and Michelle Kareckas, have the ideas and leadership skills that our town needs.
Both Norma and Michelle have demonstrated over many years their interest in the life of our town through both volunteer and government service. They are both good listeners, and express themselves in a thoughtful, honest and straightforward manner. You can trust them to make the most of your tax dollars, and to look out for the needs of all South Berwick residents whether they are retirees on fixed incomes or families with kids in school.
Both of these fine candidates support building a new library, and both will work to make sure that town government remains open and accessible to all citizens.
Finally, Michelle and Norma are the only two candidates for Town Council who oppose the Palesky Tax Cap initiative. This misguided referendum would have a devastating impact on our schools and town services if it were to pass.
On November 2nd I urge you to join me in voting for Michelle Kareckas and Norma Tutelian for South Berwick Town Council.
Sincerely yours,
John Rudolph
Letter
from the
Library
Advisory Board
This letter from the Library Advisory Board was sent to council members and read aloud at the January 26, 2004 Town Council meeting.
January 21, 2004
Dear Council Members,
The Library Advisory Board has been working
under the following assumptions:
The Council is committed to preserving the
highest historic level of capital funding support ($50,000 annually) for
the library expansion project and will continue to support it in the future; a site
for the new library will be determined by mid February so that funds from
the New Century Grant may be used to pay the architect for concept drawings.
This is an essential component for the upcoming fund raising effort. If
the Day property is rejected as a site, library capital funds expended
for that property will be reimbursed to the Library Building fund, as
well as any profit realized should the property be sold.
On February 2nd our next regularly scheduled meeting will be at the library at 7 pm. At that time we will be meeting with representatives from the Library Capital Fund raising Committee to discuss the status of the project and how volunteers should proceed.
In order to work toward a new library, the Library Advisory Board needs to know that the Council agrees with the above assumptions and is committing their support. If they do not agree, we need to know how the Council would like us to proceed.
We also ask the Town Council to act on the following specific points as soon as possible:
Authorize the design of an adequately sized building, on a specific site; establish the monetary level at which the town will support operating costs of a new library; determine the protocol for holding monies raised privately toward the new building.
These issues need to be resolved before we can move forward. We invite the Council’s participation at our next Library Advisory Board meeting. We hope to see you on February 2nd for a productive discussion of these issues.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Holt Gagnon, Chair
Sandy Agrafiotis
Brian Dowd
Martha Dumont
Karen Eger
Jane Cowen-Fletcher
Becky Gowdy
Read More...
FROM THE LIBRARY
ADVISORY BOARD
Below is a copy of the informational handout from Dec. 10, 2003. Since the end of 2003, the town council has decided to rethink all aspects of the library including the site, the size, the timing and funding. If you want to see an adequate library in South Berwick in the reasonable future, consider attending the January 12 and 26 Town Council meetings, and let your councilors know how you feel!
Why do we need a new library?
SPACE! The present building, charming as it is, just doesn't allow
for a comprehensive library. It cannot be significantly expanded on its
site.
Seating: There is regular seating for only 10 people. There is
no separate space for meetings, for children's story time, for reading
periodicals, for perusal of books, for tutoring, for quiet study, or for
the special programs that most libraries are able to offer citizens.
Collection: The total collection is only 60 % of the recommended
amount. It CANNOT increase. Books cannot be stored. Donated books are
being sold. Every nook and cranny is filled.
Program: Present library does not meet standards for being handicapped
accessible, and does not begin to meet the recommended standards for a
town of South Berwick's population.
Parking: There is only on-street parking, and that is very limited.
Storage: There is no storage.
Technology: The library offers just 2 older computers to its patrons.
Meeting the needs of South Berwick people: IT CAN'T. At present, 282+ South Berwick families actually pay for family library cards in surrounding towns. (In Dover alone, 104 South Berwick families pay the city $100 annually. That's $10,000.)
WHAT WILL IT OFFER THE COMMUNITY:
Our community will have an attractive, roomy, light-filled center with
state-of-the-art technology available to all. The collection will finally
be able to greatly expand. There will be a special place for children:
story times, and large group activities. There will be comfortable reading
areas, and a private/tutoring space. There will parking at the rear adjacent
to the town's Powderhouse Hill ski area. The plan calls for a dividable
community meeting room that may be used for both library productions (authors'
nights, book discussions, music, storytelling, speakers), as well as hobby
clubs, service group meetings, lessons, luncheons and information nights.
Some Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Why can't we use the school libraries? School and public libraries have specific approaches, and methods of operation that are quite different. The public library's role is to facilitate the informal education and reading enjoyment of every individual from toddler to the most senior citizen. School libraries are geared to augment the specific curriculum of that school. With exception of one night per week at Marshwood High School, these libraries are only available during school hours.
2. How big will the new library be? The committees were asked to plan for 20-25 years into the future. The present plan calls for an ultimate building of approximately 10,000 square feet. This will include sections for periodicals, adult and young adult reading, reference and computer, history and genealogical resources, office and storage space, and a dividable public meeting room that will be available to local groups even if the library itself isn't open.
3. How many staff will be needed? The present library is staffed by 1.5 people, plus many generous volunteers. The new library will be laid out in such a way that 1.5 people plus volunteers should still be able to staff it.
4. Where will it be? The Town Council has purchased, for the new library, the Day property at the bottom of Powerderhouse Hill on Agamenticus Road. This land abuts the town-owned ski hill land, making a total of 13 acres. New parking for both the ski hill and the library could offer mutual use. (The Library Site Committee considered 17 sites before this parcel was decided upon.)
5. Can't we join with other towns? We have approached other communities with this idea, but these towns are already firmly entrenched in their own facilities and demonstrated no interest.
6. How much will it cost? That will depend on how large it is, and how much the town decides to bond toward the new facility. The town has already been setting aside $50,000 annually toward the time when the new library comes to be. This $50,000 annually amounts to approximately .22 per thousand dollars worth of valuation on a tax bill. Whatever the amount is, the difference will need to be raised privately.
Read More...
Tell the Town Council
We Need A Better Library
On Monday, Jan. 12
and Jan 26, the Town Council debates plans to finally build a town-owned
library for South Berwick (meeting starts at 6:30 pm). From recent
news reports, the councilors seem unconvinced the public cares enough
about having improved library services. Despite years of public discussion
and committee work (stretching back into the 1980s), the town could walk
away from the project in the coming weeks, or drop the careful
planning work led by Jane Cowan-Fletcher, Cynthia Gagnon and the library
board, in order to drastically scale the facility back.
How will the council know South
Berwick wants a better library if we don't tell them? Here are some essential
steps. Please read the text below, and:
(1) Pass this on to other South Berwick citizens.
(2) Come to the town council meetings on Jan. 12 and 26 and speak in support
of a better library.
(3) Contact the councilors. Town officials need to hear from citizens.
You can email them all c/o the town manager's office at
southberwick@southberwickmaine.org or by snail-mailing South Berwick Town
Hall, 180 Main Street. Or contact them individually:
Bob Gagne, chairman, 384-2026
John Rudolph, 384-5988
Susan Roberge, 384-5278
John Ford, 384-2189
Richard Clough, 384-5209
Jon St. Pierre, town manager, 384-3300 (office)
If we are silent, there are plenty of other people around who are ready
to convince the Town Council that this project is unimportant.
-- Thanks --
Wendy Pirsig
and More...
Fellow South Berwick Citizens,
For the past 4 years 50+ ordinary people have worked on a variety of
committees in various capacities to further the goal of expanding our
local public library. Over the course of the 4 years, the town council
has been involved at every stage, has appointed and approved every committee
member and received every report and recommendation positively, including
purchasing a property at an in-town location for siting a new library.
The Library Advisory Board, who have been spear-heading the process, has
presented a preliminary plan (drawn by the architectural firm hired by
the town using grant money the Advisory Board supplied) to you.
If you care about seeing a facility that will meet the needs of the community,
now is the time to speak up to your council members and support this library.
Thank you,
Karen McCarthy Eger
56 Warren Pond Road
Granite Woods Subdivision Has No Future In the Vision of this Town
January 14, 2004
Mr. David Burke, Chairperson
South Berwick Planning Board
126 Knights Pond Rd.
South Berwick, Maine
Dear Planning Board Members:
Thank you for conducting the Granite Woods Subdivision Public Hearing on January 13, 2004. I'm writing you as an addendum to my statements made at this meeting. Hopefully, I can clarify concerns that may have seemed either ambiguous or ill conceived due to my discomfort with public speaking.
First, I sincerely appreciate the Boards effort and diligence. You respectively heard a vast range of comments and concerns, which will ensure, once again, ongoing demands on your time to investigate and synthesize this information. Then again, the magnitude of this proposal and its potential impact on the town as a whole is significant, and clearly warrants your full attention and scrutiny. But then, this is not news to you judging by the range of arguments in opposition to Granite Woods.
My reference to the draft Comprehensive Plan update, and citing Chapter 102, The Growth Ordinance of the South Berwick Code was to highlight a convergence in thinking. The Land Use Section of the present draft states a need for the Town to revisit Chapter 102, which was relegated to its sunset provision in 1994. The members of the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee unanimously agreed future consideration of this chapter was imperative. On January 12, 2004, The South Berwick Town Council unanimously voted to hold a Public Hearing for implementing this entire chapter as law effective March 1, 2004 with certain exceptions. The number of growth permits issued in a year would be reduced from 48 in the original document to 40, of these, 15 would be subdivision permits and 25 non-subdivision permits.
This is a powerful statement by the Council. It represents not only what has been the consistent will of a majority of this community's citizens for years, but it places Town Policy, in regards to a Growth Ordinance, squarely in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. This persistent and unvested work of many volunteers is now validated, albeit in this limited context, by this courageous and wise decision of the Council.
We understand the Comprehensive Plan has no legal basis, and yes, most correctly, the Zoning and Sub-Division Ordinances are the Law. But, the existing Comprehensive Plan's merit is inherent to the extensive citizen participation in producing the document. People spent over a year hashing out and producing a document that not only then, but now, is tremendously relevant. It mirrors this community's ongoing concern about sub-divisions in rural areas. The surveys and subsequent goals and strategies are very clear on what shall be Town Policy. Even though a mechanism for implementing these policies into law was never created, I sincerely believe the following policies, as quoted, are in the spirit of the community's will and should be augmented as an additional directive for the Board.
Section 11 of the Land Use Goals and Policies has twelve (12) policies, all of which are distinctive guides. Quoted below are some pertinent to Granite Woods.
"GOAL: TO ENCOURAGE ORDERLY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY, WHILE PROTECTING THE STATE'S RURAL CHARACTER, MAKING EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND PREVENTING DEVELOPMENT SPRAWL.
It shall be the Town's policy to:
1. Concentrate areas of increased density growth near
water and sewer.
2. Promote infill development (infill development is
the use of vacant land in built
up portions of Town).
3. Seek a level of growth that corresponds to the Town's
ability to provide services.
4. Discourage large subdivisions in the outlying areas
of the community.
12. Ensure that mechanisms are developed to oversee implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan on a continuing basis."
Respectively, I believe the Board should actively discourage the Granite Woods proposal for the following reasons.
1. In consideration of the policies inherent to the
Comprehensive Plan, please keep
strict adherence to the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances by denying any and all variances.
2. With the assistance of the Town Manager and Council
please request all Departments,
specifically the Police, Fire, Highway Department,
and the School Board, at minimum, to assess the potential
costs of providing services to a proposed 71 lot subdivision
situated 7 miles from the Town's Center. As necessary,
assure a planning consultant's advice is available to facilitate
the process and then collate and interpret the data.
3. How do the above costs translate into the Town's
ability to provide these services?
What are the true costs for individual tax
payers? Especially when the Town's operating budget was reduced
last fiscal year, and will probably be reduced again.
4. Consider the Growth Ordinance in place on March 1,
2004. How will 15 subdivision
permits per year, which may be also allocated
to other subdivision projects, affect the developer's ability
to fully finance and complete the scope of work
proposed in a timely and professional
manner?
5. What are the bonding mechanisms placed upon the developer
when permit constraints demand
phasing of the subdivision, if approved?
And how does this relate to off site improvements which
may need to occur congruently, but in a phased manner that
could leave off site work in a constant state of flux?
6. The Board and its Consultant should submit to the
Developer all findings from
item #2 concerning 'potential costs of providing services'
as an addendum to all off site improvements identified in
this initial review stage. Ensuring this to completion is critical. Because
dovetailing these reports may give a truer cost of this subdivision.
And may better portray an accurate assessment of what
is the extent of off site improvements.
7. To what extent may the Developer bear the cost of
these impact studies for determining
the Town's ability to provide services?
8. Please explain what is a DEP hearing when no representative
of the DEP will be present to
either facilitate or answer questions? Considering
the nature of this project, could the Board be proactive
and seek DEP guidance with the assistance of its representative
at a DEP hearing?
These are but a few concerns. Judging by the intertwining Right of Ways and questionable deeds and titles to properties, many legal questions exist. The Board and Town may need to ascertain these issues are certifiably rectified before further approvals ensue to assure no liability exposure for the Town. Does the Town direct the Developer to resolve these questions? Or does the Town need to retain its legal council to certify any and all questions about deeds, titles, and right of ways? And if so, does the Developer bear any or all costs?
Again, I thank the Board for its continued work. While binding your decisions to the law, I do hope you will embrace the spirit of this community, the content of those letters you received, and the actions of the Council. Please help us form a legacy to which we can all be proud. One that understands residential growth is contextual and guided by public policy. While admonishing the proposed Granite Woods Subdivision has no future in the vision of this Town.
Respectively,
Bradford D. Christo
195 Old Fields Rd., 748-3247
cc: Mr. Jon St. Pierre, Town Manager
Mr. Robert Gagne, Chairperson Town Council
Read More...
Important Issues Need to Addressed Regarding the Granite Woods Subdivision
Citizens for Responsible Growth in South Berwick distributed the following "talking points" to the Planning Board and the audience prior to the Jan. 13th Public Hearing for the Granite Woods subdivision:
GRANITE WOODS SUBDIVISION
ISSUES FOR
PUBLIC
HEARING / PLANNING BOARD
1) Sketch Plan omits certain critical information:
- Contiguous
pieces in York
- Resource
protection zones
- Developer's
contiguous property next to Warren Pond
2) Further studies are necessary:
- Municipal
impact including schools
- Traffic
- Hydro-geological
- Watershed
protection
- Warren Pond
being a "most at risk water body"
- These should
not be deferred until a DEP review
3) Traffic:
- Substandard
roads for proposed amount of traffic
4) Town of York's involvement:
- Has South
Berwick received a letter from the York Planning Board
concerning joint review of this project?
- Town needs
to investigate transfer of properties in York to determine
how they impact the subdivision. Are they valid transfers?
To who were they transferred?
- What is York's
role in determining off site improvements?
5) Widening the corner at Earl's and Emery's Bridge Roads:
- Historic
cemetery on one side (including the grave of a veteran,
protected by recent legislation)
- Historic
farmstead on the other side; not adequate right of-way
width
6) Right of Ways:
- Several woods roads
extending through house lots are identified
as owned right of ways
7) Habitat protection:
- Delicate ecosystems
are always negatively impacted by development
- Documented Maine
endangered species
8) Additional development:
- Strong potential
for expanding development to lots within
and around
the development
- How many
more lots might be developed adjacent to subdivision?
9) Taxes:
- Residential development
is the most expensive development
Only
one who benefits is ATP. He should be paying to mitigate
costs:
1.
Schools
2.
School buses
3.
Road maintenance (snow plowing, etc.)
4.
Police and fire substations
- All costs
increase because of this project's distance from downtown.
- Other towns
have actually bought up buildable land, finding that
this is cheaper in the long run than trying to support residential
development.
10) Not in conformance to existing town comprehensive plan
11) Waivers:
- Double standard
- providing waivers to a developer undermines
relationship between individual citizens and town government
- Should town
be approving waivers in area of town where they
do not want to see development? (Why are we making it
easier to develop an area that our Comprehensive Plan does
not wish to see growth of this scale?)
12) Hoopers Swamp Bridge:
- Newly constructed
bridge on Belle Marsh Road has a 12 ton load
limit
13) Safety:
- Impact on
police, fire and rescue services
14) Development is within the same watershed as the Belle Marsh reservoir
owned by the Kittery Water District:
- Has Kittery
Water District been contacted directly for input as
required by state law?
15) Possible historic sites
Would the developer reconsider offers made by conservation groups in order
to protect this beautiful piece for future generations?
Thanks go to our Planning Board for holding this public hearing.
Read More...
posted January 8, 2004
GRANITE
WOODS SUBDIVISION
Please Attend the Public
Hearing
South Berwick Citizens,
The South Berwick Planning Board
has accepted a sketch plan for a 70 house subdivision called Granite Woods,
located on 300 acres of back woods between Earl’s Road and Belle
Marsh Road. This project includes over 2 miles of road and accompanying
sidewalks and it is 6 miles from schools, fire services, and police services
in the village. It will be a very costly project for the people of South
Berwick.
It is the largest subdivision proposed
since Old Mill. It will result in about 700 new car trips a day onto substandard
roads, there are endangered species on the 300 acres, it will impact Kittery
Water District’s Belle Marsh Reservoir and Warren Pond, and no doubt,
will result in additional transportation and classroom resources needed
at the schools. It will change one of the few rural parts of South Berwick
left, into something else. Sprawl, I guess. Not suburb, not village, not
rural area, but something that drives demand for increased town services,
costing the rest of us in increased taxes, without adding anything of
benefit for anyone else but the developer.
There is a public hearing scheduled for
Tuesday January 13th at 7:00 pm at the South Berwick town hall.
Please come and listen, or come and speak,
to let the Planning Board and the Town Council know that we want a better
and different future in our town.
Karen McCarthy Eger
56 Warren Pond Road
ˆBack
to top
Read More...
Tough Questions Regarding
the
Proposed Granite Woods Subdivision
Dear members of the South Berwick Planning Board:
I am a South Berwick citizen who has some real concerns about the proposed Granite Woods subdivision. You are all probably aware of most or all of the issues I will address in this letter, but I feel compelled to lay them out before you, to address, if you please and as time permits, at your next meeting. Please read my letter aloud if any members of the public or press are in attendance.
-- A standard planning formula
suggests that houses such as those likely to be built in the Granite Woods
subdivision each generate ten car trips a day. Witchtrot, Agamenticus,
Emery's Bridge, Earls, and Belle Marsh Roads are all small rural roads
which will require major improvements to handle the increased traffic.
Belle Marsh Road just got a new bridge that is posted at only 12 tons.
Earls Road has an historic cemetery on the narrow corner which has already
been dangerously shaved off by road improvements and snowplowing. Emery's
Bridge Road is already stressed by area growth, including its use by drivers
taking a shortcut to North Berwick, Wells, Ogunquit, and other destinations.
The road improvement costs will be absolutely enormous. On top of all
this, the selectmen of the town of York, fed up with costs incurred by
their own growth and the stresses placed on their community by the growth
in surrounding towns, have discussed closing - actually gating - Belle
Marsh Road at the town line if this project goes through. This would guarantee
that ALL subdivision traffic would use South Berwick roads, that
residents on both sides of the line would be inconvenienced, and that
relations between the two towns would be strained.
-- In addition to the costs incurred for road improvements, there would be lots of kids to bus (a long distance!) and educate, greater demands on the town hall, the transfer station, fire and police departments (would a satellite station be required with so many residents living over seven miles out of town?) and so on. Would the Planning Board consider levying impact fees (borne by the new buyers) or off-site improvement fees (borne by the developer) as almost all other towns do? Or will the rest of us be paying for these things?
-- The developer seems to be
under the impression that Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is satisfied with
his plan and that he's doing a good deed by leaving open space. Yes, open
space is a nice amenity, but this would be required in this location anyway,
would it not? Is there not legislation under the Maine Endangered Species
Act which protects certain species' habitat? That Act prevents the taking
(i.e. killing) of endangered species - surely bulldozers and backhoes,
increased car traffic, pets and even curious kids will affect the mortality
rates of spotted and Blandings' turtles in this area, which is home to
perhaps the best remaining core populations of these state endangered
species in all of Maine. The Act also makes it illegal to do anything
that alters an endangered species' natural behavior patterns. A related
environmental concern is water quality. The Kittery Water District reservoir
is just down the road, within the same watershed as this project (71 septic
systems and potential Chem-Lawns). So what part does the Planning Board
play? Whose responsibility is it to make sure the law is upheld? I ask
because I really do not understand how this works.
-- What happened with your
consultant, Tom Emery, of Land Use Consultants? At the Planning Board
meeting of November 18, you briefly discussed a letter from him which
indicated that he had completed his contract. (By the way, I believe you
are, in fact, allowed to discuss aspects of a proposal without the applicant
in attendance). Wasn't the consultant supposed to work with you throughout
the approval process? Facing the largest proposal since Agamenticus Estates,
surely you feel more professional expertise is warranted. I hope you decide
to bring him (or someone with more experience with rural projects) back
on board.
It's the tip of the iceberg,
really. But thank you for your attention to these issues and for all your
hard work on behalf of our wonderful town.
Yours truly,
Mimi Demers
(This letter was received by the Planning Board and was not read aloud to the public at the subsequent Planning Board meeting of December 2, 2003.)
Posted January 5, 2003
(1) Commentary from Wendy Pirsig
Don't Weaken Downtown Zoning
By Wendy Pirsig
At upcoming Town Council meetings
January 13 & January 27, officials will consider action to weaken
zoning ordinances protecting the historic neighborhood of South Berwick
Village. South Berwick citizens should tell them no.
Again and again, in many venues throughout
the 1990s, South Berwick residents overwhelmingly voiced support for the
village's historic character. We would be horrified to think of allowing
anyone to erase our historic downtown. Again and again, town officials
have reassured residents that the village so many of us love is well protected.
Yet South Berwick's historic preservation
ordinances are weak. They do little to prevent anyone from buying up South
Berwick's historic houses and tearing them down to suit their purposes.
Building by building, the history of Main Street, Portland Street and
surrounding neighborhoods is being erased.
Unless
the tide is turned, buildings 100 to 200 years old on Portland Street
and perhaps elsewhere may soon be gone. The c. 1800 Colcord House, home
of a cabinetmaker named Leonard Colcord and a house Sarah Orne Jewett's
grandfather would have remembered, is slated to be replaced by a large
York Hospital medical facility.
(Click to enlarge.)
Most of us agree that business in
the village -- and medical services -- are good for South Berwick's vitality.
But so are historic buildings. Town government should help village business
people and residents to thrive in these buildings as they are -- not replace
them with fakes.
In recent days, some town Planning
Board members have been trying to get the Town Council to further weaken
our weak ordinances to allow big medical facilities currently prohibited
by size restrictions. The restrictions were put in place a few years ago
to protect the village from significant architectural changes.
If you care about South Berwick's
future, please attend Town Council January 13 and January 27 (starts 5:45
p.m. at THtown hall).
Wendy Pirsig
Friends of South Berwick Village
__________________________
Posted January 20, 2003
(2) A letter to the Town Council from Martha Sulya, read at the January 13, 2003 Council meeting
Reject the Proposed Amendment
January 13, 2003
To the members of the South Berwick Town Council,
On behalf of the Society for the
Preservation of New England Antiquities, I would like to address the matter
of the proposed zoning exemption before the Council. SPNEA is a cultural
institution whose mission is to preserve and interpret New England history.
SPNEA has owned and operated the historic Sarah Orne Jewett House as a
museum since 1931. SPNEA also owned the historic Eastman House from 1931
to 1984 when it was transferred to the Jewett-Eastman Memorial Committee
for the Library. Both cultural institutions operate and protect historic
resources in the very center of South Berwick.
SPNEA is concerned with the specifics
of this case but also the general idea of granting a broad-based exemption.
It is our understanding that an exemption from zoning for the class of
structures defined as "medical facilities" would allow any owner
or developer to build medical facilities without any future public comment
or control. Rather than creating this broad exemption, we believe the
Town should retain and use the language that dictates case-by-case reviews
for non-conforming uses. This process is designed to enable the community
to evolve without losing control of its character. To create zoning exemptions
for another category of use is to weaken the purpose of the existing zoning
ordinance, and sets a precedence for future exemption requests from other
users.
In addition we are concerned that
York Hospital, in desiring a building on Colcord Street with a footprint
greater than 2500 square feet, is planning a structure of such size as
to change the character of South Berwick village. There is little information
available to the public on which to base a specific response, but even
if the current proposal is a modest one, by permitting this zoning change,
the Hospital could expand at will at any time without any public review
or control.
We hope that you will reject the proposed
amendment and choose to retain control over the growth of South Berwick.
Sincerely,
Martha
Sulya Michael F. Lynch, P.E., R.A.
Southern
Maine Regional Manager
Vice President for Properties and
Preservation
__________________________
Posted January 20, 2003
(3) A statement read by John Rudolph, Town Councilor, at the January 13, 2003 Council meeting
Concerns About Process
By John Rudolph
I have some concerns about the process
the Planning Board used to arrived at its recommendation to amend Footnote
#3 under Table B dimensional requirements of the South Berwick Zoning
Ordinance. I am troubled by the fact that the Board reached its decision
by the narrowest possible margin (a 3 to 2 vote), that the Chairman was
in the minority, and that Board members who were in favor of this change
did not follow the advice of the Planning Coordinator and the Chairman
to hold a workshop before reaching their decision. I also find it disturbing
that the majority of Planning Board members were willing to vote on this
matter without hearing from a representative of York Hospital about the
hospital's plans for the site.
When I served as Vice Chairman of
the Planning Board I always found that the best decisions were reached
by consensus rather than confrontation. In fact I can't remember a vote
during my time on the Planning Board that was split this way. If the Board
had held a workshop there would have been a much better chance of reaching
a consensus decision.
I am also disappointed that the Planning
Board has proposed what I believe to be an overly simplistic measure,
instead of the comprehensive, multi-dimensional approach that this situation
requires. Although we all know the proposed Zoning Ordinance change is
in response to a specific proposal for a specific site in the business
zone, it's important to remember that any change to the Ordinance will
apply to the entire zone. If the Ordinance is not comprehensive it leaves
the town vulnerable to unwanted changes in the future. While one applicant
may come before the Planning Board mindful of the town's interests, there
may be others in the future who will bulldoze their way through the approval
process, caring only to maximize their own position, and disregarding
the wishes of the people.
For these reasons I believe the Planning
Board should revisit this issue for further discussion and study, with
input from the Town Council. In this process I hope the following items
will be addressed:
(1) Establishing a maximum size for
all of the exempted uses in footnote #3, Table B, dimensional requirements.
I personally believe that 15-thousand square feet is a reasonable maximum
size. It's far smaller than any big box, and it would still allow York
Hospital to achieve its goals for the site.
(2) Enhancing the design review process
for all new construction in the business zone. Current design standards
in the Zoning Ordinance are, in some instances, general and vague. We
need a review process that will ensure that all new construction in the
business zone is in keeping with the current look and feel of our beautiful
and historic downtown.
(3) Create language in the ordinance
that ensures that sight lines of all new buildings conform to the sight
lines of existing, adjacent
structures. This will ensure that new structures will not stick out, thereby
disrupting the visual harmony of the business zone.
(4) Confine all parking to the side
and rear of buildings. Currently the Ordinance contains provision that
allows the Planning Board to permit some parking in the front of buildings
in the business zone in some instances.
I believe that a medical facility
would be a positive addition to
downtown South Berwick. It would bring jobs, commerce and tax revenue
to our town. It will also provide needed services. Our downtown is special
and we should do everything we can to strengthen it, and keep it vital
and growing. A medical facility can do that. Also, the medical industry
is one of the fastest growing in Maine and the entire Northeast. South
Berwick deserves its share of this expanding industry.
To those who are against the hospital's
proposal I want you to know that I am aware of your concerns. I believe
that reopening the Planning Board process will provide a chance for your
ideas to be presented and debated.
Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance
should be the result of thorough research and thoughtful deliberation
by the Planning Board assisted by the Planning Coordinator, the Town Manager,
outside experts, interested citizens and the members of the Council.
__________________________
Posted May 17, 2003
(4)
A letter from Wendy
Pirsig in response to the Town Council Meeting of April 28, 2003
Dear South Berwick Town Councilors and Town Manger,
I would like to respond to concerns
voiced at your last meeting about the citizen nomination
of Portland Street as one of Maine's "Most Endangered Places in 2003"
sponsored by Maine Preservation.
It was my intent -- in fact the desire of
most of us working on this effort -- that all of you be kept informed
of our project. A copy of the text was provided to the town manager's
office at the beginning of April for that purpose. After the supporters'
names were collected, just before Easter, we then sent in a completed
application so that, once again, it could be circulated to all of you.
Far from wishing to spring a surprise on the town leaders, we hoped that
throughout the month of April you would join us in discussing the nomination,
and Portland Street, with your fellow citizens.
Certainly other people have been discussing
these things -- local property owners, businesses, organizations, as well
as participants in the Comprehensive Plan subcommittees. People circulated
drafts of the "Most Endangered" nomination via email. Neighbors
carried copies door to door.Conversations went on all over town about
the future of the village and how to protect it. That was the purpose
of the exercise.
There are many ideas about what South Berwick
should do to protect Portland Street and the rest of the village, and
people have different interests. Some people care most about the traffic.
Some care about protecting historic buildings. Some care about the mix
of residential vs. commercial. Some don't want to see government do anything.
Many, many see a role for the town to play.
Rather than calling these debates a sham,
I invite you to join these
conversations. If you like, do what many of us did during the month of
April. Take a few copies of this nomination writeup, and walk around town.
Ask your fellow citizens, "What do you think? Is Portland Street
endangered or isn't it? Do you support this?" In a few weeks we found
over 80 property owners, individuals and organizations who said yes.
Sincerely,
Wendy Pirsig
________________________
Posted June 26, 2003
(5) A letter
from Nicholson Baker to David Webster concerning the legal standing of
the 2,500 square foot footprint ordinance.
May
26, 2003
David Webster
Chairman, South Berwick Town Council
South Berwick Town Hall
180 Main St.
South Berwick, ME 03908
Dear Dave,
Could the Town Council please take a look
at the legal status of the 2,500 square foot footprint ordinance for buildings
in the B1, B2, and B3 zones? The ordinance was promulgated in the code
books and stood unchallenged for over two years. Everyone understood it
to be law.
It was made to disappear, without any vote
taken by the Town Council, on the strength of a brief January 31, 2003
memo by Jon St. Pierre to Kathy Delp. The memo simply said, "We have
concluded that the portion of the zoning ordinance that the Planning Board
recommended an amendment to was never legally adopted by the Town Council
and therefore does not exist." The memo supplied no further justification
for what was in effect the nullification of a standing law without due
process.
The footprint ordinance was one of a related
group of amendments and additions forwarded in a June 23, 2000 memo to
Town Manager Dick Brown from Jim Noel, the Planning Coordinator. (Another
amendment was the requirement that any applicant in the B1, B2, or B3,
zones, or in the historic district, who wants to demolish a building has
to apply for a "certificate of appropriateness" from the Historic
District Commission.) On August 14, 2000, the Town Council voted on this
group of modifications, and the language that they agreed upon, after
lengthy discussion, was duly entered into the South Berwick code. Years
went by; nobody, either on or off the council, contested what was printed
and distributed.
I'm sure you will agree that if laws could
be erased from the books years after they were put there, whenever somebody
decided to go back and find some technical defect having to do with the
meetings held or the minutes recorded thereof, we would have legal chaos.
Standing laws can be challenged in court or modified by legislation; they
can't, however, be switched off at will on the strength of a memorandum.
It is my belief that the package of modifications
to the town code voted on on August 14, 2000 remains fully in force. They
will continue in force until and unless the Town Council goes on record
to emend or repeal them.
Yours
truly,
Nicholson Baker
cc: Town Council, Town Manager
________________________
(6) A follow-up letter from Nicholson
Baker to David Webster concerning the footprint ordinance.
June
6, 2003
David Webster
Chairman, South Berwick Town Council
South Berwick Town Hall
180 Main St.
South Berwick, ME 03908
Dear Dave,
In my letter to you of
May 26, I wrote that as far as I can determine the 2,500 square foot footprint
ordinance--adopted by the Town Council in August
of 2000 and placed in the South Berwick code at that time--can't be invalidated
by a memo two years after it went on the books. And I observed
that, as a consequence, the footprint ordinance is still in force.
Since then I've gotten some legal advice,
and I'd like to supplement my letter with a citation from Maine Revised
Statutes Annotated, title 30-A, section 3004, which concerns the revision,
codification, and publication of municipal ordinances. Paragraph 3 of
section 3004 says:
"When adopted, the revised code becomes law and is
admissible in all courts without further proof as prima facie evidence
of its existence and validity."
And paragraph 4 says:
"In the process of codifying a municipality's ordinances, an ordinance may be revised only by following the procedure required for its original enactment."
A copy of M.R.S.A.
30-A § 3004 is attached for your reference.
Under these unambiguous provisions of state
law, the 2,500 footprint limit has not been revoked by Jon St. Pierre's
January 31, 2003 memo. The limit still stands.
Since York Hospital's proposed footprint
is 6,840 square feet (according the revised blueprint dated March 31,
2003), the hospital's application is not in compliance with current South
Berwick code.
I hope the council will take this matter
up soon. Many thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Nicholson
Baker
Attachments: M.R.S.A. 30-A § 3004
Letter to David Webster, May 26, 2003
cc: Town Council, Town Manager, Town Clerk,
Planning Board, Planning Board Coordinator
________________________
Posted June 26, 2003
(7) Town Manager Jon St. Pierre's
response to Baker's letters.
June 12, 2003
Dear Nick,
David Webster asked me to respond to your two letters to him,
regarding the legal status of the "2,500 Square Foot Footprint"
ordinance.
Back in January of this year my staff presented to me documents
discovered during a background review related to a proposed
ordinance amendment concerning professional medical offices. The
opinion of the staff was that the adoption process deviated
significantly from the requirements of the state statutes
relative to zoning ordinances. I consulted with the Town's
attorney who arrived at the clear conclusion that the wording in
question was never enacted and did not exist. The Town's
attorney also directed that we should correct the printed version
of the Zoning ordinance.
The memo that I issued on January 31, 2003 regarding these issues
was neither arbitrary nor capricious. To the contrary, your
arguments notwithstanding, it was and still is in my opinion the
right and lawful way to proceed.
Sincerely,
Jon M. St. Pierre
Town Manager
JSP/ro
cc: Town Council
wondered how many had actually read the language. In retrospect, she
now says, she should have reported him to the police.
Your signature is one of the most
precious things you can give
away. Before signing any piece of paper, no matter how innocuous it may
seem, read it thoroughly. You may be giving away more than just your signature.
Lisa Bauhan
Posted January 26, 2003
A letter from the Town of South Berwick Comprehensive Plan Update Committee
Comprehensive Plan Update and Community Vision Meeting
Phase 1 Scheduled for 7 p.m., January 28, 2003,
at the Richard Gagnon Auditorium, located on the third floor of the Town
Hall.
We would like to invite you to attend
the referenced meeting. The purpose of the meeting is for the community
to present and discuss issues facing the Town that they feel should be
incorporated in the comprehensive plan.
To insure adequate representation
at the vision meeting the appointed members of the Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee have compiled a list of people they believe represent
a cross section of the community populace and invited them to the vision
meeting. In developing the citizen list, we do not intend to be exclusionary.
All of our meetings are open to the
public. In case there are others, not on the list that wish to attend
and participate, they are very welcome. Public notice of the community
meeting will of course be posted.
During and shortly after the community
vision meeting, subcommittees with volunteer members will be formed to
spend the next several months reviewing and formulating information in
the following areas:
Land
Use; Housing; Transportation;
Public
Facilities; Natural Resources;
Historic/Agriculture;
Downtown and
Fiscal
Capacity.
We are actively recruiting members
for these committees and hope you will consider serving in an area of
interest to you. The Town of South Berwick has applied for and received
State funding for updating the Plan, and is supplementing the State grant
with local funds for the current year.
The update committee has met monthly
since October 2002, beginning the process of revising/updating our existing
plan, adopted in 1990. The Town has engaged a planning consulting firm,
MRI, represented by Jason Hoch, to assist the Committee and the Town’s
Planning Coordinator, Kathy Delp. We are also utilizing the services of
the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission (SMRPC) for many of the
inventory update tasks.
The Committee has set an aggressive
schedule to accomplish a goal of presenting an updated Draft Plan to the
Town Council by October, 2003. In order to achieve this milestone, surveys
and inventories need to be completed by April 1, 2003 and ubcommittee
reports submitted to the update committee by June 1. Citizen help and
support is very important and we look forward to your participation. If
there are questions, any of the steering committee members or Kathy would
be pleased to hear from you. Please RSVP with the planning office, 384-3300,
so that we can plan for materials and handouts.
Very
truly yours,
Town
of South Berwick
Comprehensive
Plan Update
Committee
Jack
Shipley, Chair
Robert
Gagne
David
Webster
Tom
Harmon
Dennis
Smith, Vice Chair
Brad
Christo
Jack
Kareckas
Posted October 29, 2002
No-Shows at the Candidates' Forum
By the editors
If Woody Allen was right that
"eighty percent of success is just showing up," how much credit
can we expect for not showing up at all? The Town Council candidates who
attended the public forum on October 22 deserve high marks for fielding
questions on tough local issues, such as growth, traffic, the preservation
of a vibrant downtown, a new library and the prospects for a casino in
the region.
But it's important to note
a few absences that undermine the strength of our homegrown democracy.
It is a stunning insult to the public and the democratic process that
Roland "Cy" Chase, sitting councilor and candidate for reelection,
opted out of the forum "for personal reasons." The absence of
council chairman David Webster and Town Manager Dick Brown (himself a
candidate for State office) also conveys a discouraging message of apathy
to those of us who think town government can play an important role in
the quality and character of our community.
And there was another absentee,
whose participation is even more crucial than that of our local leaders
and candidates: You. Only about 50 residents attended the forum out of
a population of more than 7,000. It has been said before but is worth
repeating: In a democracy, we get the government we deserve. We owe it
to ourselves and to our children: Become informed, and vote.
_______________________
Posted October 31, 2002
A letter from Town Manager Dick Brown
October 30, 2002
Dear Editor;
I am writing to take exception
to inappropriate and incorrect statements about me in the "Citizen's
Commentary" section of your most recent edition. Without sounding
like Civics 101, I would like to point out that the Town Manager in this
town and in every jurisdiction, serves under the direct supervision of
the City or Town Council or Board of Selectmen. It is not now, nor has
it ever been appropriate, for a Town Manager to attend a "Candidates'
Night", which has been organized for the sole purpose of giving residents
the opportunity to "interview" candidates for the Town Council.
It's a bit like a person attending the interview of their work supervisor
and in the Town Manager profession this is just not done.
During my ten years as South
Berwick's Town Manager I have never attended a Candidates Forum for Town
Councilors and in fact, have not attended such an event dating back to
1970, when I worked my first public management job. Once again, I am sorry
you were misinformed about this matter and wish you had taken the time
to speak with me prior to your negative comments.
Respectfully:
Richard
B. Brown
Posted October 10, 2002
Speed Bumps and Safety at Old Mill
A letter read at the Town Council Meeting, October 7, 2002
By Laura Becker, representing the Old Mill Safety Committee
To the Town Council:
In the past 6 months, the Old
Mill pool has been vandalized 4 or 5 times; The new stop signs on Quarry
Dr., High Knowle Ave. and Beaver Dam Rd. have been dug out several times;
The ball field signs were destroyed; A mail box was bashed; A 5 year old
girl who slipped on ice and slid into Beaver Dam Rd., due to not having
sidewalks on her side of Beaver Dam Rd., was nearly hit by a speeding
motorist; A resident was nearly hit in front of her own home while crossing
the street by a common known speeder in our neighborhood and recently
an Old Mill resident who had just entered the Old Mill was rounding the
corner on Quarry and run off the road by a speeding motorist, who in turn
laughed at her as she passed by.
Seeing that nothing can be
done about the vandalism in the Old Mill and the police have done what
they can about enforcing the speed limit of 25 MPH, we as a community
believe that it is time for the town to step up and help the citizens
of the Old Mill. Here are several facts:
- The Old Mill Covenants
were ignored by the town of
South Berwick when Alder
Dr. was made a permanent road.
- For 10 years the Old Mill residents
have asked for help,
we finally get speed
bumps and the town decides to "pull"
them due to a few
complaints.
- Sidewalks are not along all roads
in the Old Mill - residents
have to walk in the road
under these hazardous conditions.
- Stops signs in the old mill are
treated more like yield signs if motorist
slow down at all.
- The citizens of the Old Mill do
not mind the traffic if they
would obey the speed limit
and stop signs.
- The Old Mill becomes a raceway around
2:00 PM every
weekday due to kids
racing through our neighborhood after
school. Police presence
is NEVER here during those hours.
- There are not enough police to enforce
the 25 MPH speed
limits in the Old Mill.
I have currently been
working with the Chief of the SB police department on our safety
issues in the Old Mill. I have video taped approximately 30 speeding vehicles
to show that this is an everyday occurrence. I have suggested that a camera
be installed that takes pictures of vehicles going over a certain speed
and having tickets mailed out to these motorist. I was told this would
cost the town too much money, but in fact, the camera would literally
pay for itself within a month!! Seeing that nothing is working, the South
Berwick Chief of Police, Dana Lajoi, highly recommended putting speed
bumps in the Old Mill to help enforce the speed limit. He said that he
backs this statement 100% and would be glad to talk with the SB Town Council.
We are requesting that the
Town of South Berwick re-install speed bumps in the Old Mill and that
they be lower and wider (like the ones used in the south) than the ones
originally installed during the spring of 2000. As far as the Old Mill
is concerned the only legitimate complaints that the Town had, if the
speed bumps were properly installed, would be from the individuals who
had the speed bumps in front of their house - due to the fact that motorist
would lay on the horn and "peel out" every time they crossed
over the speed bumps. If several speed bumps were properly spaced, as
being requested, this may have not been a problem.
The Old Mill Safety Committee
would like to work with the Town of South Berwick on our safety issues.
We as a community appreciate the Town helping us by ensuring our safety
and the safety of our children.
_______________________
A letter from Michael C Williams, Old Mill Community Association Member,
to the Town Council
October
7, 2002
Town Council Members,
In a previous effort to slow traffic speeds
in Old Mill Community (OMC), the Town installed speed bumps on Beaver
Dam Road. These speed bumps were ill suited for the posted 25 MPH traffic
speed and resulted in many complaints to the Town Manager from both OMC
residents and non-residents alike. The town decided, appropriately, to
remove the speed bumps. In the wake of this well-intentioned but poorly
executed attempt at traffic control is a neighborhood frustrated with
reckless motorists on our roads and a lack of substantive Town action
to control the traffic speed in OMC. To be fair, I would like to note
that police patrols have increased. For this, we are all grateful. Unfortunately,
the police are effective only for the duration of the patrol car presence.
It is not reasonable to expect, nor am I asking our police force to place
any higher priority on patrolling OMC roads over anyone else's.
The residents of OMC come before you tonight
because the absence of permanent traffic calming measures is endangering
the people who live in and visit our neighborhood. The risk to our family
members, friends and neighbors of injury or death at the hands of a reckless
motorist is ever present. Therefore, I am submitting the attached petition
signed by residents of OMC and some abutting homeowners requesting action
on the part of the Town of South Berwick. I have also attached plans for
potential engineered speed control methods for your consideration with
the understanding that OMC is open to any reasonable proposal that results
in compliance with the posted speed limit and safe streets for our families.
I ask that you include this submittal in the minutes of this meeting.
Further, I request that you include an agenda item for consideration at
future Town Council meetings entitled 'Traffic Calming Measures in Old
Mill Community' that will remain open until this issue is resolved to
our mutual satisfaction.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael
C Williams,
OMCA
Board Member
ˆBack
to top
The Casino
October 3, 2002
The Casino Center
An article from the Newsletter of the
Greater York Region Chamber of Commerce
By Cathy Goodwin, Executive Director, Greater York Region Chamber
of Commerce
I recently attended both the Biddeford
and the Sanford City Council meetings to listen to the presentations by
the proponents of the casino. The two meetings were mirror images of each
other-the dialog almost verbatim. In both meetings, the attorney representing
the tribes made vague statements about the benefits of bringing a casino
to Maine: lots of good jobs, tax money for the town that hosts it and
tax money for the state, new counseling services for the addicted gambler,
etc. The tribal leaders spoke about their desire to see their people get
better housing and healthcare, which they believe will surely come to
them if the casino goes forward, because they will get to share in the
money as the sponsors of the casino. When asked for details, the tribal
leaders continually deferred to their attorney to answer the questions,
and for the most part, he answered with flowery rhetoric, but few facts.
If you have taken the time to read Jeff
Benedict's book "Without Reservation", you will know that the
answers to the questions about who will actually own the casino,
who will manage it, and who will fund it, are pivotal to
the success of the project and the impact that it will have on Maine in
the years ahead. Yet, there has been no public disclosure about these
"details". One wonders, after watching the tribal leaders, if
they even know. One councilor in Biddeford asked, "If we agree to
have it here, will you see that we get to sit at the table as this project
gets developed?" It was obvious that the tribal leader misunderstood
the question when he responded, " Yes, we expect to have a seat at
the table"! He EXPECTS to have a seat at the table as it's being
developed??????
Since attending these meetings, the word
"exploitation" keeps circling in my mind. The dictionary defines
"exploitation" as (1) the unfair treatment or use of somebody
or something usually for personal gain, (2) to make productive use of
your opponent's weakness. One wonders if former Rep. Neil Rolde and
former Gov. Ken Curtis, both highly respected Maine leaders, have been
exploited. Several months ago, US News and World Report had a cover
story "Integrity for Sale". It was written about Senator George
Mitchell in reference to the number of corporate boards on which he now
sits for a fee, and to which he lends his name, and therefore his substantial
influence. What exactly is it about this casino project that would cause
Rolde and Curtis to put their entire lifelong achievements on the line
to endorse this proposal? Will this be their legacy, after such highly
acclaimed years of public service? Are they being exploited because they
truly care about Maine's first natives? Or, like Sen. Mitchell's board
room positions, will they benefit financially from their participation?
Are the towns that are showing interest
in the project being exploited? Will Biddeford and Sanford battle over
who gets the spoils, when perhaps neither one will, but in the process,
both will have been used to demonstrate to legislators that Mainers really
want this? And what about the tribal leaders? They don't seem to be able
to answer any questions without turning to their lawyer. The answers come
out of his mouth, not theirs. Is Tom Tureen exploiting them for his own
gain?
From everything I've learned so far about
this issue, a casino could have been proposed by anyone. The Indians have
no special entitlement under Maine law to bring high stakes gambling here,
anymore than you or I do. A private corporation could have asked for the
legislation to do this. Are the tribes being used as the sponsors because
of the emotional aura that remains regarding their past treatment? How
can legislation be written that will ensure that only one casino will
be built, when there is no "special" requirement under the Indian
Land Claims Act for Maine tribes? Since they gave up their sovereignty
under the 1980 settlement, they're just like everyone else when it comes
to proposing high stakes gambling. Wouldn't other parties demand the ability
to create casinos under our fair-market system? How could we stop it once
we allow it? I suspect that within a few years if this passes, Maine would
be home to several such projects.
To generate the kind of "tax relief"
tribal Atty. Tom Tureen believes will come to Maine if the casino is passed,
the developers will need to build a massive complex. We wouldn't allow
a new power station or an airport or a major manufacturing plant of this
size to be built in this state without environmental and economic impact
studies being done. If the legislature is really serious about this idea,
then the only legislation that should be passed in January, when our representatives
reconvene, should be to fund a comprehensive independent economic &
environmental impact study (EIS). Bring in the Natural Resource Council,
the Conservation Law Foundation, the Maine State Chamber, the Department
of Transportation, the Revenue Service, and all the other vocal groups
who monitor major projects. Let's have a real and honest debate about
the facts. Let's see the plan the tribes have drawn, and let's see what
the build-out over time looks like. How will it impact housing, roads,
medical and school services, social service agencies, and municipal services?
This can be achieved without knowing the exact location of the development
using computer simulation.
I got into the chamber business on a circuitous
route that started when I was chairing the Eliot Comprehensive Planning
Committee. It was at that point in time when the announcement was made
that Pease would close. The initial reuse plan was to create a "Logan
North" in Portsmouth and Newington. That plan would have made York
and Eliot the new "East Boston" with flights overhead every
5 minutes. The traffic patterns of flights actually changed during that
time too, with flights coming in off the Kennebunk beacon right over Long
Sands beach! My committee, and others throughout the seacoast, began to
read impact statements from other areas including Heathrow Airport in
London, as well as the Air Force's impact studies done for the Pease Development
Authority. We looked at the impacts a major airport would have on the
property values of Eliot, primarily the homes along the river, closest
to Pease. I'd never seen nor heard of an EIS until then. But I came to
appreciate the comprehensive picture it drew of what the area would look
like under full build out. Of course, as you know, as the impacts were
revealed and the townspeople in southern NH learned the details, "Logan
North" didn't happen. I suspect the same would be true for the casino.
The Task Force established by the legislature was given neither the time
nor the money to complete an adequate impact study. It took four years
for Pease!
To some, the casino sounds great---like
manna dropped from the heavens. The state and our towns have bills to
pay, and we need the money. But what will it cost us? What will it cost
Neil Rolde and Ken Curtis? Is it worth it? The only way to really know
is to do a real and valid study. Shame on all of us if we don't fight
to get the answers before legislators vote on a proposal!
___________
The Facts On Legalized Gambling
by Lisa Bauhan
March 14, 2002
Recently plans
were announced to build a gambling casino in Kittery. Many of us know
intuitively that such an endeavor would mean disaster for the Seacoast
area, not to mention for our neighbors north and south. However, when
fighting the forces that would introduce casinos into a society, we cannot
argue with our hearts, we must use cold, hard data.
I have stumbled across the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission's report, drafted in June of 1999. This commission
consisted of nine members, three of whom were placed (over protests) by
the Nevada gambling industry, and another representing Native American
gambling interests. Despite this "loaded" jury, the Commission
experienced a "united and relentless effort on the part of the gambling
industry and its political allies to sabotage the Commission's work."
Amazingly, the dark picture painted by the Commission's report received
unanimous support from all nine commissioners.
In attempting to make my argument in a timely
fashion, I am lifting whole passages from the Study, and will cite them
with quotation marks. The Study may be viewed in its entirety here.
The developers of any casino will frame
their arguments by using studies on the analysis of the economic effects
of gambling. Such studies typically go no further than to estimate local
jobs and income from the actual industry. "But since the economic
effect of an activity is its value added above what the same resources
would be adding to value if employed elsewhere, these studies are deficient
and may mislead readers to conclude that the introduction of gambling
activities in an area will result in significant benefits without attendant
costs, which may, in fact, overwhelm the benefits."
The Commission's findings may be highlighted
thus:
The presence of a gambling facility within
50 miles roughly doubles the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers;
Gambling is a highly addictive activity;
Pathological gambling is found proportionately
more often among the young, less educated, and poor;
Many families of pathological gamblers suffer
from a variety of financial, physical and emotional problems, including
divorce, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and a range of problems
stemming from the severe financial hardship arising from gambling;
As access to money becomes more limited,
gamblers often resort to crime in order to pay debts, appease bookies,
maintain appearances and garner yet more money to gamble;
The suicide rate among pathological gamblers
is higher that for any other addictive disorder;
Individuals with gambling problems seem
to constitute a higher percentage of the homeless population.
Who's
Helping Whom?
An argument may be put forth that
casinos are an easy way for Native Americans to work their way out of
their oppressed plight. However, "the great majority of tribal casino
employees are not Native Americans. In California, for example, more than
95% of the estimated 15,000 tribal casino employees are not Indians. At
Foxwoods, in Connecticut, only 500 of the 13,000 employees are members
of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. There has been no lessening of requests
for Federal assistance from tribes involved in gambling. Further, the
unemployment rate among Native Americans, at the time of the study, continued
to hover at around 50%.
The argument that local businesses will
enjoy an increase in revenues also holds no water: "In Atlantic City
and elsewhere, small business owners testified to the loss of their businesses
when casinos come to town. Many of the local businesses remaining are
pawnshops, cash-for-gold stores, and discount outlets. In 1978 (the year
the casino opened), there were 311 taverns and restaurants in Atlantic
City. Nineteen years later, only 66 remained, despite the promise that
gaming would be good for the town's own."
Broader
Costs to Society
The study sited recent research suggesting
that the earlier a person begins to gamble, the more likely he or she
is to become a pathological gambler. NRC examined 13 relevant studies
and found that a median of 27% of adolescents reported having gambled
in a casino, 10% within the past year. "This fact raises serious
and troubling concerns regarding the accessibility of gambling....and
the ineffective safeguard presently in place."
Not only is gambling highly addictive, it
is difficult to treat successfully, and there is a high rate of recidivism.
"The only known survey on the effectiveness of Gamblers Anonymous
found that only 8% of GA members were in abstinence after one year in
that group."
The Commission stated: "In setting
out to tap into their neighbors' pocketbooks, state governments have ended
up tapping into that of their own citizens. Most government decision making
has been chasing rather than leading the industry's growth and evolution,
and has often focused no less-than-central concerns, to the neglect of
the larger public interest." Among the many recommendations made
by the Commission, the most stark recommendation is this: "Commissioners
believe it is time to consider a pause in the expansion of gambling."
Now we have (some of) the facts. Bring on
the fight.
A letter from Michael Lassel, received September 2, 2002.
In response to the recent zoning changes
in South Berwick:
At the most recent Town Council meeting
the town's zoning ordinance was modified to expand the R1 residential
zone in town. South Berwick has plenty of housing, but no opportunities
for small business growth in the village area. The town's life and energy
comes from having a central village where residents can conveniently ride
a bike or walk to many local businesses that are owned by people living
in South Berwick.
Routes 4 and 236 are heavy trafficked roads
which lend themselves to business use, not residential use especially
by families with children. Families are already starting to move away
from these streets because of the traffic. With these families moving
out who will replace them and what impact will this change have on their
property values? The land and houses are much more marketable for business
use than residential use.
South Berwick's history has always been
one of mixed use, combining small businesses with residences. If we look
at lower Main Street we can see some of the old structure. This business
mix included the interaction between the factories and small businesses.
They all supported each other and provided a business and tax base that
was diversified and strong. In our modern economy we have small offices
that support the banks, restaurants, repair shops and the hardware store.
As everyone knows it is the small, individual payments that keep a business
alive.
Changing the business zone to residential
will successfully achieve the goal of preventing big box businesses (Rite
Aid etc.) from coming into the town center. This type of business does
not fit into a village center. However, this strategy will have the unfortunate
result of stopping all small business growth and expansion in the village
area. This will move all business growth either along route 236 by the
high school or out of town on Route 4 in Berwick and North Berwick. The
industrial zone along route 236 is defined for light industry and warehousing
to allow trucks easier access to I-95. This is not the environment for
professional offices or small business. Plus all access is by car, not
by foot or bicycle.
Our goal as a town should be to protect
and support our village center. Many communities in the region are working
hard at making their village and town centers more attractive for business.
By allowing the growth of small business in the village area we all support
the existing shops and restaurants by bringing workers close to them.
Zoning changes in a town are a planning
issue. What role did the Planning Board have in writing the zoning
ordinance revision and how many public hearings where held? The planning
process and changes to the zoning ordinance require an understanding of
the town's needs. There must be a balance between business and residential
growth. A planning board assisted by a planner should develop a long range
growth plan for the village. This plan must be debated so that the citizens
of South Berwick can understand all the implications of any change. This
is the responsibility of the Planning Board and a town planner. How would
we go about creating a local business zone that reflects our historic
development?
1. Establish criteria for business development
along rts. 236 and 4 outside of the village center.
2. Determine how deep off of the road it
should go. Is it one lot or two lots deep? This will help in defining
what type of business can actually be developed.
3. Look at the existing housing stock and
establish a criteria for the size a building can be and how much can be
added to building.
4. Make all parking happen either to the
side or back of a major renovation for business use.
5. All new construction must be in the same
line of the other houses and buildings along the street.
6. Require planting plans and lighting plans
with clear goals so an applicant can understand the meaning and desired
outcome.
A zoning change of this magnitude is
significant. It impacts how the town will grow, the property values
on our main roads and our tax base. In a larger sense it also speaks to
how we view our environment and transportation. We have a traffic problem.
Do we want to legislate more traffic by pushing business out of town and
making South Berwick more of a bedroom community?
What is wrong with a mix of businesses
and housing along our major roads? This type of development is traditional
in this town and throughout New England. We celebrate the counting house
for its historic business status and location. This zoning change would
prohibit this use today.
How can we grow a tax base rich in variety
that includes local downtown businesses? This zoning change has given
us all a moment to reflect on the issues and is a stop gap approach. We
need to take advantage of this period of time to craft a better ordinance.
The Town Council has acted in good faith to prevent the village fabric
from being pulled apart. We now need to find a way of creating an ordinance
that is business friendly and supports positive growth for the many wonderful
businesses downtown. We are in a critical time. Let's not react, but be
proactive.
Michael
W. Lassel
64
Paul Street
A letter from Karen McCarthy Eger, received July 16, 2002.
I attended the July 8th Town Council Meeting
and one of the items discussed was a proposed re-zoning of downtown most
business zones into residential zones. The Council was unable to act on
the proposal because they hadn't adequately notified abutters, so this
issue is yet to be discussed by the public. The intent of the re-zoning
proposal is to tighten up the ordinance to make it next to impossible
for a national franchise to buy up Main Street properties, knock them
down, and build a big or small box retail store.
Most of us are inclined to think, This
is good, it keeps South Berwick just like it is today. I am concerned,
however, that we don't take this course without carefully looking at what
our town could look like twenty years from now, either way. Does this
move leave enough business options for the future growth of the town?
Do we really want to exclusively be a bedroom community? Is our only option
for business strip development on Rt. 236? Would it be nice again to be
able to grocery shop in town? With no room for growth in our business
base, will we always be totally dependent on residential property taxes
to support increasing community needs for services? I am hoping that we
can debate this idea thoroughly before we set a course that leads us somewhere
we haven't had a chance to fully imagine yet.
Karen McCarthy
Eger
106 Belle
Marsh Road
A letter from Michael Lassel, received July 30, 2002
Decreasing the amount of business
space in South Berwick will effectively stop the traditional expansion
of small businesses in town. My own firm has been looking for space in
town for over a year with no luck. Because of this lack of office space
we will be forced to move the business out of town.
A zoning change need not be exclusionary
to prevent big box development; performance standards and design guidelines
are more effective and reflect both the communities thoughts and our comprehensive
plan (which is something, I am sure no one has read). Saco just produced
a wonderful set of guidelines for urban development that will reinforce
positive village development. Kittery is in the process of changing their
business district LB1 ordinance to
increase business development while encouraging housing. They are doing
this because the performance standards prohibit big box development yet
clearly understand the nature of town planning and are supportive of mixed
use at a scale consistent with village life.
If anything we need to think about
expanding the business/mixed use zone to allow for a richer interweaving
of small businesses and housing similar to that on lower Main Street or
what may become Salmon Falls Road.
Michael W. Lassel
Lassel Architects PA
The Driveway at the Sewage
Plant
Attend the Sewer
Board meeting Monday,
August 5, at 7:00 at Town Hall.
July
19, 2002
More Blacktop Isn't the Answer
by Lisa Bauhan
They caught us napping.
At the
last Sewer Board meeting, with no one there to raise any objections, the
Board of Trustees voted to install another, longer, diagonal driveway
on the property that we, sewer rate payers, own collectively. During past
meetings, members strenuously objected to the driveway, citing environmental,
safety and procedural concerns. Administrator Tom Harmon waved away these
objections, saying that the present driveway posed a safety threat for
drivers (see The Driveway at the Sewer Plant commentary), and a liability
issue for the plant. Neighbors offered an alternative to the diagonal
driveway, which was to keep the present driveway and add a "y"
-shaped turnabout at the end of it, thereby enabling larger trucks to
safely access the tanks at the top of the hill. The cost of the driveway
is approximately $15,000. Harmon stated that he never worked up a figure
for the alternate plan, which leads me to believe that he was offering
lip service when he said the Board would consider the plan. (He said he
would "get back to me" with a figure. I will grow much older
waiting for it.)
Our
primary concern is safety.We believe that the Board plans to use this
new driveway to attract even larger (and therefore higher-paying) trucks.
The trucks that use this new diagonal driveway will have no 90° angle
to slow them down as they enter and exit. And those with large tanks will
find their view of westbound traffic somewhat obscured, adding to the
risks.
There
are environmental concerns. That expanse of lawn is in a flood plain when
the river rises above its banks, as it's wont to do every now and then.
Harmon says that they will ensure proper drainage, but I don't know if
that's truly possible. Also, the runofff from the trucks ( salt, oil,
gasoline, antifreeze) may be allowed to enter the river if the driveway
is built so close to the banks.
Then
there is the issue of where the money is coming from. Harmon says that
the monies are from a "slush fund" (evoking disturbing memories
of Watergate), for capital expenditures such as this. I have a copy of
the bylaws, and don't see any references to slush funds. I'd like to know
how this differs from a "sinking fund," which is used to retire
notes and bonds. I'd also like to know how much money is in this slush
fund, and to what extent the rate payers have a say in its disbursement.
We
have a very popular treatment plant. Our rates are kept artificially low
to attract septic trucks from as far away as Exeter and Biddeford. On
an average day, as many as 10-12 trucks arrive at and depart from the
plant each hour. In addition, some of these trucks arrive before and after
work hours, sometimes as early as 4 a.m. (on a Sunday!). We have been
told that only 10% of the trucks are from South Berwick. The other 90%
add to the traffic and congestion in the town. We have asked the Board
to raise the rates for these trucks (I believe it's now at 12¢ per
pound, compared to 20¢ at Kennebunk or Wells), but they refuse. Apparently,
this revenue has nothing to do with spending down the debt. Why? I don't
know.
Yet
another concern is an apparent conflict of interest within the Sewer Board.
Tom Harmon is the Administrative Assistant for the Board; he does not
officially vote. However, he wields a considerable amount of influence,
and his company, Civil Consultants, was reportedly paid to do the site
survey work for the driveway. I have to wonder how much other work is
thrown his way. Maybe we should call for an audit of the Sewer District's
accounts.
Lastly,
there is the question of being good neighbors. We, the residents of Liberty
St., were never informed of the driveway plan. My husband only found out
when he wandered across the street to see what the surveyors were up to.
No notice was sent by mail to any of the abutters. This has all been done
on the sly. When they were confronted and asked why no one was informed,
members of the Board shrugged their collective shoulders.
We
believe that we have legitimate concerns about the increased traffic,
and the speeds at which these trucks travel. We are upset that our concerns
were never adequately addressed by the Board. In a phone conversation,
Trustee Mark Forsyth stated that the Board "felt that the objections
raised by some were felt to be primarily those of aesthetics." My
calls to Tom Harmon for a response to this article have gone unreturned.
At this writing, rate payers have yet to be informed of this development.
The
primary reason for forming this web site was to keep the citizens of South
Berwick involved in the issues that affect us both directly and indirectly.
We've grown tired of public servants who forget that they serve the public,
and are accountable for their actions.
May
10, 2002
Does the Sewage Plant Really Need a New Driveway?
by Lisa Bauhan
The South Berwick Sewer District Board
of Trustees has proposed replacing the existing driveway at the Liberty
Street Sewage Treatment plant with a new driveway. This proposed driveway
(Proposal A) would cut across the property diagonally, effectively bisecting
it and impacting one of the last scenic areas
along the Salmon Falls River in the town proper. This driveway change
is, according to the Trustees, necessary because of a safety issue: once
a week, a large chemical truck arrives at the plant entrance and, due
to the size of the vehicle, must pull past the driveway, going east, and
back up into it. The trustees are concerned that speeders driving west
on Liberty St. will not see the truck and won't be able to stop in time.
A counterproposal (Proposal B) would keep
the existing driveway and add a paved y-shaped section near the bottom,
enabling the large trucks to enter nose-first, then turn right until they
are nearly parallel with the driveway. They could then back up into the
chemical tank area.
Proposal A was given an original budget
of no more than $15,000. Proposal B would assumedly cost less. Funds for
this project would reportedly come from a capital improvements fund.
There are, in the opinion of many, several problems with both proposals.
Among them are the following:
(1) The trucks in question come so infrequently
as to render costly reconfiguration unnecessary.
(2) If safety is truly a concern, the Plant
could position one of their employees near the driveway of #9 Liberty
during the (literally) five minutes it takes to maneuver the truck backwards
into the plant driveway, thereby giving oncoming vehicles plenty of warning
as they come down the hill.
(3) The trucks could continue, as they do
so now, to make their weekly deliveries at non-peak times, when there
are fewer drivers (and children) on the road, between 6 and 7 a.m., and
9 a.m. and 3 p.m.
(4) Many of the truck drivers that use the
existing driveway have difficulty observing the posted 25 mph speed limit
on Liberty St., especially as momentum carries them down the hill from
the Route 4 turnoff. These drivers typically approach the driveway at
speeds in excess of 35 mph. Because of the 90° turn of the existing
driveway, the drivers should slow down as they enter and exit. Some do,
others do not. A diagonal driveway that lacks a 90° corner would only
encourage more speeding, and make it doubly hazardous as the trucks enter
and exit; 5) a driver of a large sewer truck who is exiting the plant
diagonally may have difficulty viewing the road to his/her right, due
to the visual obstruction posed by the truck’s size. This poses an
even greater (due to the frequency) safety hazard.
Proposal B, while less environmentally intrusive
and therefore less objectionable, is still unnecessarily costly, for the
reasons enumerated above. The monies dedicated to these projects would
be better spent elsewhere (such as paying down the debt service).
Many of us applaud the Sewer District’s
recent efforts to relocate the waterfowl that made their homes (and dumping
grounds) along this grassy area, and to maintain its natural, grassy appearance.
We would be loathe to see these changes be marred by pavement.
There are a number of concerned members
of the Sewer District who are circulating a petition about these proposals.
The petition reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, being qualified
members of the South Berwick Sewer District, propose, in accordance with
Section 16 of the South Berwick Sewer District Charter and Governing Laws,
that a special district meeting be called, and that the members of the
Sewer District be allowed to vote on this aforementioned issue."
If you are interested in signing this petition
please contact me at plbauhan@attbi.com and I will let you know where
and when the petition drive will be held.
Committee Recommends Site
for New Library
A press release from the Library Site Selection Committe,
received July 10, 2002.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS HISTORIC VILLAGE CHURCH AS POTENTIAL SITE FOR NEW
LIBRARY
SOUTH BERWICK, MAINE The Library
Site Selection Committee for the Town of South Berwick has determined
that the 1837 Freewill Baptist Church on Main Street, should it ever become
available for sale, would make the best location for a new town library
provided the historic building could successfully be incorporated.
In making its report to the Town Council,
the committee did not know whether the property would ever be for sale
to the town, according to former Maine Senate President and committee
chair Mark Lawrence; instead the process of deciding whether, how and
when to approach any property owners was left to the council.
"We were directed to look at all parcels
without considering availability, unless we had specific information saying
it would never become available," said Lawrence. "Our job was
to determine which would make the best location for a public library should
it ever become available."
"This site is outstanding from all
respects,"says the site committee's report to the Town Council, referring
to the church. "It provides the town with an opportunity to incorporate
an attractive public building with historical significance at one of the
town¹s main entrances."
The church, which holds the 112-year-old
town clock in its steeple, is also adjacent to a 19th century cemetery
containing graves of soldiers from the Civil War and the War of 1812.
Restoration of the town clock was approved at the 2002 town meeting.
"Early on the committee determined
that a visible and prominent public library, like the current site, would
best serve the library and the town, making a statement that the library
is an integral part of the community and using an attractive public building
to add to the picturesque image that is South Berwick,"explained
Lawrence. "In this site the town could have an opportunity to incorporate
history and culture into a professional, well-equipped library."
Since 1971 the library has operated in the
privately owned Jewett Eastman House on Portland Street. Library space
is less than 1,500 square feet, or one-tenth the size required for a community
of South Berwick's size, according to a recent study.
According to the committee's report, the
current site was intensively considered as a location for expansion, but
was not recommended due to the small size of the parcel, historic covenants,
and the difficulty of incorporating any historic residential building
into a new public facility that would meet professional library standards.
The committee identified two other sites,
the Sunoco station and Fleet Bank with adjacent property, as acceptable
alternatives should the church be unobtainable. However the committee
made it clear that the Freewill Baptist Church was by far the preferred
site.
The town has set aside library expansion
funds for several years. In February the town council convened the library
site committee after a planning task force last year recommended a library
of 16,000 square feet to serve South Berwick for the next 20 years, when
the population is expected to grow from 6,900 to about 9,400.
In 2000 a study showed that 79 percent of
the townspeople surveyed believed a downtown location is very important
or somewhat important, and the same proportion thought it important for
the building's design to be "in keeping with the historic nature
of its surroundings."
In addition to Lawrence, a former state
senator, the site committee includes Jane Cowen-Fletcher, who chaired
the Library Planning Task Force; Town Councilor Gerald MacPherson; Town
Building Committee Chair Tom Harmon; Library Advisory Board Chair Cynthia
Gagnon; Planning Board Chair Philip Kendrick; Paul Schumacher, a professional
planner; Zoning Board of Appeals
Chair Jack Kareckas; and Wendy Pirsig, secretary of the Jewett Eastman
Memorial Committee.
The site committee studied numerous sites
and gave 17 of them detailed review, determining that a lot size of at
least 36,000 square feet would be required to accommodate the building
footprint, green space and parking.
Following a process recommended by the American
Library Association and other nationally recognized architectural planning
resources for libraries, the committee established 11 criteria: size,
availability, accessibility, visibility/prominence, adjacent usages,
orientation, topography, shape, obstacles, neighborhood compatibility
and demographic patterns.
The Playground Behind Town Hall
June
26, 2002
To the South Berwick Citizen,
I was deeply disappointed to read your article
on the South Berwick Town Council meeting held on June 5th. Having attended
that meeting, I was surprised to see that only portions of the meeting
had been represented as the whole. As a website designed for the use of
information for the citizens of South Berwick, I would have thought that
you would want to use the most accurate reporting possible so as not to
mislead people.
I would like to begin by addressing the
quote you made regarding safety: "members of the public who spoke
generally rejected the Council's safety argument". I was a member
of the public audience who spoke, and I spoke in favor of the Council's
safey concerns. I would like to note at this point that while yes, I do
work at the South Berwick Town Hall, my opinions are my own; they do not
reflect nor are influenced by the Council or any other employees. I speak
only as a mother of two small children who also happened to play at the
site in question quite a bit as a child due to where I grew up.
I agree that there is a definite need for
a playground for children under the age of five and that the equipment
at the playground at Central School, while nice, is not age appropriate
for young children less than school age. However, I don't believe that
the best site for the playground is behind the Town Hall.
Like I said earlier, I work at the Town
Hall. I have seen the traffic and volume of cars increase over the last
two years to the point where that parking lot is on occasion as busy as
a well-used street. Some people claimed that any responsible parent would
hold their child's hand in a parking lot, using for example walking across
a mall parking lot to get into a mall. While I agree that any responsible
parent, including myself, would hold onto their child's hand, that doesn't
mean that a toddler who spots something they "have to see" or
is excited about getting somewhere might not try to bolt. In a perfect
world, our children would always hold our hand and never try to get away
from us, but reality is they don't always understand and because we are
not perfect people, they might actually get away when we least expect
it.
Another point brought up is that this site
would be safer because the police department is right there. As I understand
it, many of the mothers, particularly from the downtown area, would be
walking to the playground, meaning they would have to walk at least partway
up one of the town's driveways. This means that if a police cruiser gets
an emergency call, as they do everyday, and has to speed out of the parking
lot, they may or may not see the mother and child around the corner of
that building in time to stop. It is a very sharp corner and one you cannot
see around until you are almost all the way around it, which would create
a disastrous situation should a mother with a young child be walking up
that driveway at the wrong moment.
Something else that was brought up was the
desire to keep the playground downtown. First of all, the downtown of
South Berwick is getting pretty crowded as it is, and it won't get any
bigger just because we want to put more things in it. The choice is pretty
limited. Secondly, that site is really only convenient for those who live
downtown.
Mothers who live out beyond the Agamenticus
Estates area and into the outlying portions of town would have to drive
there and parking is very limited in the downtown, particularly during
the daytime when the playground would most likely be more well-used.
I would again propose that the Children's
Leadership Council at least consider another site before calling the project
a loss. I personally think that the Aggie ballfields would be a great
site. It's not too far from the downtown, and I believe it would get more
use, especially during soccer, baseball, and t-ball games, when the little
children attending their siblings games have nowhere to go and nothing
to do. I was informed that the space there is smaller and has no shade.
I have two things to say about that: (1) I would rather see the playground
go in a smaller, safer place with more parking available for parents than
in the middle of our busy downtown, and (2) if shade is a concern I would
suggest that the Children's Leadership Council look into the Town's Shade
Tree Program. Every year the Town sets aside money for trees for people
to
sign up for with the promise they will take care of them. I would be willing
to bet that the Town wouldn't have many objections to some of those trees
going around a playground, and it wouldn't cost the CLC any more than
the cost of watering them.
I would suggest that both the South Berwick
Town Council and the Children's Leadership Council end their arguing and
consider what is really important: the children. I believe that as adults
we could put aside our differences for one common goal: making a difference
for the young children of our community. What's done is done, and it's
time to make amends and start working toward something wonderful for our
kids in a positive manner.
In closing, I would suggest this to the
South Berwick Citizen: in the future, in the interest of fair and accurate
reporting, if you are using a tape that does not pick up the whole meeting,
either don't write the article at all or have the person who was actually
there write it. That way you'll be sure to get the whole story, and we
will too.
Sincerely,
Elita
Galvin
The Proposed Paving of Bennett Lot Road
A letter to the Town Council from Nancy Wetzel.
March 25, 2002
To Members of the Town Council,
I am reading from a letter which I sent
to Town Council members in March, 1997. This letter, with some updates,
still expresses the reasons for my desire that Bennett Lot Road remain
a dirt road.
1. The rural character of Bennett Lot Road
is something that South Berwick can and should protect, not erode, in
order to serve the best interests of the community. My husband and I bought
land on Bennett Lot Road because it is a rural location. We choose to
live on a dirt road because there is less traffic and slower traffic and
because we use the road for walking, running and bicycling. It is quiet.
When we moved here the paved section of the road was in such poor condition
that it was not discernable as a paved road. We were disappointed when
that section was resurfaced because speeding increased.
2. When the town paves any road, it should
do it well, creating safe places for pedestrians to move around in the
area where they live. Daily, I see the residents of Witchtrot Road scrambling
along the narrow edge of the paving, trying to keep a foothold, when they
simply want to walk. It is very dangerous for pedestrians. In fact, pedestrians
lose roads that are paved with no consideration for non-vehicular use.
Many people of South Berwick come to Bennett Lot Road for such use. Walkers
and runners are daily users. There are bicyclists and horseback riders.
Hunters, hikers and skiers use the roadside at access points to woodland
trails and conservation lands. These people need to be considered.
3. Many houses and one of South Berwick's
few remaining working farms are only a few yards from the road. A paved
road would seriously impact the quality of the lives of the people who
live in these homes. Also, many of these properties should be seen as
part of the town's cultural heritage, invaluable and irreplaceable. Their
setting should be protected rather than degraded.
4. If it is paved, Bennett Lot Road will
become a speedy cut-through to the Ogunquit Road for an increased number
of vehicles. Gauging by other roads in South Berwick, it is not realistic
to think that posting a road at 25 mph, as has been done on Bennett Lot
Road, will solve speeding problems. Outside town centers, traffic never
moves at 25 mph. Cars move on the existing paved section of Bennett Lot
Road at 40-plus mph, already. With dwellings close to the road and pedestrians
on the road, with narrowness, curves and bad sight lines, speed must be
considered a dangerous and irresponsible thing to introduce on Bennett
Lot Road.
In conclusion, consider the richness
of this resource. It is a rural dirt road of great character and varied
uses: pedestrian use, conservation land, recreation, farm, residences,
woodlands, wetlands, open fields, trails, quiet, wildlife, cultural heritage,
vital importance to the people who live in the area and beyond. Much is
in jeopardy.
Sarah Orne Jewett, who immortalized South
Berwick in her writing, had much to say about the use and misuse of progress.
One hundred years ago, she wrote of ''the destroying left hand of progress"
here in South Berwick. Certainly, today, when it comes to town planning,
we will guard against irretrievable loss in the name of progress and improvement.
With these concerns in mind, I strongly
restate my desire that Bennett Lot Road remain a dirt road.
Sincerely,
Nancy
Wetzel
39
Bennett Lot Road
A letter to the Town Council from Michael
and Catherine Latour.
March 20, 2002
We, Michael and Catherine Latour,
live on Bennett Lot Road and would like to express our concerns on the
condition of our road, and because of these concerns, the desire to have
the town of South Berwick begin paving of our road.
Our major concern is safety:
- During the winter months there have
been times that the road is in such bad shape that even the snowplows
get stuck and need help. What if this was a time that an emergency vehicle
was needed at a residence on this road?
- In the spring when the road thaws
the mud makes the road extremely slippery, not to mention a mess of your
vehicle.
- In the summer months, some cars are driven
much faster than the speed limit, and stopping on dirt, as opposed to
pavement, is not as quick, making this unsafe.
Our next concern is of the wear & tear
on our vehicles:
- Depending on the type vehicle that is
being driven on this road, the potholes, which it is impossible to go
around all of them, bounce the vehicle off at an angle. We personally
drive an Explorer, usually at a speed of 20 - 25 mph and have been tossed
at an angle upon hitting some of these holes. However, there have been
times when because the road was like driving over a "washboard"
that we would increase the speed of the vehicle to try to get over the
area without jarring everything loose in the vehicle. Again, the speed
is such that stopping quickly would not be possible.
We realize that once this road is paved
we will probably see it being used more frequently by other travelers,
but at least it will be under safer conditions. Also, there have been
times when our road is used as a dumping spot for items the transfer station
won't accept. Maybe people would think twice about dumping if there was
a chance of getting caught because of the road being traveled more frequently.
It is our understanding that paving
is to begin this year on Great Hill Road; a road that currently has no
residences. We are hoping the town will reconsider this decision and begin
work on improving the safety of Bennett Lot Road, a road that has over
a dozen homes on the unpaved section alone.
In wanting to get a fair consensus
to the town, we have attempted to contact each resident on the dirt section
of this road to get their opinions as to what they would like to see done
with Bennett Lot Road.
Those in favor of paving the road:
House numbers: 118, 131, 154, 156, 170, 171, 178 and 200. Also, as he
stated at the Town Council meeting, Mr. Brown is not opposed to the paving
as long as the town does the job correctly.
Those opposed to paving: House numbers:
155, 189, 201 and a resident on Oguniquit Road that owns land on Bennett
Lot Rd.
Those that have no preference: House number::
175
Michael and Catherine Latour
A letter read by Cathy Latour at the
Town Council meeting on May 28, 2002
Nora [Irvine] and
I have had a few discussions on the condition of Bennett Lot Road and
on how to come to a happy medium for all of its residents. We decided
it was best to get everyone on the road together and try to come to a
mutual consensus of what would satisfy all parties concerning the maintenance
of the road, keeping a friendly, neighborly attitude amongst us. Between
the two of us we tried to contact all the residents to let them know of
our goal. We had approximately 12 people, representing 9 families that
were able to make the meeting.
By now it is a well known fact,
to the council, that some want the road paved and others want to see it
left as is. However, we all seem to agree on the major issues:
- Road safety
- Speed
- Dust control
For those who do not want to see the
road paved, the road safety and speed issue are combined. They feel that
by paving the road, traffic will increase as well as speed and therefore
creating a safety issue for drivers and pedestrians alike. Both parties
agree that speed is already a safety issue on the road as it is.
Those that do want the road paved
are looking at the traveling conditions of the road in case there is a
need for any emergency vehicles such as an ambulance or fire truck. These
people want to see the road in a condition that will not be a problem
for these emergency vehicles to be able to provide the help if needed,
especially in the winter months.
The dust problem is a concern
for all, but especially to those that live very close to the road. One
resident in particular has a health problem and the dust coming in his
windows, especially when people are speeding, has at times left him coughing
for hours.
The $30,000 that the town has set
in the budget to pave 1,000 ft. of our road does nothing to eliminate
any of these problems. If you take care of this small section of the road,
what about the rest of the road, which is where the problem lies? As it
stands now, last year and so far this year, the only time the road has
been graded is when I have called the Highway Department and complained
that the road is unbearable to drive over. And last year after a couple
of calls to the town highway department, I was told that they had to wait
until we had a sufficient amount of rain before it would do any good to
grade the road. Finally, after a few rainy days I called again to find
that we were on the schedule to be done. This year, just two weeks after
grading the road, it is already starting to break down again. At least
last year the grading helped the road for at least a month, if not more
I am not pretending to speak for all
of the residents on our road, but of the ones we were able to get together
to discuss the situation, this is what we would like the town to try…
Take the money you have set aside
for paving the small section on the Ogunquit end and use it to focus on
a solution to make the entire road safer. So what we are requesting at
this time is:
(1) To invest in the proper care of
the road, such as making it a true "gravel road," if that's
what it takes, as opposed to the "dirt road" we have now.
(2) Maintaining the road so the surface
is kept in a smooth, safe, passable manner, for all types of vehicles
whether it be a resident's personal vehicle or one of our town's emergency
vehicles. And to have this true in all seasonal conditions.
(3) Treat it with calcium chloride
at least once a year (or more if needed to control the dust problem).
Long-time residents of the road tell me that the few times calcium chloride
was used they saw a substantial difference in the road.
(4) And regardless of what gets done
to the road, to help with the speed issue, could we have a police cruiser
monitor our road once in a while. I think it would only take a few getting
stopped to have the word get out that they may get caught.
This is what we hope the town will
agree to work with us on and possibly coming to a safe solution, yet keeping
everyone happy. If we can get safety without pavement, then I don't think
you will have many complaints, but again, I don't pretend to speak for
all of the residents. And to keep this fair and honest, I will say that
a few residents at the meeting we held stated that if this doesn't work
in keeping the road safe and the dust down, then they will be looking
for pavement of the road, but they are willing to give this way a try.
In conclusion to this saga, during
our discussion a mention was made of having the town of South Berwick
contacting the Army Corps of Engineers to come in and work on the road
as one of their training sessions which would save the town a substantial
amount of time and money. And from what I have heard, they get the job
done quickly and correctly.
Thoughts and comments from the Town
Council members on this request and on the idea of contacting the Army
Corps of Engineers would be much appreciated.
On behave of many of Bennett Lot Road
residents…Thank you.
Catherine Latour
A Flawed Process
by John Rudolph
There is a circular
argument offered by members of the South Berwick Town Council about the
public's role in determining how the town spends taxpayer dollars. At
the Council's recent public hearing on next year's budget this argument
came into sharp focus.
During the lengthy hearing members of the
public asked numerous questions about the budget. Many questions were
aimed at gaining a better understanding of the proposed spending plan,
and some were challenges to the budgetary priorities of the Council and
Town Manager Dick Brown. Ten members of the public showed up, making it
the best attended and longest budget hearing in recent memory, according
to long-time Council member Bob Gagne.
During his campaign for reelection last
year Councilor Gerald W. MacPherson, Sr. complained about the lack of
public input in the budget-making process. So you would have thought that
MacPherson and others on the Council would welcome the ten citizens who
took the time to offer their comments and ideas at the budget hearing.
Think again. At the end of the hearing MacPherson
stated adamantly that none of the comments from the public had changed
his views on the budget -- despite an impassioned plea from Fire Chief
George Gorman to increase funding for his department, and a vigorous argument
by Bennett Lot Road resident Nora Irvine for the town to reevaluate the
economic costs and benefits of paving the unpaved section of her road.
MacPherson stated that he represents
all the people of South Berwick, and he wasn't going to be swayed by the
comments of just ten citizens. The rest of the Council apparently concurred.
They unanimously approved the budget later that same night with little
discussion and without making any changes to the budget.
It's true, the turnout at the hearing was
small. But that doesn't minimize the value of comments from the public.
Is there a magic number of citizens that would get the attention of MacPherson
and the rest of the Council? There's one last chance this year to find
out.
On June 3rd the annual Town Meeting will
take up the budget. Town Meeting is always a frustrating experience because
while citizens can vote to approve, defeat or reduce an appropriation,
they cannot vote to increase spending. But if reducing spending is the
only way to get the Council's attention then I'm reluctantly in favor
of doing just that. I'm not talking about rejecting the whole budget,
just a big enough piece to send the Council a message.
At the budget hearing Dick Brown estimated
that paving the first 1000 feet of the unpaved section of Bennett Lot
Road will cost about $30,000. There are good safety arguments for paving
the road, and good environmental reasons not to do it. Taking all of that
into consideration, let's vote to reduce the capital improvements appropriation
by $15K. It's a compromise figure that gives something to everyone in
the paving controversy. It's also a way of saying that South Berwick citizens
are against unilateral decision making at Town Hall. We have the right
to be included in each step of the process of deciding where our money
is spent.
Paving the Shoulder on Old Fields Road
and Vine Street
(1) A letter from Connie Eaton to John Andrews, President of Eastern
Trail.
19 February 2002
Dear Mr. Andrews,
I have just learned of the grant which
your organization has made to create a bike path in the towns of Eliot
and South Berwick. I am a great fan of the Rails to Trails concept and
have used and enjoyed many of the resulting transformations.
I think a bike path in southern Maine would
be a great amenity, but the plan, which your organization has proposed
for South Berwick, is, in the opinion of many, terribly misguided.
Old Fields, Old South Road and Vine Street
are beautiful and historic rural roads. They are lined with old stone
wall, trees, houses and cemeteries and still look much as they did when
Sarah Orne Jewett used them as the setting for her writing. These roads
are favorites for walking, biking and riding and get a lot of use as they
are. The proposed paving of a total 8 feet of shoulder, with the attendant
grading, drainage, etc. would destroy much of their character and history
and most of their quality.
This project, which is intended to provide
alternatives to the automobile, would in fact have the opposite effect.
Old Fields/Vine St./Liberty Street is currently used by some commuter
traffic between New Hampshire and the seacoast as a way to avoid Route
236. This paving would make this shortcut more efficient, increasing the
traffic and shutting out the very constituency it was intended to benefit.
I think a much better use of these funds
would be to create a real bike path along the Route 236. Being the old
rail corridor, it has the necessary grading, shoulders, etc, which make
these conversions so appealing. It also connects directly with all the
schools, save the elementary ones. The Old Fields route could remain a
scenic alternative.
I hope you and the Town of South Berwick
will come up with a plan that reflects the admirable goals of your organization
and can be embraced by the community.
Connie
Eaton
(2) A letter from Town Manager Brown about the
Shoulder-Paving Project
[Town Seal]
Town
of South Berwick
180
Main St.
South Berwick, Maine 03908-1535
Tel.
207-384-3300
Fax:
207-384-3303
Richard B. Brown
Town Manager
February 21, 2002
Important Notice
The
Public Meeting scheduled for
Tuesday,
February 26, 2002
at
the So. Berwick Community Center
concerning the bike path/walkway
paving project
on
Old Fields Road and Brattle Street
has
been cancelled until further notice.
Dear Resident;
Last week you received notice from the town regarding a neighborhood meeting to discuss a project that was being planned for Old Fields Road and a portion of Brattle Street which proposed a bikeway/footpath. The town was pleased to have successfully applied for a state grant in connection with the construction of some bikeway/footpaths within the town. We concluded, (obviously incorrectly) that the best place for the first of these projects would be on Old Fields Road and Brattle Street as they are also part of the Eastern Trail in South Berwick.
The total and only object of the project was to provide a very positive amenity for the residents living along Old Fields Road and Brattle Street by providing a safer place for bicycles and walkers. Obviously, our choice of locations was in error. The town plans to reevaluate the use of these funds and other possible locations for the construction of bikeway/footpaths within the community.
I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you.
Sincerely:
Richard B. Brown
Town Manager
RBB/ro
(3) A letter to Town Manager Dick Brown from Scott Landis
about the Eastern Trail road widening project:
March 11, 2002
Dear Dick,
I was out of the country, in Honduras, during
most of the overheated exchange that apparently led to the cancellation
of the Town's preliminary plans for the paving of a bike path on Oldfields
Road and Brattle Street.
Although I am pleased to know that this
project will not steam ahead without public input, I take no pleasure
from the fact that a small but vocal minority of local citizens was able
to derail a town government initiative that could have led to more productive
public participation.
I have read most of the posted arguments
against the proposed paving and can appreciate the questions and concerns
raised by the project's detractors. As a member of a bike-riding family,
however, I can also imagine some of its potential benefits to the residents
of Oldfields Road, as well as to public citizens with an interest in safe
recreational biking.
I therefore find myself in the unusual position
of agreeing with both the opposition and supporters of the project. The
retraction of the proposal, which is now certified as "dead,"
may indeed have been a "lost opportunity," as you were quoted
as saying in Foster's Daily Democrat, but not only for bikers and the
folks who live on Oldfields Road. (There may have been amendments to the
proposal that could have satisfied citizen concerns while still permitting
the project to proceed.) As far as I'm concerned, the real losers in this
episode are the citizens of the town. I would much prefer an open consultative
process in which there is a free flow of information between town citizens
and the people who represent us.
In countries like Honduras, people are long
accustomed to governing decisions made behind closed doors by a powerful
elite. In such a climate, disenfranchised citizens have few avenues within
the confines of representative democracy for expressing their political
support or dissent.
It is my hope that the lessons drawn from
this recent local conflict might lead South Berwick towards a more open
and democratic relationship between local government and town residents.
If it merely strengthens the "firewall" of secrecy around the
Town Council, we will be that much poorer and that much closer to a banana
republic of the north.
Can you please pass this letter on to the
Town Council and ask them to clarify their position with respect to public
participation in future planning initiatives?
Sincerely,
Scott
Landis
80
Academy Street
You
can reach us here