South Berwick Citizen

The South Berwick Citizen
An unofficial website for South Berwick, Maine
www.southberwickcitizen.org

Citizen Commentary

Residents Concerned with South Berwick Sewer Treatment Plant

posted November 24, 2004

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.

posted October 21, 2004

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

ˆBack to top

posted January 30, 2004

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

ˆBack to top

Read More...

posted January 10, 2004

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.

ˆBack to top

Read More...

posted January 10, 2004

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

ˆBack to top

and More...

posted January 16, 2004

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

ˆBack to top

posted February 25, 2004

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

ˆBack to top

Read More...

posted January 30, 2004

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.

ˆBack to top

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...

posted December 3, 2003

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.)

ˆBack to top

Posted January 5, 2003

Zoning and York Hospital

(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

ˆBack to top

________________________

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

ˆBack to top

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

ˆBack to top

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

ˆBack to top

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.

ˆBack to top

Re-Zoning Downtown

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?
&n