August 8, 2005 Council Chamber
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Grinnell.
2. INTRODUCTORY
Chairperson Grinnell read the introductory.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Grinnell led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll were Councilors Leo Guy, George Heilshorn, Rich Balano, Glenn Shwaery, Matt Brock, Frank Dennett and Chairperson Ann Grinnell. Also present were Town Manager Jonathan Carter, Fire Chief Dave O’Brien, Police Chief Ed Strong, members of the Planning Board - Scott Mangiafico, Megan Kline, Janet Gagner, Doug Muir and Chairman Russell White, recorder Anne Barton, Capt. William McDonough, Walter Wheeler, Sarah Brown, George Varney, Bruce Wiggin, Kevin Banfield, representatives from the Kittery and Kittery Point fire houses, members of the press and others.
5. ACCEPTANCE OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
After a review of the same, Chairperson Grinnell declared the minutes of July 25, 2005 accepted as presented.
6. INTERVIEWS FOR PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION RATE REGULATION BOARD - There were none.
7. THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HEAR AN UPDATE FROM CAPT. WILLIAM McDONOUGH REGARDING THE SEACOAST SHIPYARD ASSOCIATION’S (SSA) ACTIVITIES.
Capt. McDonough said one of the things he has been very proud of is being a citizen of the host community for the Shipyard. He said that has made his efforts much easier in being involved as a part of the community that’s been a leader in supporting the SSA’s activities. Capt. McDonough said many people are aware of what’s been going on, but he’s here to give a brief synopsis of the efforts that have been underway for the past few years. He said prior to May 13, 2005, when the Secretary of Defense erroneously recommended closing the Shipyard, the SSA was working with , Kittery, Portsmouth and York, Rockingham and Strafford Counties and the Congressional delegations from both states to try to prevent the Navy and the Department of Defense from making the mistake they did. Capt. McDonough said after that decision was
made, the communities of Kittery, Portsmouth, Sanford and Rochester all came behind the SSA to demonstrate a great position of community support. He said he has been told by the BRAC staff that no where in the country have they seen an effort that surpasses what they have seen in Kittery/Portsmouth. Capt. McDonough said the SSA feels there is a reason for some degree of optimism, but it’s not an easy task to reverse one of these recommendations.
Capt. McDonough said he looks at the situation like a hockey game, with three periods. He said the first period is when the commissioners came to visit the Shipyard on June 1st. Capt. McDonough said a hat trick was scored that day. He said the facts and data presented to the commissioners was of a positive note, presenting a case for the Shipyard by looking at the criteria established and defusing and countering it. Capt. McDonough said the presentation was made by the Shipyard and they did an outstanding job presenting their case. He said one of the things in the directive from the Secretary of Defense dated November, 2002 was that the Defense Department would present a very valid case for transformation, that the BRAC list would improve combat efficiency and the third thing was that it would demonstrate an efficient use of taxpayer money.
Capt. McDonough said as many have seen in the paper, it has been demonstrated how the Shipyard has been performing over the last several years in a superlative fashion in comparison to other Naval shipyards and those in the private sector. He said the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is head and shoulders over them in all avenues, and that data hasn’t been refuted. Capt. McDonough said the Shipyard came across very well in that visit.
Capt. McDonough said the second period was from June 1st to the hearings in Boston on July 6th. He said that was the opportunity for the community to make its case. Capt. McDonough said 63 busloads of Shipyard supporters went to Boston and it was an outstanding event. He said the facility in Boston was overwhelmed with the crowd that came and they had to bring in another 1,000 seats. Capt. McDonough said the room was filled to capacity at 4,000 and it was standing room only, with most everyone wearing their yellow tee shirt. He said presentations made by both Governors, Senators, Congressmen and people from the Shipyard were outstanding. Capt. McDonough said the speakers were all positive and addressed the criteria. He said the facts were certified on their own and he’s sure the commissioners took heed of that. Capt. McDonough said
people came out knowing that they had made an impression on the five commissioners who were there and the four who had been to visit the Shipyard. He said General Turner hadn’t been here and she told him after the hearing that she really wanted to see this area and the Shipyard because of a letter she received from someone in the area that moved her. Capt. McDonough said General Turner found an opportunity to do that about two weeks ago, along with Commissioner Skinner, so six of the nine commissioners came to see the Shipyard, which he feels is important.
Capt. McDonough said the third period is from July 6th to August 22nd, when the Commission will have its final deliberations. He said the Association thought that was too long a time span without a visit and to try to refocus the Commission’s attention to the people in the northeast. Capt. McDonough said in order to do that, the SSA will have its final major push with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Appreciation Day and Old Fashioned Picnic event on Saturday, August 13th at Pease Air Force Base. He said the SSA is asking people to bring their families and a picnic lunch and to wear their yellow tee shirts. Capt. McDonough said the commissioners have been sent polite invitations urging them and their staff to attend, as well as Governor Baldacci and Governor Lynch.
Capt. McDonough said the big question is how things look for the Shipyard. He said he wishes he could say it’s a surefire thing that five of the nine commissioners are on the Shipyard’s side, but he thought there are many indications that what has been seen and heard has gotten through to them in the form of presentations, the letter writing campaign and petitions. Capt. McDonough said the media and elected officials have done a great job to show that the Shipyard is not just a job force in the area but a major contributor. He said Senator John Sununu was asked by Portsmouth Mayor Evelyn Sirrell as to how he saw the Shipyard’s chances, and Senator Sununu thought it was 50/50. Capt. McDonough said he thinks that’s probably true. He said it’s difficult to know how the individual commissioners will vote when the
time comes.
Capt. McDonough said the buzz words regarding the criteria are “substantial deviation”. He said the criteria really have no boundaries, as most anything will fit within them. Capt. McDonough said a case has been presented that out of the eight criteria, seven are clear cut that there’s a case that the Secretary of Defense has substantially deviated from the intent, and the seventh criteria is the impact on the receiving community. He said the SSA has taken advantage of that and said that the Shipyard is prepared to take on work from all kinds of other areas. Capt. McDonough said a big part of this BRAC was to find ways of joint use between the Army, Navy and Air Force supporting each other. He said the Shipyard can take on a lot of other work from these other parts of the Defense Department. Capt. McDonough said the
Shipyard has the capacity in its buildings and facilities to support a workforce much larger than what’s there now. He said the Shipyard is ready, willing, able and desirous to take on additional work. Capt. McDonough thought the Shipyard is in an enviable position of having everything good going for it. He said the BRAC will meet the week of August 22nd, when there will be hearings for Army, Navy, Air Force and then joint hearings. Capt. McDonough said the SSA feels it has done everything it can, but if anyone has any more ideas of what else can be done in the short period of time remaining before August 22nd, he will listen.
Chairperson Grinnell thanked Capt. McDonough for being here tonight. She said as Chairperson of the Council, she will present a check to Capt. McDonough for $10,000 for the Save Our Shipyard organization. Capt. McDonough thanked Chairperson Grinnell, the Council and the town. He said the SSA will do its best with this money to make their campaign a winner. Chairperson Grinnell hoped that many Kittery residents will attend the picnic on Saturday, August 13th from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Pease, bringing a picnic lunch and wearing their yellow shirts.
Councilor Balano noted that the BRAC has a web site that solicits public comments, which can be found by Google. He said this can be used for anyone wishing to participate in a last-minute letter writing campaign.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. (080105-1) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECEIVE COMMENTS CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO THE KITTERY FORESIDE DISTRICT OF THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Russell White, Chairman of the Planning Board, opened the Board’s public hearing, asking that the five members present be noted: Scott Mangiafico, Megan Kline, Janet Gagner, Doug Muir and Chairman White. Chairperson Grinnell opened the public hearing for the Council. She said she and other Councilors have received numerous telephone calls about the timing of this. Chairperson Grinnell said if the Council passes these amendments tonight, it will take 30 days until the ordinance goes into effect, which will be September 8th. She said the building moratorium that’s currently in effect will end on August 18th. Chairperson Grinnell said that leaves a window where there’s no moratorium and the old ordinance will still be in effect. She said there’s a 99.9% chance that a plan could not get to the Planning Board and be
considered complete within that window. Chairperson Grinnell said the ordinance under which an application is reviewed is the one in effect on the day an application is considered complete. She said that means an application would have to be submitted, go through all the steps and get to the Planning Board before September 8th in order to be reviewed under the existing ordinance. Chairperson Grinnell said the likelihood of that happening is very slight. She said she just wanted to clarify this situation ahead of time, since a lot of calls have been received on the timing.
Councilor Brock asked Mr. White for his opinion on the likelihood of any development making it through the process to a point of being deemed complete and subject to the existing ordinance, as opposed to an application going through the process and being deemed complete after the enactment date. Mr. White said there’s one Planning Board meeting after August 18th, which is on August 25th. He said a plan involving development in the Foreside would have to be found to be a complete application by the Board in order for it to be scheduled. Mr. White said he doesn’t think the agenda for the August 25th meeting is complete yet, but the Board hasn’t seen any sketch plans, so he thought it’s unlikely that there’s going to be any plans submitted at that meeting or that the Board would find any plan to be complete as
submitted. He said their following meeting on September 13th will be after the enactment date, so it’s really just that one meeting.
Councilor Brock said the moratorium is set to expire in a few days. He said the amendments to the Foreside District are further along in the pipeline than other districts. Councilor Brock said if the moratorium expires, then development in other zones where the ordinances haven’t been updated will be done in accordance with the existing ordinances, which haven’t been brought into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he’s concerned that there will be a gap between the time the moratorium expires and all the ordinances being brought into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by State law. Councilor Brock asked Mr. White what his perspective is of the likelihood of development going through under the old ordinances and what that will do to orderly growth in the town. Mr. White said if there’s a
gap, he hopes that it’s no more than two to three months, but that’s not a sure thing. He said it’s hard for him to give an opinion on the appropriateness of extending the moratorium. Mr. White said there are primary concerns of people’s rights to use their land and economic development. He said the Planning Board has been aware of those issues all along. Mr. White said the moratorium was put in place reluctantly and extended somewhat reluctantly. He said there’s a potential negative impact, but development occurs over many years and these new ordinances will be in place for years. Mr. White said it’s possible that a project may come through that complies with the existing ordinances that are out of date, and there’s also the question of those ordinances not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so if someone doesn’t like what the Board approves, they could complain to a higher authority.
Chairperson Grinnell asked for comments from the public. Sarah Brown of 22 Main Street said she hopes the Council has received two letters with 50 signatures of residents in the Foreside. She said a concern is that she has only heard talk about one focus group going through the long process to get that building permit. Ms. Brown said there are a lot of smaller lot sizes that don’t have to go to the Planning Board for approval. She said a 5,000 square foot lot would now allow two units but only one unit would be allowed if the proposed amendment is passed. Ms. Brown said she doesn’t think that kind of development would have to go before the Planning Board; just to the CEO for a building permit. She said unless a developer is asking for something that requires Zoning Board approval, a person proposing to put two units on a 5,000
square foot lot could get a permit on the same day. Ms. Brown asked what triggers a project to have to go before the Planning Board. Mr. White said the moratorium already exempts one and two family housing development, so it wouldn’t change the current situation. Ms. Brown asked if a proposal to put two units on a 5,000 square foot lot could get a building permit without going to the Planning Board. Mr. White said a building permit could be issued, or the Planning Department could say the project creates an impact and needs to be engineered before a permit is issued, or that what’s proposed triggers Planning Board review. He said those are discretionary within the Planning Department, so there’s no perfect assurance.
Ms. Brown said that brings her back to her concern about the lapse of time. She said bigger projects, like the condominium development at the corner of Main and Walker Streets, which was the impetus to change the number of dwelling units per square footage in the Foreside, couldn’t make it under the old ordinance, but she’s concerned about the smaller projects. Ms. Brown said there are some properties that are now cleared and have bulldozers waiting. She said there was a consensus at the meeting with the Planning Board that two units per 5,000 square feet and a minimum square footage of 2,500 square feet is a small piece of land for a dwelling unit, and that it’s not good development for the Foreside. Ms. Brown said if it has been decided as a group that it’s not a good practice, no lots should be allowed to take
advantage of the old rules. She said if there’s no way to keep that from happening, the amendment should be passed as an emergency ordinance. Ms. Brown said if the idea is that these new ordinances have to be passed to be good for the Foreside, they should be enacted now so they are good today instead of taking chances. She asked if there is another option of having the CEO agree not to expedite any applications in the Foreside if the new ordinance wording is passed tonight, because of the new ordinance coming in, and that people need to wait until September 8th to get a building permit. Chairperson Grinnell said those questions will be addressed after the public hearing.
The Manager said he’s had the opportunity to meet with the Chair of the Kittery Foreside Committee (KFC) and has been told that the Committee’s work is about done. He said that Committee has been working on the Foreside for about 10 years and they’re hoping to disband in the near future. The Manager said the ordinance before the Council tonight has the Foreside Committee as the design review committee. He said the Foreside Committee isn’t opposed to doing that, with some makeup of its members being on the design review committee, but they don’t think the entire KFC would be intact. The Manager proposed, if this is not a substantial change, to add “or its replacement” after “KFC” in the proposed wording on page 7. Chairperson Grinnell said if the KFC wants to disband, the Council could
just appoint other people to the committee. The Manager said if that’s done, the charge of the KFC would probably have to be changed.
Ray Smith, Chair of the KFC, agreed that the original charge for the KFC is not the same as what’s being proposed for the design review committee. He said it’s up to the Council, but the KFC plans to request that since it feels that the eight requirements that it was charged with 10 years ago have been completed, that it be allowed to disband or cease to exist as the Committee is now, and hopefully be reborn with a new charge as described in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Smith said the KFC just wants to go through the correct legal steps to end its current charge and begin again.
There being no further comments, Mr. White and Chairperson Grinnell closed their public hearings. Mr. White asked the Planning Board members for comments on the July 13th revision and the suggestions that have been made tonight. The consensus of the Planning Board members present was that they are supportive of adding the language proposed by the Manager. Mr. White said there is a quorum of the Board present and they have previously discussed the proposed ordinance revision and are in support of it, with the change suggested by the Manager.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE MARKED “Revised July 13, 2005” AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GUY.
Councilor Shwaery asked why page 2, Section C, Special Exceptions, was changed from “Research laboratories” to “Research and development”. Mr. White said that was done to be consistent with a new definition that has been added.
Councilor Dennett said this proposal recommends expansion of the Foreside District to the railroad tracks that curve down by St. Raphael’s Church. He asked if there’s a rationale for that. Mr. White said his recollection is that the uses in that area are consistent with the Foreside zoning. Councilor Dennett said the larger question is that the Comprehensive Plan discourages lot line zoning and highly recommends straight line zoning. He said the curve of the railroad tracks is not straight line zoning but is as good a delineating boundary as can be used. Councilor Dennett asked if doing this will get the Town into trouble with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. White said the Board tried to follow the straight line rule wherever possible and he thought deviation is allowed where doing that didn’t make sense. Mr. Mangiafico said
the Town uses the middle of a roadway all the time as a zoning boundary. Councilor Dennett said that may be, but the railroad track isn’t a public way.
Councilor Dennett said a change has come forward in the dimensional standards regarding front yard setbacks. He said the previous revision was that there would be a front yard setback of zero feet on Government and Walker Streets east of Jones Avenue. Councilor Dennett said that has been changed, with Walker Street being taken out, so it’s now only along Government Street, east of Jones Avenue that has a zero setback and Walker Street has a 10’ setback. He asked why that was changed. Mr. White said that was as a result of a site walk and looking at the existing pattern of development. He said it was thought that extending the zero setback around the corner and up Walker Street would adversely impact that area. Councilor Dennett said the inclusion of lot 107 seems to smack of an isolated lot being set aside, or spot zoning. Mr.
White said the Board wanted to include the corner lot because it has significant frontage on Government Street. Councilor Dennett said lot 107, which is the Bank of America parking lot, has no frontage on Government Street. He said there will be one lot with no setbacks and every lot around it will have a 10’ setback. Mr. White said the entire street has existing zero front setbacks. Councilor Dennett said the proposal is for zero front setback along Government Street east of Jones Avenue, including lot 107. He said the Segrue Block, the Cook Block, Chuggers and the Masonic Building aren’t on Government Street; those are in Wallingford Square. Councilor Dennett said Government Street stops at Knight Avenue, which is where the old post office was located. Mr. White said the intent is to bring the zero setback requirement up to the corner.
Councilor Dennett said Page 3, paragraph 4, Design Standards, doesn’t apply to the replacement of a building destroyed by accidental or natural causes. He said that’s a pretty nebulous term, as a building can be fully or partially destroyed. Councilor Dennett suggested that it be reworded to read, “does not apply to replacement of a building partially damaged or completely destroyed”. Mr. Muir said the issue is with a building having trivial damage and the owner wants to replace it without design review. Councilor Dennett said the only control is that it has to be on the same footprint and that any expansion can’t be more than 30%. The Manager thought the CEO would be responsible to make this decision. He said if an owner isn’t happy with the decision, that can be appealed.
Councilor Brock said the concern he is hearing from Councilor Dennett sounds legitimate. He asked if it’s the Board’s intent that trivial damage would bring it within this exception. Councilor Brock said he reads this as meaning that it had to be destroyed, but he’s now hearing that there could be 1% damage to the building and still fall within the exception. He said that seems to be a radical departure from the intent. Ms. Kline said the design review doesn’t kick in unless that 30% figure is exceeded. Mr. Muir suggested replacing Councilor Dennett’s suggested wording of “partially” with “significantly”.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 2, IN THE THIRD LINE FROM THE BOTTOM, DELETE “shall” AND INSERT “may”; PAGE 3, IN PARAGRAPH 4, “Design Standards”, CHANGE THE SEVENTH LINE DOWN TO READ, “does not apply to the replacement of a building significantly damaged or completely destroyed”; PAGE 7, PARAGRAPH G, “Design Review”, CHANGE THE EIGHTH AND NINTH LINES DOWN TO READ, “(KFC). This requirement does not apply to the replacement of a building significantly damaged or completely destroyed by accidental or natural causes”; AND IN ALL PLACES WHERE PARAGRAPH G. READS “Kittery Foreside Committee” OR “KFC”, ADD “or a successor organization”, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BALANO. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN
FAVOR.
Councilor Dennett said he sees the wording under the Standards on Page 2 to be spot zoning. Mr. Mangiafico said the Board’s intent was to include Wentworth Street, and lot 107 is on the corner of Wentworth and Walker Streets. Councilor Dennett noted that the Grange Hall would be nonconforming if this setback isn’t up to Jones Avenue. Mr. White asked if any Planning Board members felt that should be changed to include the Grange Hall. Mr. Muir thought that would be a substantial change. The Board agreed.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH E, “Standards”, “Minimum front yard:” TO STRIKE “along Government Street east of Jones Avenue including lot 107 at the corner of Government Street and Walker Streets 0 feet” and replace it with “on Government and Walker Streets east of Jones Avenue including Wallingford Square 0 feet”, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SHWAERY. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Grinnell asked for discussion on the main motion as amended. Councilor Dennett said Page 4, paragraph g, Utilities, states that utilities serving a new building must be placed underground from the access pole. He said this was brought up in a letter sent to the Council about burying all utilities underground, regardless of the situation. Councilor Dennett said the person who wrote the letter thought it was a good idea but it’s expensive if the pole is on the other side of the street, and the Commissioner of Public Works isn’t happy with digging up the street if it’s just recently been paved.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 4, PARAGRAPH g, “Utilities”, TAKE OUT THE “.” AFTER “pole” AND ADD “if the pole is on the same side of the street.”, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GUY.
Councilor Brock said new development puts these lines underground for reasons of aesthetics, safety and durability. He said he hasn’t heard a sufficient reason to vary that, unless the Planning Board feels this would be an appropriate change. Mr. White thought someone could request a waiver from putting the utilities underground. He said if a road was recently paved, it can’t be dug up against within a certain amount of time. Mr. White said there may also be hardship or other reasons to request a waiver. He said on the other hand, if you have an expectation, it’s more likely to get the desired result. Mr. White said just mandating this for the side of the street that the pole is on will provide less of the desired result. Councilor Brock said that means the language could remain and the issue could be addressed on a case by
case situation. Councilor Dennett said no one knows where the utilities are in the Foreside District, unless they were put in recently, and there could also be horrendous problems with digging because of all the ledge. He asked who would approve any waiver requested. Mr. Mangiafico said if it’s a project before the Planning Board, it will be a waiver to the ordinance requirement and if it’s before the CEO for review, it could be as a miscellaneous appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE AMENDMENT WITH FOUR IN FAVOR, WITH COUNCILORS HEILSHORN, BROCK AND CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL IN OPPOSITION. AMENDMENT PASSES 4/3.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
Chairperson Grinnell said she would like to discuss the concern brought up by Ms. Brown about applications submitted after August 18th and before September 8th that don’t have to go to the Planning Board and would only need to be approved by the CEO in order to get a building permit. Mr. White said he doesn’t have an answer to that. He said there may be lots that are cleared and ready to go and if there’s a plan to put four condominiums on a 10,000 square foot lot and the Planning Department decides to issue a permit for that type of project with that type of impact, it won’t necessarily come before the Planning Board. Mr. White said it would appear to him that it should come before the Board, but he doesn’t make those decisions. Councilor Brock asked if that would be up to the discretion of the CEO or the
Planner. Mr. White thought it’s done as a consultation between the Code Enforcement and Planning Departments. Councilor Brock asked what those Departments would be looking for. Mr. White said they would be looking to see if the project results in a substantial change in use or intensification of use. He said he can’t say that the Planning Board has always agreed with how that language is interpreted, but he hopes that in view of the new ordinance, if an existing single family home is proposed to be replaced by four dwelling units, that it would be considered an intensification of use, even thought it’s a permitted activity. Councilor Brock asked if it’s appropriate to consider a new ordinance that has been enacted. Mr. White said he would act conservatively in those situations. He said you have to have one eye on what the ordinance allows and the other on what you’re permitted to do.
The Manager said there’s also an appeal process, so if an abutter isn’t happy with a permit that’s been granted by the CEO, an appeal can be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairperson Grinnell said abutters aren’t notified when someone receives a building permit. Ms. Brown said there also have to be grounds to appeal. The Manager thought everyone will know who takes out a permit for the next few weeks.
Chairperson Grinnell said if someone goes to the Planning Department on August 20th and wants to develop property under the old ordinance, can the Planner and the CEO use their discretion, knowing that this ordinance has been passed. The Manager said the Planner and CEO have the discretion to send something to technical review and to take the full period of time to issue the permit. He said it’s rare to issue a permit on the same day someone applies for it. The Manager thought the CEO and the Planner will be very careful in what they’re doing.
Councilor Shwaery said he’s comfortable with the Planning Department and the CEO doing this, and he suspects that they will act conservatively, but he’s uncomfortable with them enforcing ordinances that haven’t been enacted yet. He said the Council can’t tell these Departments not to do anything or not act in a manner that they wouldn’t have anyway. Councilor Shwaery said one and two family units haven’t been prohibited during the moratorium. He thought the Code Enforcement and Planning Departments will be conservative and recommend it to the Planning Board for review criteria if necessary.
Councilor Brock agreed that the Planner and CEO should conduct their business the way they normally would and that they can’t impose additional requirements that they wouldn’t otherwise have done. He said he’s hearing that it’s consistent with their practice to use discretion in such circumstances and that this would be a factor to do that. Councilor Brock didn’t think an abutter could do anything about a building permit being issued. He thought there are issues of standing and having a proper legal process in order to make a challenge.
B. (080105-2) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PLACING A REFERENDUM QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 ELECTION BALLOT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2.66 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND UPGRADING NEW FIRE STATIONS FOR KITTERY AND KITTERY POINT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 6.07 OF THE TOWN CHARTER.
Fire Chief Dave O’Brien thanked the firefighters who are here tonight in force. He said they do a great job for this community at a low cost. Chief O’Brien said the Town currently has two fire stations: on Walker Street and in Kittery Point. He said this proposal doesn’t increase the number of fire stations. Chief O’Brien said this is to replace the Walker Street station with a new one on Gorges Road and demolish the Kittery Point station and rebuild a new one in that same location. He said AMR Ambulance has expressed a strong interest in the Walker Street building.
Chief O’Brien said the process to replace the fire station began about five years ago. He said capital improvement plans included the purchase of a rescue truck, land for a new fire station, putting money into a dedicated account for a new ladder truck and the two fire station upgrades. Chief O’Brien said two of those things have been done and the ladder truck has been dropped from the plan because of budget concerns. He said the Walker Street station was built in 1955 and the Kittery Point station was built in 1953. Chief O’Brien said these buildings met the requirements for many years, but with OSHA, DEP and NFPA regulations, the stations have become outdated and in need of replacement. He said fire apparatus was a lot smaller 30 years ago and improvements to fire services have been made in many areas during that time,
especially firefighter safety. Chief O’Brien said firefighters now provide basic medical services, hazmat cleanup and rescue services. He said this results in more tools and equipment being needed and larger apparatus to keep them in. Chief O’Brien said the Kittery Point station took delivery of a new piece of apparatus, but it didn’t fit in the existing station. He said it was sent back to the factory to be lowered by 5” and structural work was done to the building to get an additional 3”. Chief O’Brien said even though this piece of apparatus was a great buy, it cost the Town extra money to be able to get it to fit into the building. He said the Department shouldn’t have to purchase vehicles based on the size of the apparatus’ base and the door openings.
Chief O’Brien said the existing facilities don’t meet many requirements: there’s no room to install equipment to collect diesel exhaust, and CO2 readings of greater than 150 parts per million are recorded when the apparatus is leaving the station; bunker gear is stored between the apparatus, which is a safety issue; door widths aren’t adequate; there’s no room behind or beside the apparatus; no shower facility; the buildings aren’t ADA compliant; an inadequate emergency generator system; no hazmat storage, no septic system at the Kittery Point facility; inadequate office space; no storage or shop space; the roof leaks at both stations; inadequate drainage system; the domestic water line at Walker Street; inadequate parking and no fire suppression or alarm system to name a few. Chief O’Brien said the
proposed new station resolves all the safety concerns and allows for future growth. He said the firefighters from both houses spend many hours to maintain and clean up the equipment and buildings. Chief O’Brien said they do that using their free time and without their doing that, the buildings would be in far worse shape.
Chief O’Brien thanked the Council for considering this for the ballot and letting the townspeople have their say. He said during the last campaign for the June 14th vote, he was asked to speak to various organizations in town and he wrote down some of the frequently asked questions. Chief O’Brien said one was, “Why isn’t one fire station enough?” He said the ISO, which establishes insurance rates for homeowners, rates a town’s fire protection service based on water supply, training and the location and number of fire stations. Chief O’Brien said the ISO standard is that the distance to any point of town should not exceed 1 ½ miles from a fire station. He said based on that standard, five more stations would be needed. Chief O’Brien said the two stations have worked well for Kittery in the
past few years. He said the response time is supposed to be no more than six minutes. Chief O’Brien said the Kittery Fire Department has a 57.6% rating, which is excellent for a volunteer station. He said their current ISO rating is .6/9, which means the rating on the water supply is a .6 and non-hydrant areas is 9. Chief O’Brien said the lower the number, the lower the insurance rate. He said Kittery has petitioned the ISO for a full review, as they have prepared an argument that Kittery can meet the standard for a single rating town, so the 9 would drop off and the number would just be .6 or .5 or .4, because of what the firefighters have done to prove to the ISO that this is a quality fire department.
Chief O’Brien said another frequently asked question is, “Why build a new station instead of remodeling the Walker Street station?” He said the station was built in 1955 and Kittery has sprawled since then. Chief O’Brien said a more central location for the downtown area has been found on Gorges Road. He said consideration was given for remodeling the existing station. Chief O’Brien said it was rumored that the Walker Street station could have a second story on the building. He said that’s not practical, as the entire roof would have to be raised and an elevator would be required, at a minimum cost of $80,000. Chief O’Brien said upgrading the Walker Street station would cost almost as much as a new building and still have inadequate parking. He said remodeling the Kittery Point station was the
original plan of action, but the cost element was higher than tearing it down and building new. Chief O’Brien said a new facility also means minimal maintenance. He said he will answer any questions.
Chairperson Grinnell opened the public hearing. George Varney said he’s in support of the Fire Department, and his job has been made tremendously easier because Chief O’Brien just gave 100% of the reasons for the need for these stations. He said the need is here and the time is now and he urged the Council to do whatever it can do at this time to move this project along.
Bruce Wiggin of 25 Jones Avenue said he has served with a lot of the people in this room and under five different Chiefs and he’s had the pleasure of working with some of the finest trained members of the fire service. He said he has watched the Fire Department wrestle with the budget and capital expenditures over the years. Mr. Wiggin said when this item was on the June ballot, he thought the number of articles submitted at that same time worked against the proposal passing. He thought many of the lesser cost items on the ballot would have been better worked into the budgets of the various departments. Mr. Wiggin thought the town is getting a good bang for its buck with this proposal and that now is the time. He said he hopes the Council will look favorably on this.
There being no further comments, Chairperson Grinnell closed the public hearing.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED THE ITEM FOR PLACEMENT ON THE NOVEMBER 8TH BALLOT, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
Councilor Shwaery asked if the number of calls made by the Fire Department would drop if the ambulance company moved to Kittery. Chief O’Brien said no, he doesn’t believe so, as the Fire Department supports AMR Ambulance in a number of different ways. He said AMR has two workers but six people are needed for a cardiac call.
Councilor Balano said Chief O’Brien talked about the ISO rating potentially going down as a result of work being done by the volunteer firefighters. He asked if the potential of a new facility would further lower Kittery’s rating, or is that unrelated. Chief O’Brien said the ISO representative visited the building and they talked about the Walker Street station and the distance out to Remicks Lane, which is the longest run the Department could have. He said the ISO representative did take into consideration the planned rebuild on Gorges Road and found it was within an appropriate distance, which would make it okay. Chief O’Brien said that was the only thing discussed regarding a new station versus the old station.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
There was a recess from 8:52 p.m. to 8:57 p.m.
C. (080105-3) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FROM KEVIN BANFIELD, 168 WOODBRIDGE ROAD, #7, YORK, MAINE, FOR A VICTUALER’S LICENSE FOR COASTLINE GOLF & SPORT LLC, 506 U. S. ROUTE ONE, KITTERY.
There were no comments from the public.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
D. (080105-4) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FROM KEVIN BANFIELD, 168 WOODBRIDGE ROAD, #7, YORK, MAINE, FOR AN AMUSEMENT DEVICES LICENSE FOR COASTLINE GOLF & SPORT LLC, 506 U. S. ROUTE ONE, KITTERY.
There were no comments from the public.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SHWAERY. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
E. (080105-5) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FROM ROBERT BANFIELD, 109 ISLAND BEACH ROAD, WELLS, MAINE, FOR A MALT, SPIRITUOUS AND VINOUS LIQUOR LICENSE FOR COASTLINE GOLF & SPORT LLC, 506 U. S. ROUTE ONE, KITTERY.
There were no comments from the public.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL. Councilor Dennett asked why the LLC is organized under the State of Delaware. Mr. Banfield said he uses a legal firm in Boston that’s incorporated out of Delaware, working under Maine laws. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
The Manager noted that these licenses will be issued following the normal procedures after inspections have been made.
F. (080105-6) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FROM SETH GAGNER, 68 HIDDEN MEADOWS LANE, ELIOT, FOR A MOBILE UNIT/LUNCH WAGON FOR DILLY’S DOGS.
There were no comments from the public.
The Manager said this application is for a mobile vending license. He said this has become caught up in a procedural change that hasn’t technically been made yet. The Manager said about one month ago, the Council debated an application from Michael Landgarten for a mobile food vending unit that would be stationary on private property, and if these sorts of units are really mobile food vending units, as they don’t primarily serve the public ways of a community, like an ice cream truck or lunch wagon does. He said the Council suggested that when these types of applications came up for renewal, they should be done as a victualer’s license. The Manager said he has talked to the applicant and made him understand that perhaps the Council will be moving in that direction with this application, and that the Staff would take care of
the fee for the applicant to apply for a victualer’s license to be placed on the August 22nd agenda, and then discontinue the mobile vending license at that time. He asked that the Council consider handling this application in that way. Councilor Shwaery asked why that didn’t happen tonight. The Manager said it was an oversight.
Councilor Dennett thought the Manager’s solution is a good one. He said he’s in favor of granting this license this evening, with a public hearing to be scheduled for two weeks from tonight for a victualer’s license, and if that’s granted, this license will be rescinded.
COUNCILOR SHWAERY MOVED THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BALANO. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
G. (080105-7) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON, AND HEREBY ORDAINS AN AMENDMENT TO, CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE KITTERY TOWN CODE TO ADD THE POSITION OF ACCOUNTANT TO THE PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION PLAN, SEC. 2.24.045.
There were no comments from the public.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HEILSHORN. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
9. DISCUSSION
A. By members of the public - There was none.
B. Chairperson’s response to public comments - There was none.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Chairperson Grinnell said the Council will be meeting with the Planning Board on Thursday around 6:15 p.m., and she would like as many Councilors as possible to attend. She said she will try to talk to Russell White about the timetable they discussed at their last meeting and have something written up for everyone to review. Councilor Dennett said he presumes that the meeting will have to do with the limited density proposal received tonight. The Manager said he doesn’t know exactly what will be discussed at that meeting, but it will be within the two documents that the Council has received.
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. (080105-8) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPROVE THE DISBURSEMENT WARRANTS.
COUNCILOR HEILSHORN MOVED THE APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING WARRANTS: SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAM WARRANT #1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,775.79, MITCHELL SCHOOL RENOVATION WARRANT #34 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,124.76, SCHOOL WARRANT #3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,466.89, TOWN WARRANT #10 IN THE AMOUNT OF $410,246.69 AND TOWN WARRANT #10A IN THE AMOUNT OF $406.58, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BALANO. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
B.. (080105-9) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPOINT A REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET WITH MILTON HALL, CHAIRMAN OF THE PORT AUTHORITY, TO INTERVIEW FRANK C. FRISBEE FOR HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THAT BOARD UNTIL 8/31/10.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILOR SHWAERY TO CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
C. (080105-10) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPROVE AND SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH MDOT PERMITTING THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE GERRISH ISLAND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON GERRISH ISLAND LANE, BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 103 AND CHAUNCEY CREEK ROAD AND EXTENDING TO POCAHONTAS ROAD (BH1105(700)X) TO TRANSPORT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT AND HAUL LOADS THAT EXCEED LIMITS TO SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OVER MUNICIPAL WAYS REASONABLY WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROJECTS.
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL. The Manager said Staff will be looking at a bond from the contractors. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
D. (080105-11) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPOINT MARYANN PLACE AS ACTING TOWN MANAGER FROM AUGUST 20 - AUGUST 29, 2005 DURING THE MANAGER’S ABSENCE.
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED THE ITEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BALANO. ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
E. (080105-12) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARKS COMMISSION REGARDING AN INCREASE IN THE FORT FOSTER FEE SCHEDULE.
Councilor Dennett said he knows this isn’t a lengthy item but he’s distressed that no one is here from the Parks Commission to answer any questions. The Manager said he’ll take the blame for that. He said he thought this item would be a simple referral to a workshop for another evening. The Manager said he can write down any questions Councilors may have and get answers from the Commission. He suggested having the workshop starting at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. before a regular meeting and have Rick Rossiter and the Parks Commission co-Chairs attend.
Chairperson Grinnell said this issue came up last year at the very end of the year. She said she suggested to the Parks Commission that they come in earlier with their recommendations this year, because things take time to get through the Council. Chairperson Grinnell said the idea is to try to decide what kind of procedure the Council needs to go through in addressing these recommendations.
Councilor Dennett said this has come before the Council previously, along with the discussion that if there will be an increase in fees and some net revenue, it needs to be worked into something. He said it will be up to Mr. Rossiter and the Parks Commission to provide information on what will be done: a parkway, or boardwalk, or access for people who are challenged to get down to the beach. Councilor Dennett said he would like to put that question to Mr. Rossiter and the Parks Commission as part of this workshop.
Chairperson Grinnell said another thing for the Parks Commission to think about is that a few years ago, money was voted in to rebuild the restroom, but when it came time to do it, there wasn’t enough in the account. She said she’d like to know how much money there is, how much the project will be and if these fees will go towards getting that facility built. The Manager said there’s about $29,000 left in that account right now. He said the Commission is attempting to assess the existing bathhouse facility and if it can be rehabbed and enlarged to where ADA compliance could be achieved without building something else. The Manager said that analysis is now just getting off the ground and will be provided to the Council this Fall. The Manager said the goal is to try to deal with upgrades within that $29,000.
Chairperson Grinnell asked why Mr. Rossiter is requesting that the recommended changes be effective October 1, 2005. Councilor Dennett thought that it’s a matter of printing up new decals and stickers before January 1st.
The Council agreed to a workshop with Mr. Rossiter and the co-Chairs of the Parks Commission at their second meeting in September, prior to the regular meeting. Councilor Shwaery said he would like a list of the conditions that are now in place for waiving the Park entrance fee.
F. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Grinnell said the Council would like to give a big “thank you” to their recorder for doing the minutes, as this will be her last meeting. She presented the recorder with a gift from the Council to show their appreciation.
12. COMMITTEE AND OTHER REPORTS
A. Communications from the Chairperson - There were none.
B. Town Manager’s report - The Manager said the Kittery Quarterly newsletter is out. He said if residents missed it in their copy of the Portsmouth Herald, the Town Hall has additional copies. The Manager encouraged contributions to the newsletter for the October issue; either people wishing to write their own articles or suggesting themes for articles to be written.
The Manager said this past weekend, Kittery, the City of Portsmouth and the Shipyard celebrated the signing of the Peace Treaty of 1905. He said there were a lot of festivities and a parade that the Town of Kittery participated in as the host community for the Peace Treaty talks. The Manager thanked the Navy for sending the USS Ross, which will be leaving sometime tomorrow.
C. Committee reports - There were none.
13. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCILOR BALANO MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:33 P.M., SECONDED BY COUNCILOR GUY. ALL WERE IN FAVOR BY A VOICE VOTE.
| 
