 |
Town of Otisfield
Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2013
1. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Hal Ferguson – Chairman, Rick Micklon & Lenny Adler present.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Audience and Board members saluted the flag.
3. ACTION ON MINUTES:
A. Meeting minutes from May 10, 2013. *Motion to accept minutes. HF /LA – Unanimous.
B. Meeting minutes from June 5, 2013. *Motion to accept minutes. RM /LA – Unanimous.
4. SPECIAL EVENTS
A. None.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. None.
6. DEPARTMENT HEADS:
A. None.
7. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ASKED TO BE ON THE AGENDA
A. No Parking Signs: Patricia Schreiber: Shore Road resident. Would like to know how she got on the agenda? HF: MIM said you called and requested to be. Patricia Schreiber: I thought it had to be more formal? HF: MIM was going to be out of office and wanted to make sure you were heard. Patricia Schreiber: My concern is over several “No Parking” signs placed at the end of Silvaqua Road, its forcing home owners that have always parked on the road for many years to park in areas that are far more unsafe then in front of their properties, HF: I spoke to you at your property a few weeks ago. Other property owners came to an October BOS Mtg, along w/ our Fire Chief and expressed their safety concerns with parking. It’s
a congested area and emergency vehicles need to get through. Patricia Schreiber: I see no documentation. She has owned the property for 6 years and has never seen it congested. Where is the documentation that it’s so congested? HF: Without the signs you can’t call to have a vehicle towed, therefore no cars were towed. The Otisfield Parking Ordinance came into effect last spring. RM: Wanted to reiterate: We were told you can’t call to tow if there was no Parking Ordinance in place. Patricia Schreiber: say she has never seen it congested. If it’s a safety reason, why not a stop sign? RM: It’s only from an access perspective at the two points of intersection at the access throats, not one based upon speed. Greg Braun: Introduced himself as local attorney (Bridgton), works mostly out of South Paris courts. Son-in-law to Bonnie Jackson. Lived at their residence on Shore Road for a short amount of time. This
parking ban has caused an inconvenience for multiple property owners. He is making a plea to have BOS reconsider and review exact actions they have taken before this needs go any further. Hopes that we can find a similar goal through different means. You can reasonably argue that the process wasn’t researched, documented and allowed public input. The BOS failed to research and use a less restrictive means to accomplish the goals of public safety and improved access. I would be justified in pursing this beyond here and am asking BOS to consider home owners position. RM: To be clear, we had discussed this with you and your Father-in-law at a prior BOS meeting. We are certainly willing to discuss this issue further, but I’d like to be clear that this originated when a complaint was brought forward by a neighbor to the property. You are now asking us to meet you halfway. What do you propose? Greg Braun I don’t propose anything. RM: Because other
residents, our Road Commissioner and Fire Chief are bringing this up, we need to know that if we meet in the middle that we’re reducing congestion at that location. Has the property been surveyed to ensure exactly where the vehicles are parking? Would you do that in an effort to meet us halfway? Braun: I’m simply proposing that you re-evaluate the number and locations of these signs. Bonnie Jackson: Never missed a single year of being up here and we had a driveway. We lived there before Silvaqua Hill was there. We have many neighbors who lived there just as long as me. We had a driveway for 5 years, and then the road came in. My house is smack at the bottom. My dad put posts up 40 years ago. Greg Braun: Just asking to consider our requests. RM: Again asks, do you have suggestions Mr. Braun? Braun: Yes, take down the signs and let people park where they always have. Mrs. Jackson & HF exchange words regarding whether this issue
is on a personal level. HF insisting that it isn’t. LA: I’ve been on the board since 1975 and that number of years; I never did anything that was personal or to hurt someone purposely. He was told that No Parking signs were placed long before he was on the Board. The road was not done to Richard Beans satisfaction, but the Silvaqua roads were accepted by a prior Board and at town vote. I may be wrong, but I believe it is one of the very few deeded roads in the town. I believe that’s the case in Silvaqua. I may be wrong, most roads are ROW roads. Town owns width of ROW. If you had surveyed you know where your property ends. Herb Olsen: As a firefighter who has tried to make that intersection turn and could not make it with his fire truck. Bonnie Jackson: July 4, 1994. Lawyer’s cottage on fire, no problem getting in there then. LA: The fire was confined to the porch; we didn’t need to shuttle water. Jeff Jacobs: I’m also a fireman and I was at that fire and remember we had to walk
in. Not sure if cars were the reason but the truck didn’t make the scene. I agree that this is not personal; it’s a Fire Safety issue. Greg Braun: Would like a reasonable resolution. HF: When there are no vehicles; no problems, but there have been at times as many as (11) vehicles. This is a problem. This is not personal its safety. Bonnie Jackson: Hal, on June 7th when you were at Kim’s house talking to us, you said the problem is when cars are parked on both sides. We don’t see that any cars parked on the road are creating a problem. Prove it. HF: Your husband admitted that he took down signs that our highway department installed. Many people testified that signs were posted many years ago and that’s why they were put back up. Bonnie Jackson: I’m currently in a walking cast and have a handicap placard. I’m up here by myself and where should I park? On the hill and risk my safety? I think it’s because you
don’t like Massachusetts people. RM: That’s absolutely not true. Bonnie Jackson: You’re making me park up a hill, in the dark and I’m currently handicapped. Is that fair? RM: Can you provide any off road parking? Greg Braun: Not without substantial cost. Bonnie Jackson: To her knowledge there has never been an incident. Mr. Bean would ask if he needed cars moved and they would move them. Bonnie Jackson: I never park where you are saying, Hal. Do you have pictures to prove that I’m parked where you say? HF: I actually do have a picture (and he presents it to the public). LA: Suggests we end this discussion. ? Bonnie Jackson: Would like to request that 3 nights that she is here, that she park there and not to be at risk of towing. RM: Of course. I can speak for Hal & Lenny and guarantee your vehicle will not be towed. Bonnie Jackson: Thank you.
B. Kristen Roy on behalf of The Friends of Scribner Hill, asks that the FOSH be allowed to work with the Ordinance Policy Review Committee (OPRC) to update the Cell Tower Ordinance. We have never been in a “not in my backyard” group of people, we were willing to compromise and we had an offer to US Cellular stating that we were willing to compromise re: the tower location. For me personally, my rights were taken away, I was denied my legal rights by notification, as a land owner. I have one right and that’s notification, and that was taken away. HF: the court never decided on whether or not that you did in fact get denied your notification rights. Kristen Roy: We could still contest that. I have serious trust issues and when you say you can
come to meetings and we will listen to you, you don’t actually act on it and that’s the problem. If our town had acted when we said hey, 20 of 26 abutters were denied our rights; you could have said we will review it. This would have been done right and now US Cellular is gone. Did you read my amended complaint? RM: Yes, the last one was forwarded to us and after reading it, it was the same complaints you’ve always had, simply reworded. We can agree to disagree but the town legal counsel felt that the final straw to US Cellular leaving was that you kept the law suit going and the legal defense costs going, to the point that US Cellular simply said enough is enough and chose to go to a town that actually wanted cell coverage. Kristen Roy: Our issues were in there. Having said that, I would like to request that you place us on Town Warrant to change existing Tower Ordinance so if another tower tries to come to Town, it won’t be w/ the same flawed
application. HF: We are going by Town By-Laws, we cannot put it on the warrant for this Town Meeting, but a special Town Meeting can be held. RM: I hear your request, and we would honor a petition from the people. It has to be a citizen’s petition. Kristen Roy: I would suggest a couple of public forums, where you get a knowledgeable person in to discuss all of the options. If this went forward it would show US Cellular was not in compliance w/ their permit. LA: Sad thing is we will never know what the outcome would have been had the judge ruled on the specific legal issues. RM: There has to be at least one Public Hearing before Town Meeting. A warrant cannot be amended at Town Mtg. It may take more than one meeting to get all the info that needs to be gathered. Kristen Roy: Public needs to know what their options are before they vote. RM: Of course, if you remember we required that the Tar Sands informational meeting provide
information on both sides. Lenny led that charge.
C. Jeff Jacobs: Resident State Route 121, wants to discuss Telecommunications in Otisfield: I have lived here for 21 years, raised children, love it here, but the lack of a cell tower has frustrated me, because I worry the Town is going in the wrong direction. Some individuals are trying to be too conservation minded and not looking at where the Town needs to be. We have horrendous internet, little to no cell coverage and people are fighting cell towers that will benefit our town. It’s ridiculous. I loved raising my kids here, and I love Otisfield, but there is no chance my children will move back if technology conditions stay as they are. I want to tell people you can call me regarding work and I can answer it, but when I get home 90% of the time I don’t have
service or internet. We don’t have to live in a box, we can do work from home, but not this way. We need to keep our eye on the prize. You Selectmen do a great job, but we need to keep this town viable if we want people to live here and be able to pay their taxes. I count on that, I have to do my business from home. I don’t want to move, but I need to work. I want my children to move back. We need to make some sacrifices if we want our children to move back. We made a mistake 20 years ago not jumping on the band wagon. We hated telephone poles years ago, now they are the norm. We have to stop fighting technology and move into the future. Do the due diligence, but keep your eye on the future. Just wanted to let you know a lot of people feel this way. We’re angry that a lawsuit forced a cell company to leave us and go to another town. I just wanted to make sure you kept your eye on the prize. LA: There are many factors, but Maine has the oldest population in
the United States. We all want cell coverage, internet access, electricity, oil and gasoline, but we don’t want what comes with it. We need to compromise. I responded to a plane crash last year out on the ice of Pleasant Lake. I couldn’t talk to other FD members from the ice because of the lack of radio coverage. This was life and death and if we had a cell tower on Scribner Hill, I would have had no issues with my radio communication. Jim Gregory: What you said Jeff makes a lot of sense, but to that point we need to compromise. If countries didn’t do that every day, there is a chance we wouldn’t be sitting here. Compromise, you have to come to the middle and achieve something that works satisfactory for all involved. If the offer we proposed was agreed on, we would have spent less money and we would have had a tower on Scribner Hill. We chose to raise our kids here too. We don’t want Otisfield to be like other towns, we like our
uniqueness, and if we weren’t concerned about structure, it would be industrial. RM: To be clear, you presented your offer to US Cellular, not the BOS, and we couldn’t do anything. The compromise you offered wasn’t accepted for legal reasons and it does us no good to keep focusing on the lawsuit. John Poto: Resident of Cobb Hill Road, member of Friends of Scribner Hill (FOSH) wants to discuss ideas to resolve the dispute they (FOSH) have with the BOS. He has ideas on how to end what has and could continue to be a long and costly dispute between the Town and the FOSH. John Poto: Would it be reasonable for fifteen minutes? RM: We like people to ask to be on the agenda so there are no time restraints. You are on the agenda and can have as much time as you wish. John Poto: We all know where we are. History: dispute started because I disagreed w/ review process. I used my rights as a citizen to pursue what I believed was right,
filed an appeal, not asking for more than a proper review. We were denied this simple request. From the beginning of the appeal, US Cellular did everything to prevent a new review. They tried to get it tossed out. That sent up red flags, because if a proper review was conducted, then why would they be opposed to a new one. Apparently the BOA and US Cellular thought FOSH had a strong enough case otherwise they wouldn’t have dropped it. Group of citizens went to court at their own expense. We filed a motion w/ the court, not to prevent tower but to ask for a new review. The Town joined legal forces w/ US Cellular against us. Even though we were in Court, our Attorney sent letter to US Cellular about tower height and location for negotiations. As a result, offer was declined and we continued to be in Court. US Cellular must have realized we had a case and they could possibly lose because they cut their losses. After reading the newspaper articles, whether I’m alone or part
of small/ large group, I have the right to express my beliefs. HF: You had the right to speak. We never stopped you from being heard. In fact, just the opposite. John Poto: Newspaper said we were a small group. Do you have an interest in resolving issues is my question? When US Cellular decided to concede, they surrendered their permit. All motions before court were dismissed. There are motions out there that have not been ruled on. US Cellular is gone, what remains is between us. We said Site Plan Review should be part of the review process. Let’s come to an agreement. HF: This isn’t a Selectmen’s decision. We have had a process in place long before the cell tower issues. It’s up to the Ordinance Policy Review Committee to review the ordinances of the town and towns’ people to decide on it by a vote at the town meeting. John Poto: Here’s what I would like to propose. Understanding the mechanics. 1) Include an
article in the upcoming meeting, asking for a 6 month moratorium to enable the town to update ordinances. HF: The BOS suggest you take up a petition explaining exactly what you’re requesting that’s how it gets on the Warrant. Poto: 2) Regardless of outcome, I’m asking for either special committee for the cell tower ordinance or not, but include members from FOSH. HF: We told Kristen that we believed the Ordinance Review Committee was currently full. It is not. It has an opening for a PB member and Karen Turino said she would step up. All meetings are open to the public. Do we change the composition of the committee? John Poto: That’s something you need to consider. RM: Larger committee is not a solution, but my question to you is; do you feel that you wouldn’t be heard should you attend the meeting with the existing committee? John Poto: Would I have access to same documents, and be able to express my
ideas RM: Yes and if you were not heard, we would want to know about it. LA: Not in favor of altering committee. RM: I like to leave names out of issues, but I would tell you, it’s not that I’m opposed to you being on it. It’s not about names; it’s about all of us who vote on it. It’s about the ordinances that need to be addressed. We are all on the same page with this. Not opposed to adding position, unfortunately we are trying to insert someone into a committee and it can be perceived wrong to the public. I would be very disappointed in OPRC if you weren’t given the same rights as everyone else in Town. My concern is if you bring your knowledge, positions and opinions to the table and now another committee disagrees, are the same group of people going to say the BOS influenced it? BOS are not against you. Never once said you are not entitled to have the rights you feel you deserve. If you present information, and committee
feels they disagree, are you going to come back and say now they are against you too? If it’s applicable info, then it should be considered. If the committee feels they don’t agree and vote accordingly, or if they DO agree with your positions then their recommendation to the BOS will reflect that. Contrary to your belief I’m on your side. I am not opposed to a person being added, but at this juncture, it may be inappropriate, and may make people think others should be allowed to jump on as well. LA: When the final vote is over we need to leave as friends. As far as he is concerned when US Cellular pulled away from the case, it’s over. We now need to make this ordinance better and we can all agree that it needs to be worked on. HF: I agree w/ the composition of committee and am not for changing it, because it can be accomplished in the seat you’re in, and if you thought they were going to be prejudice w/ you sitting there,
then it would be same as you sitting up here. It’s irrelevant. Would rather not change composition. BOS all agree he come and share his thoughts at an upcoming OPRC meeting. Pixie Williams: I feel we are coming in peace and looking to reconcile. I agree w/ BOS, it would be an obvious move if you slid someone into an OPRC position, and many people would be concerned. Many good ideas can come from people listening and participating from the outside. Conservation Committee has many individuals w/ special skills, and the public had great input and impact on this committee. LA: Making a request. The OPRC is meeting in September, we have 3 months, and it would be helpful if you brought your suggestions and research in then. Jeff Jacobs: I would be uncomfortable if someone forced themselves on to a committee. Jim Gregory: On this committee or any committee if there is a person or a group that can bring expertise to the table, especially in the form
of info or knowledge, why would that committee shun that? RM: We wouldn’t and I would like to hear about it if that happens. All agree work needs to be done to this Ordinance. David Hyer: Road Study Review Committee, we didn’t all have expertise on the committee, but we did have Richard Bean as a special advisor on this committee and it helped the committee. Using someone as a resource works out just as well as having someone be a member. HF: All meetings are open to the public. RM: During this process, everyone should have a chance to have their say or ask questions. If you want to speak feel free to but the amount of time a person is allowed or a subject matter is given, is at the sole discretion of the Chair, Joe Zilinsky. Jim Gregory: I don’t harbor animosity; I’m disappointed, but not angry. We are able to be friends and look at the next issue. Moved here to be happy and that means getting along. Before cell
tower, you never heard a peep out of me, my point was, I didn’t take the Advertiser Democrat piece to well. After the fact, there was individuals writing editorials and painting individuals as the problem. It was not me who did that and never would be, my question why did you Hal, feel that you needed to do that to me? HF: I took off my BOS hat. I was silent during litigation, there was a lot of incoming negativities and I listened quietly, as the Planning Board, Board of Appeals, CEO and town officials were bashed, and so what I did was said what I “personally” felt after it was all over. I wasn’t a Selectman when I said what I said. RM: We’ve asked legal counsel about this issue in the past. You have to say up front that you are speaking as an individual, not as Selectman. HF: It was my opinion, not the BOS. RM: Whenever you, Kristen or John had negative things to say at the meetings, and you said plenty, we went
into that meeting saying we can’t take it personally, even though we experienced anger, we never jumped back into that fray, because we had to distance ourselves from that. So we all remained quiet until it was finished. James Gregory: Just want everyone to know, I separate business from personal and if there were a burning building I would go in after you and consider the hatchet buried. LA: As we would, too.
7: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
A. Sandy Outlette: Speaking as an Otisfield resident. My opinion is that if the Valleys own that property, weren’t their rights violated too? People think they should tell other people what they can do on their property, if it affects your quality of life as a neighbor, you have rights. If you are not paying their taxes, as long as it’s legal, it’s their property to do what they want. LA: No one is more for land owner rights then me, I have a junk yard on my property. They are ugly and unattractive, but I have a right to have one, as long as I follow the guidelines. There are certain requirements you have to meet to put up a Cell Tower. What I do affects my neighbors. If negative, I need to modify what I’m doing. I follow the rules. When this is done, hopefully we can all come
up w/ a common agreement. Kristen Roy: We never said “no tower”. Sandy: I didn’t say that you did, I said your rights were not violated.
Herb Olsen: I would like as a tax payer to have other tax payers know how much things cost. It is a large expense to everyone in town and this year we spent a huge amount of money defending ourselves for a few people who disagreed with an ordinance. It’s going to cost every tax payer in the town a lot of money and when your neighbor looks at you and says look what you did to us, don’t complain.
Jim Gregory: I understand your point, but if a company says I want to do a certain thing, are you saying we should just agree w/ it if we don’t? HO: That’s not what I said; I said it costs money when we do special things. I was thinking of cell tower strongly a few days ago when we had a fire on Coon Road and there was no cell service. We need to work together and we need to consider expenses and safety.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ITEMS
A. 2012 Town reports are available at the town office.
B. Tax acquired property Map U03, Lot 009. 78 Elliot Road. The taxes were paid in full, plus one year in advance. A check is in envelope for $14,004.33, the amount of payment for taxes plus one year of taxes in advance. *Motion to accept this as payment in full and do a quick claim deed, but they do not get quick claim deed till the check has cashed. LA/HF – Unanimous. BOS agree this will be available and signed by next BOS meeting.
9. ADJUSTMENTS TO AGENDA
A. None.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. *BOS signed the Town Meeting Warrant.
11. SELECTMEN’S ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED & VOTED ON
A. Town Warrant: *Motion to sign Warrant #23 to pay the town bills. HF/LA - Unanimous.
12. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD
A. Road Crew, LA: Richard Bean would like to bring Bob Harris back a day or two a week to cover days needed. *Motion to authorize Richard Bean to allow that on a part time basis. LA/HF – Unanimous. RM: talked to Bob Harris, and will talk to Richard, the 3 of us discussed having an on call person. We thought that would be great, but were not prepared to pay more money. BOS will generate a list of items that need to be done in Town, and agree this would be a great way to utilize his time if Richard has a slow period.
B. Hidden Lake Road: This road needs to be paved. We have a TIF account and it should be used for this, Richard and BOS think this is a great idea.
C. Town Meeting Refreshments: HF: Do we have anyone buying snacks for town meeting? LA: Will check w/ Noreen about FD Association taking this on.
D. Tonight’s Meeting: RM: I just wanted to say I appreciate everyone maintaining composure tonight. It was a tough mtg, it has been difficult for BOS to stay silent, and we knew that when things were settled we would come forward with our thoughts. We were criticized by some for not coming forward earlier. We expected tonight’s discussion, but said we wouldn’t talk about it, unless it was in public forum so that everyone could hear what was being said. Thank you for your demeanor, because we didn’t want it to get out of hand. There have been plenty of opinions, not facts, getting thrown around. We were not going to have an opinion as elected officials; we wanted to let the justice system do that. We have been supportive of everyone’s rights. Even the right to appeal when our own
counsel said John Poto might not have the right to be heard. We wanted to let him and FOSH be heard. We disagree with their lack of notifications as an appeal. We still aired on the side of caution and allowed them to be heard. We tried to let everyone have a say. We knew it would be difficult tonight but again, thank you. Audience members agreed it went very well. Compromise needs to be done. What comes before committee, needs to go before voters. Herb Olsen: Just wanted to say, I’m glad that you stuck to rules that you have in place. If you have a policy and procedure, you should follow it. Karen Turino also agrees with this. Other public members in attendance agree as well, procedure is needed.
13. ADJOURNMENT. *Motion to adjourn at 9:40 PM. HF/RM-Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Secretary
Approved by:
Hal Ferguson, Chairman
Rick Micklon
Lenny Adler
Approved on July 17, 2013
| |
