BUCKFIELD — You may have heard the Bill Cosby routine about when he lost his job. "Well, I didn't lost it exactly," he intones with a rueful grin. "I mean, I still know where it is. It's just that when I go there now, there's somebody else doing it."
The town of Buckfield may be experiencing this same disconcerting feeling in regard to a five-acre parcel in the Hallie Estates subdivision.
The town has not exactly lost the five acres. They know to the last second of the final degree where it is. The problem is more complicated than that.
The dilemma is that with subdivisions, revisions to divisions, and multiple sales and re-sales of the subdivided lots, the town seems to have lost track of precisely who technically does, or even should, own those five acres.
Buckfield Planning Board Chairman Wes Ackley recounted at recent meetings of the board how Cynthia M. Dunnm Buckfield's town manager and code enforcement officer, had brought to his attention a possible violation of the Hallue Estates subdivision plan.
The original November 1, 1999, plan for the subdivision (listed as Plan #3245), which is adjacent to the Buckfield/Hebron town line on Route 124, called for three house lots to be accessible by Hallie Way, a dead-end road off Route 124. The remaining 72-plus acres was listed as additional land of the subdivision located at the rear of the tract, behind the three house lots.
Planning board minutes indicate that in February 2001 Hallie Estates developer Chuck Starbird asked for written assurance from the planning board that he could sell part of that remaining 72 "plus or minus" acres to his son, Tony, who owned Lot 2 of the subdivision.
The planning board sent Starbird a letter dated March 12, 2001, signed by then planning board vice-chair Judy Berg, which advised Starbird that he could sell a portion of Lot 4 to his son without violating the town's subdivision regulations, so long as the deeded portion abutted Lot 2. The board also added "amendments need to be made to the subdivision registration to accommodate reconfiguration of the subdivision."
Additional comments in planning board minutes indicate that the reconfiguration was necessary "to prevent subdivision later."
It appeared the board and Starbird negotiated a plan, described as "Revision 1" dated April 5, 2001, in which a five-acre strip was "to be conveyed to the owner of Lot 2," making in one lot with the existing 1.5 acres in that lot.
At an April 16, 2001, meeting of the board, Starbird submitted a paper copy of "Revision 1" of the Hallie Estates subdivision. Board members initialed changes to the 1999 plan and voted to "approve the reconfigured Hallie Estates subdivision subject to revisions to mylar as written on paper copy of the subdivision plan approved by members of the planning board on April16, 2001."
A copy of "Revision 1" was later submitted to the town office and signed by four board members: Diana Dunn, Bob Lipham, Wes Ackely and Lynette Bennett, on April 24, 2001.
The paper copy of "Revision 1" was registered in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds in June of 2001.
Relevant findings of fact from the April 16, 2001, planning board meeting state: "[The board is] creating a buildable lot on the remaining land now known as Lot 4. Five acres will be added to Lot 2 owned by Tony Starbird. No further division of any lot can occur without planning board approval."
On April 17, the very next day after the planning board agreed to the conveyance of five acres from Lot 4 to Lot 2, Chuck Starbird sold Lot 4 to Lisa A. Pugh and Lisa A. Brackville. This deed was recorded on April 19, 2001, and makes specific reference to both the original subdivision plan and "Revision 1."
In the opinion of the planning board, this reference clearly indicates that Pugh and Brackville did not purchase the five-acre parcel in question along with the majority of Lot 4, as the deed references the plan to detach that five-acre piece from the lot.
Later, on May 7, 2003, Tony and Kathy Starbird sold Lot 2, apparently now minus the transferred five acres, directly to Jesse G. Richter and Angela Cobisi. The deed for 1.5 acres makes reference to the original 1999 Hallie Estates subdivision plan (recorded as #3245), but not to "Revision 1" of that plan, in which the five acres were to be conveyed to Lot 2.
When contacted, Richter did not seem to believe that the extra acreage belonged to him.
"I never paid for it," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, that's Tony's."
There seems to be a question of whether the transfer of the five-acre piece from Chuck Starbird to Tony Starbird ever took place, and whether "Revision 1" was ever filed with the Oxford County Registry of Deeds.
"Has anyone contacted the landowners to see how they feel?" asked Berg.
Ackley replied that both former landowners indeed had been contacted.
"Tony did not seem to understand the problem," said Ackely. "and calls to Chuck have gone unanswered."
"Is it possible that Tony failed to record his deed?" asked Berg.
"He was asked about the deed," replied Ackley, before concluding, "He was non-committal.
"It was not apparent until this spring when tax bills went out," commented Ackely, referring to how Dunn discovered the issue of the five acres that never got attached to Lot 2.
"Somewhere along the line she realized that she did not have records of that land changing hands," Ackley said.
"Did she tax anyone for the land?" asked Berg.
"She taxed Tony," answered Ackley, "and Tony paid the taxes."
When questioned, Ackley was non-committal himself regarding how having been taxed for the land might affect ownership.
"It is possible that someone who is not going to end up owning it may have been paying taxes on it," he concluded.
There was no comment on whether this might lead to an abatement of some kind. Would taxing Starbird separately for the five-acre parcel after Lot 2 had been sold indicate some tacit approval of the town that this parcel was not a separate lot?
"No, I don't think so," said Ackely. "The fact that someone has paid taxes on a piece of land for years has no direct legal bearing on the ownership of that land.
"It's floating right now," continued Ackley, in referring to the five-acre parcel. "Maybe it could be argued to belong to Lot 4, but it is shown on the filed subdivision plan as being intended to be conveyed with Lot 2. That's how it exists on our records. That was the clear understanding with which we all left that [April 16, 2001] meeting."
Ackley does not believe that Starbird can retain ownership of the five-acre parcel.
"He has got to, we were very clear that we did not want any more lots being created within that land that had been part of the original study of the subdivision at the time. We have not reviewed the soil or wetlands down there.
"I would suppose that various things are possible, but he would first have to clear the slate. I doubt that he could come back and call that Lot 5. I think the planning board would simply say, 'No.' We have really got the runaround on this. I really do not see that as a possibility.
"Whether he actually created another lot in this case is questionable," Ackley continued. "On paper it is not a numbered lot. He has created an undesignated piece, which potentially can create a problem. It is not a huge alarm. It's just a problem that has to be solved.
Ackely identified the root of the problem as having been the planning board's willingness to accommodate Chuck Starbird, who had indicated a pressing need to get the changes approved as quickly as possible.
"The deed was not present and maybe that's the lesson to us," he said. "There was pressure there as he [Chuck Starbird] was saying, 'I've got to close on the property tomorrow,' although the idea had been there in place for a couple of months beforehand.
"Maybe as we do more of these transactions all related land transactions which are part of the subdivision should have to be in place before the planning board signs off on it.
"From the time one gets on a planning board it is a real learning process," Ackley continued. "Each time we do one of these subdivisions we get a little more knowledgeable."
Ackley also commented that subdivision issues have multiplied in frequency in recent years. He estimates that Buckfield has seen fewer than a dozen subdivisions in the last 20 years, although there have been three in the last three years alone.
Ackley has sent a letter to Tony Starbird seeking to clarify the status of the five-acre piece, which apparently is in limbo, and indicating that it needs to be combined with Lot 2 or Lot 4 to comply with the order in "Revision 1" that there be no further subdivision.
"The town is first asking him to make clear whether or not he conveyed the property. We are simply trying to get him to contact the town to state where he thinks the ownership of the property is at this point."
Just before concluding the latest planning board meeting, Ackley summed up the situation succinctly regarding the disputed five-acre parcel.
"It will take legal minds to sort it out," he said, "but it has to belong to one of them."
Neither Chuck nor Tony Starbird cold be reached for comment.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Special town meeting to deal with auto graveyards
BUCKFIELD — The most recent meeting of the Buckfield Board of Selectmen was dominated by intense, and sometimes heated, debate over the issue of automobile graveyards.
Selectmen had set that meeting as the final deadline for the removal of violations from three properties previously cited as being in violation of state law.
Although none of the property owners — Roger "Pud" Bennett, James Bishop, or Allen Young — were present at the meeting, that did not stop their supporters from arguing the issue on their behalf.
Opposing these proponents of personal freedom and property rights, an equal number of citizens were just as vocal in expressing their support of personal responsibility and the efforts of municipal officials to clean up the offending properties.
However, since the February 3 deadline had passed, and selectmen felt that enough tries had been made to bring the properties into compliance with the regulations, selectmen scheduled the next step in the ongoing process.
"We are going to a special town meeting to seek legal fees to pursue this, to seek legal action on these illegal graveyards. That is my intention," said Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley.
Because a high turnout is expected at that special town meeting, it has been scheduled to take place at 7 p.m. on Thursday, March 4, in the cafeteria of the Buckfield Junior/Senior High School.
Town Manager Cynthia M. Dunn expects that a warrant at the March 4 meeting will ask townspeople to approve drawing $10,000 from the town's general fund in order to pursue legal action against the three property owners cited. She reported that the town's attorney, Geoffrey Hole, had estimated a cost of more than $2,000 per case, should any of them go to court. Dunn asserted that as the money is to be taken from Buckfield's general fund there would be no appreciable impact on taxpayers or their mill rates, although the money would not be available for other purposes.
Still, it has been made clear that the town will need the warrant passed if there is to be any hope of effectively pursuing enforcement action against the alleged automobile graveyards. As such, those in favor of the town's efforts to enforce state law on the matter were urged to attend the special town meeting. By the same token, those who believe that property owners should be left alone to manage their land as they see fit are expected to turn out in force in an attempt to block Buckfield's ability to take any meaningful legal action.
Both camps were evident at the selectmen's meeting where legal action was declared the only viable option.
That meeting started out innocuously enough, as Dunn re-opened discussion of the issue by reviewing actions that had taken place to date at the various properties.
However, tempers soon grew heated, prompting Selectman Oscar Gammon to suspend the proceedings at one point to address the use of offensive language.
Dunn stated that Bennett claimed to have registered a sufficient number of vehicles on his property, located at 17 Depot St., so that he may no longer be declared an automobile graveyard under the state's definition.
That definition reads, in part, "an outdoor area used to store three or more unregistered or uninspected motor vehicles."
"I do not have proof of these registrations, whereas Mr. Bennett has to file an SR-22," Dunn said, referring to a form requiring those with certain driving infractions to insure their license.
"He can only pay excise here in town and then he has to proceed to a branch office such as Mexico or Lewiston to finish the transaction," she continued.
"So, bottom line, he done not come into compliance," concluded Stanley.
Town resident Judy Berg attempted to defuse the situation by stating that he had previously offered to allow Bennett to store two of his vehicles in a field on her property.
"That would be great. That would bring him into compliance," said Stanley, with a grin. "Now if you could help Mr. Bishop out, you could put in for a graveyard permit [and] we'd be all set."
Regarding the Bishop property at 10 Depot St., Dunn said that Bishop had been into the town office earlier that same day to register most of his vehicles.
Stanley inquired if these vehicles had yes been inspected. "Therefore, he is not in compliance," Stanley concluded, when Dunn said that they had bot been inspected. When deciding whether vehicles by state law need to be registered "and" inspected, or else registered "or" inspected, Dunn admitted that this may impact the town's ability to have the properties cleaned up.
"That little word raises a lot of questions," she commented.
However, both the town's attorney and the Maine Municipal Association are purported by Dunn to support an interpretation that the law's intent is for a sufficient number o vehicles stored on a property to be both registered and inspected.
Of primary concern to many people present at the meeting was not so much the state of their neighbor's properties, but the perception that municipal officers had singled out certain persons for enforcement.
"It does trouble me that there is selective enforcement in this town," interjected Berg. "There are lots of people who have more than two unregistered vehicles. You have to ask [yourselves] why you sent them [enforcement letters] to certain people."
"I think, Judy, that you, of all people, are well aware that we have been trying to deal with this for a long time," replied Stanley. "We've got to start somewhere, right?"
Dunn stated that information on the new state definition of automobile graveyards, signed into law in May 2003, was included in a newsletter sent with all tax bills in October. This was done in hopes that property owners would bring themselves into voluntary compliance with the revised law.
Subsequently, selectmen have chosen to begin enforcing the law beginning with those properties on which they had received the most citizen complaints.
This was not enough to placate some citizens at the meeting who still expressed a belief that only certain property owners were singled out for enforcement.
"If you are going to enforce this, you should've sent out letter to everyone at once," said an audience member, referring to letters that were sent to Bennett, Bishop and Young in November.
At this Stanley apologized, saying that the town only had the resources to pursue a limited number of cases at a time. Certain audience members visibly took little solace in this, even after Stanley's assertions that "all violators" in Buckfield would be brought into compliance eventually.
Michael Miclon, owner of the Oddfellow Theater located in the heart of Buckfield Village, rose, among others, in support of Buckfield's municipal officers.
"I don't want to take away anyone's personal privacy," he said, "because I want it for myself. But when an article in the Advertiser refers to Buckfield as 'Junkfield,' that hurts me.
"And it's not just as a business owner, because it's not all about dollars and cents for me. Buckfield is a good town, a good community. That's why I continue to live here. That's why I have my business here. That's why I am raising my family here. But these properties, and I am speaking primarily about the ones on Depot Street, they are not safe."
Miclon then raised questions regarding personal safety and environmental concerns relating to the Bishop and Bennett properties, including a tangent on the plumbing and possible code violations on the Bennett property in particular. He also recounted comments from his patrons, whom he quoted as lamenting the degradation in recent years of the Buckfield community.
This prompted a response from Charlie Berg, who normally operated the audi-visual equipment that records selectmen's meetings. He came out from behind his camera in a spirited defense of Bennett, recounting Bennett's military experiences transporting cordite in Cambodia.
"I doubt any of you know the smell of cordite," he chastised. "I know a lot of people that came back from there [as] wrecked me, and it's no different for him," said Berg.
Berg then offered his opinion that Bennett had come a long way toward recovery in recent years, before addressing Miclon and others in the audience directly.
"But how many of you have been over to shake his hand, to introduce yourselves? Who has offered to help him out in any way? Where is your sense of community then?"
However, despite the sparring over Bennett's property and personal habits, most of the fireworks were set off by supporters of Allen Young.
In attendance were Young's son, Allen, and his son-in-law, Joe Brickel. Both men attempted variously throughout the evening to argue Young's personal property rights and to build a case for his qualifying exemptions as a hobbyist.
Brickel estimated that Young had some 20 vehicles on his lot, but expressed indignation that the town should be bothering Young when "they're not even visible from the road."
He also grew particularly incensed when Dunn admitted that, in her role as Bickfield's code enforcement officer, she had taken a "walk through the woods" in order to inspect the posted property.
"So, you were trespassing!"" he exclaimed several times, rising from his chair.
Dunn read from Maine statutes quoting passages that supported her ability to enforce the law, prompting Brickel toward further outbursts when she refused to name the anonymous sources who had complained to her about the property.
Meanwhile, Stanley quoted other passages in the statutes regarding exemptions to automobile graveyard permits.
Brickel said that Young had "plans" for all of the vehicles on the property, but had not been able to act upon those plans due to health reasons.
Young's son reported that these health issues had driven his father out of business. He claimed that Young, upon closing his garage, had been assured by Gordon Carroll, a state inspector, that he could be able to park his remaining inventory on his property until such time as he could dispose of them all.
Because Young planned to work on the vehicles when his health improved, Brickel claimed that made him eligible for a hobbyist exemption. Brickel was forced to admit however that no work had been done on the vehicles since they had been brought to the property several years previously.
Gammon then concluded that Young could not claim exemptions for actions he is not actively engaged in.
"If he doesn't show any plans of immediately being a hobbyist, in the meantime he's in violation," he stated, with frankness.
Brickel continued to engage both selectmen and Dunn in verbal sparring matches throughout the evening, forcefully rebutting every legal point made with assertions of privacy violations.
He occasionally turned to others in the audience in an effort to make his case, attempting to persuade them that Buckfield's municipal officers would not be content until they had control over the smallest details of everyone's property.
That tactic seemed to backfire on him at one point when Richard Piper rose to address environmental concerns. Piper said that he was a local farmer and that "my property sits on an aquifer, and I'm downhill from you."
Brickel berated Piper, disavowing the possibility that vehicles on Young's property posed any significant threat. He then attempted to turn the tables by addressing the effect of Piper's farm on the environment. The exchange escalated until Gammon stepped in to referee.
Throughout the debate, Stanley continually tried to bring the conversation back to resolutions, rather tan linger in confrontation.
He alluded to the fact that Young's property, unlike those of Bennett and Bishop, which lack sufficient setbacks, could qualify for a graveyard permit.
"I'm trying to work with you here," said Stanley. "Are there no family members that can help him pop gas tanks and bring him into compliance as a salvage yard that we can permit the guy with until his health is better and he can go back to being a hobbyist?"
When none in Young's family displayed any willingness toward making such a commitment, Dunn interjected.
"If it's about the money, I will give him $50 for the permit myself," she offered.
This offer was declined, as was Stanley's offer of more time. Young's family then left, stating that they preferred to await the outcome of the special town meeting.
Selectmen had set that meeting as the final deadline for the removal of violations from three properties previously cited as being in violation of state law.
Although none of the property owners — Roger "Pud" Bennett, James Bishop, or Allen Young — were present at the meeting, that did not stop their supporters from arguing the issue on their behalf.
Opposing these proponents of personal freedom and property rights, an equal number of citizens were just as vocal in expressing their support of personal responsibility and the efforts of municipal officials to clean up the offending properties.
However, since the February 3 deadline had passed, and selectmen felt that enough tries had been made to bring the properties into compliance with the regulations, selectmen scheduled the next step in the ongoing process.
"We are going to a special town meeting to seek legal fees to pursue this, to seek legal action on these illegal graveyards. That is my intention," said Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley.
Because a high turnout is expected at that special town meeting, it has been scheduled to take place at 7 p.m. on Thursday, March 4, in the cafeteria of the Buckfield Junior/Senior High School.
Town Manager Cynthia M. Dunn expects that a warrant at the March 4 meeting will ask townspeople to approve drawing $10,000 from the town's general fund in order to pursue legal action against the three property owners cited. She reported that the town's attorney, Geoffrey Hole, had estimated a cost of more than $2,000 per case, should any of them go to court. Dunn asserted that as the money is to be taken from Buckfield's general fund there would be no appreciable impact on taxpayers or their mill rates, although the money would not be available for other purposes.
Still, it has been made clear that the town will need the warrant passed if there is to be any hope of effectively pursuing enforcement action against the alleged automobile graveyards. As such, those in favor of the town's efforts to enforce state law on the matter were urged to attend the special town meeting. By the same token, those who believe that property owners should be left alone to manage their land as they see fit are expected to turn out in force in an attempt to block Buckfield's ability to take any meaningful legal action.
Both camps were evident at the selectmen's meeting where legal action was declared the only viable option.
That meeting started out innocuously enough, as Dunn re-opened discussion of the issue by reviewing actions that had taken place to date at the various properties.
However, tempers soon grew heated, prompting Selectman Oscar Gammon to suspend the proceedings at one point to address the use of offensive language.
Dunn stated that Bennett claimed to have registered a sufficient number of vehicles on his property, located at 17 Depot St., so that he may no longer be declared an automobile graveyard under the state's definition.
That definition reads, in part, "an outdoor area used to store three or more unregistered or uninspected motor vehicles."
"I do not have proof of these registrations, whereas Mr. Bennett has to file an SR-22," Dunn said, referring to a form requiring those with certain driving infractions to insure their license.
"He can only pay excise here in town and then he has to proceed to a branch office such as Mexico or Lewiston to finish the transaction," she continued.
"So, bottom line, he done not come into compliance," concluded Stanley.
Town resident Judy Berg attempted to defuse the situation by stating that he had previously offered to allow Bennett to store two of his vehicles in a field on her property.
"That would be great. That would bring him into compliance," said Stanley, with a grin. "Now if you could help Mr. Bishop out, you could put in for a graveyard permit [and] we'd be all set."
Regarding the Bishop property at 10 Depot St., Dunn said that Bishop had been into the town office earlier that same day to register most of his vehicles.
Stanley inquired if these vehicles had yes been inspected. "Therefore, he is not in compliance," Stanley concluded, when Dunn said that they had bot been inspected. When deciding whether vehicles by state law need to be registered "and" inspected, or else registered "or" inspected, Dunn admitted that this may impact the town's ability to have the properties cleaned up.
"That little word raises a lot of questions," she commented.
However, both the town's attorney and the Maine Municipal Association are purported by Dunn to support an interpretation that the law's intent is for a sufficient number o vehicles stored on a property to be both registered and inspected.
Of primary concern to many people present at the meeting was not so much the state of their neighbor's properties, but the perception that municipal officers had singled out certain persons for enforcement.
"It does trouble me that there is selective enforcement in this town," interjected Berg. "There are lots of people who have more than two unregistered vehicles. You have to ask [yourselves] why you sent them [enforcement letters] to certain people."
"I think, Judy, that you, of all people, are well aware that we have been trying to deal with this for a long time," replied Stanley. "We've got to start somewhere, right?"
Dunn stated that information on the new state definition of automobile graveyards, signed into law in May 2003, was included in a newsletter sent with all tax bills in October. This was done in hopes that property owners would bring themselves into voluntary compliance with the revised law.
Subsequently, selectmen have chosen to begin enforcing the law beginning with those properties on which they had received the most citizen complaints.
This was not enough to placate some citizens at the meeting who still expressed a belief that only certain property owners were singled out for enforcement.
"If you are going to enforce this, you should've sent out letter to everyone at once," said an audience member, referring to letters that were sent to Bennett, Bishop and Young in November.
At this Stanley apologized, saying that the town only had the resources to pursue a limited number of cases at a time. Certain audience members visibly took little solace in this, even after Stanley's assertions that "all violators" in Buckfield would be brought into compliance eventually.
Michael Miclon, owner of the Oddfellow Theater located in the heart of Buckfield Village, rose, among others, in support of Buckfield's municipal officers.
"I don't want to take away anyone's personal privacy," he said, "because I want it for myself. But when an article in the Advertiser refers to Buckfield as 'Junkfield,' that hurts me.
"And it's not just as a business owner, because it's not all about dollars and cents for me. Buckfield is a good town, a good community. That's why I continue to live here. That's why I have my business here. That's why I am raising my family here. But these properties, and I am speaking primarily about the ones on Depot Street, they are not safe."
Miclon then raised questions regarding personal safety and environmental concerns relating to the Bishop and Bennett properties, including a tangent on the plumbing and possible code violations on the Bennett property in particular. He also recounted comments from his patrons, whom he quoted as lamenting the degradation in recent years of the Buckfield community.
This prompted a response from Charlie Berg, who normally operated the audi-visual equipment that records selectmen's meetings. He came out from behind his camera in a spirited defense of Bennett, recounting Bennett's military experiences transporting cordite in Cambodia.
"I doubt any of you know the smell of cordite," he chastised. "I know a lot of people that came back from there [as] wrecked me, and it's no different for him," said Berg.
Berg then offered his opinion that Bennett had come a long way toward recovery in recent years, before addressing Miclon and others in the audience directly.
"But how many of you have been over to shake his hand, to introduce yourselves? Who has offered to help him out in any way? Where is your sense of community then?"
However, despite the sparring over Bennett's property and personal habits, most of the fireworks were set off by supporters of Allen Young.
In attendance were Young's son, Allen, and his son-in-law, Joe Brickel. Both men attempted variously throughout the evening to argue Young's personal property rights and to build a case for his qualifying exemptions as a hobbyist.
Brickel estimated that Young had some 20 vehicles on his lot, but expressed indignation that the town should be bothering Young when "they're not even visible from the road."
He also grew particularly incensed when Dunn admitted that, in her role as Bickfield's code enforcement officer, she had taken a "walk through the woods" in order to inspect the posted property.
"So, you were trespassing!"" he exclaimed several times, rising from his chair.
Dunn read from Maine statutes quoting passages that supported her ability to enforce the law, prompting Brickel toward further outbursts when she refused to name the anonymous sources who had complained to her about the property.
Meanwhile, Stanley quoted other passages in the statutes regarding exemptions to automobile graveyard permits.
Brickel said that Young had "plans" for all of the vehicles on the property, but had not been able to act upon those plans due to health reasons.
Young's son reported that these health issues had driven his father out of business. He claimed that Young, upon closing his garage, had been assured by Gordon Carroll, a state inspector, that he could be able to park his remaining inventory on his property until such time as he could dispose of them all.
Because Young planned to work on the vehicles when his health improved, Brickel claimed that made him eligible for a hobbyist exemption. Brickel was forced to admit however that no work had been done on the vehicles since they had been brought to the property several years previously.
Gammon then concluded that Young could not claim exemptions for actions he is not actively engaged in.
"If he doesn't show any plans of immediately being a hobbyist, in the meantime he's in violation," he stated, with frankness.
Brickel continued to engage both selectmen and Dunn in verbal sparring matches throughout the evening, forcefully rebutting every legal point made with assertions of privacy violations.
He occasionally turned to others in the audience in an effort to make his case, attempting to persuade them that Buckfield's municipal officers would not be content until they had control over the smallest details of everyone's property.
That tactic seemed to backfire on him at one point when Richard Piper rose to address environmental concerns. Piper said that he was a local farmer and that "my property sits on an aquifer, and I'm downhill from you."
Brickel berated Piper, disavowing the possibility that vehicles on Young's property posed any significant threat. He then attempted to turn the tables by addressing the effect of Piper's farm on the environment. The exchange escalated until Gammon stepped in to referee.
Throughout the debate, Stanley continually tried to bring the conversation back to resolutions, rather tan linger in confrontation.
He alluded to the fact that Young's property, unlike those of Bennett and Bishop, which lack sufficient setbacks, could qualify for a graveyard permit.
"I'm trying to work with you here," said Stanley. "Are there no family members that can help him pop gas tanks and bring him into compliance as a salvage yard that we can permit the guy with until his health is better and he can go back to being a hobbyist?"
When none in Young's family displayed any willingness toward making such a commitment, Dunn interjected.
"If it's about the money, I will give him $50 for the permit myself," she offered.
This offer was declined, as was Stanley's offer of more time. Young's family then left, stating that they preferred to await the outcome of the special town meeting.
New Buckfield town garage nears completion
BUCKFIELD — After delays caused by heavy snowstorms, unseasonable rains and frigid temperatures, the Buckfield Board of Selectmen announced recently that construction on the town's new Highway Department Building is finally nearing completion.
It was originally hoped that the new 50-foot by 60-foot steel building, located on John Ellingwood Road, would be operational by Christmas. Now, according to Selectman Joanne Bly, the building should be ready for the Highway Department to move into "by the end of February."
In fact, work has progressed to such a point that selectmen, mindful of the smallest details on the project, debated at a recent meeting how the sign for the building should read.
"Town Garage" was the time-honored choice. However, as Selectman Oscar Gammon pointed out, it might be time to break with tradition. Some passers-by, he said, might "stop in and expect you to change a tire."
Town Manager Cindy Dunn concurred, stating that the now-closed Buckfield Garage on Route 117 had often reported receiving inquiries for town service.
Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley suggested calling the building the "Public Works Building." However, Gammon was quick to retort, "We only do highway stuff, not water or whatever." Stanley later made a motion, unanimously adopted, that the new building will be labeled as the "Buckfield Highway Department." A sign should arrive soon that will match the tan and green color scheme of the new building.
Although the road crew will begin moving in equipment as soon as possible, Dunn believes it will be "sometime this spring" when the town will hold a grand opening and open house to celebrate at the new building.
"It's huge, compared to what we had," said highway department employee Phil Savage, referring to the new garage. He estimated the size of the current town garage at 30-feet by 40-feet.
Recognizing the need to replace the old concrete building that currently serves as the town garage, the citizens of Buckfield began setting aside money in a reserve fund in 1999.
The old building, long since outgrown and filled to overflowing with equipment, had developed cracks in walls and leaks in the ceiling.
"The other building was getting old," said Savage. "There was water all over the place. We had to unhook all the juice out of the bathroom because the bathroom had so much water running down through the light socket and everything."
"Our old garage was not economically sound by way of heat," Dunn added.
Dunn reported that she and the selectmen first "got serious" about replacing the current garage in May 2001.
In November of that year an informational meeting was held at which preliminary plans were unveiled for the new town garage, a new fire station, and a walking path to wind around that complex and the municipal building.
Deemed too costly by taxpayers, the walking path was abandoned and the fire station delayed.
"I think the path is dead," Dunn confirmed.
Citizens are currently setting aside money in a new reserve fund, first established in 2000, for a future fire station project.
"The fire station is on the back burner," said Dunn. "It is something that this town is definitely going to need to look into. However, more long-term than short-term. We are going to ask voters to continue to deposit to the fire station reserve."
With the sole focus then being the town garage, selectmen enlisted the aid of an architect to draw up plans. However, voters rejected that plan when the estimate came in at $335,000. Municipal officers then re-examined the project, this time without the architect. Once the estimated cost was brought down to $200,000 voters approved the project at the annual town meeting in June 2003.
Still, there was some controversy, according to Savage.
"Everyone thought the other building was fine," he said with a shrug before concluding, "Small town."
At that 2003 town meeting, voters set a budget for the project that included $40,500 from the reserve fund previously established and $65,000 from the town's general fund. Voters also approved borrowing $94,500 to complete funding of the project.
"We intentionally reduced our summer roads projects so that people wouldn't see an increase in taxes," said Dunn.
Dunn also commended the town's employees in the Highway Department, including Savage and Phil McAlister.
"The highway crew has been outstanding!" she exclaimed. "They've done everything they can with the town's equipment that they possibly can do to save these costs."
Savage was more humble, attributing most of the savings to vagaries of the weather. He reported work weeks of 86 and 82 hours, respectively, during the heavy snowstorms of early December. However, the bitter cold of January meant no snow, and more time to devote to the building project.
"Really saved tax dollars," he said. "[Taxpayers] ain't had to pay no overtime."
Savage did list some of the work the highway department has done themselves, thus saving the town the cost of bidding various tasks out to contract.
"We put the [exhaust] fan in ourselves," he said. "We run all the pipes around ourselves so we didn't have to hire people. We did all the landscaping."
And although the building's foundation was laid by by Thomas Barker Construction of Leeds, "We dug the hole and backfilled it, did all that stuff ourselves," said Savage.
"We built the [salt] shed and put in the calcium tank," Savage concluded, referring to the town's new liquid calcium road treatment that is now being used for the second year. Last year, the treatment was only used on state roads through Buckfield. However, voters have recently voted to expand its use.
Tanks have been installed on all of the plow trucks which spray the liquid calcium onto the road salt, said Savage.
"Salt's only good to 24 degrees, anything below 24 degrees, the salt stops working. This makes the salt work to 30 below zero," he said.
"The salt shed and liquid calcium depot came from the winter budget," said Dunn, making clear that the is was not included in the $200,000 budget for the new town garage. However, additional savings in money and time were had as the actual work was incorporated into the new town garage project.
This also now puts all of Buckfield's highway department facilities on one site, with the exception of sand.
"We have our own screening plant and everything," said Savage, referring to the gravel pit in North Buckfield. "We screen our own sand."
Due to space limitations in the current town garage, much of the town's fleet was scattered in various locations. This inventory includes three plow truck/sanders, one grader, two bucket loaders, a backhoe, a wheeler (described as a dump truck without a plow mechanism), plus a one-ton pickup and a 4x4.
Within the fenced in grounds of the new town garage is an older building soon to be vacated by C. F. Well.
Use of that building will allow highway workers to store off-season equipment on the same property, leaving room in the new building for a safe working environment when conducting maintenance on the in-season vehicles.
The new facility has also been given room to grow, something that would not have been possible with the old garage, even if its use had been continued.
"When we planned the site — laid the site out, if you will — we knew we wanted a 50-by-60 building at this point in time," said Dunn. "However, we wanted to plan ahead, so that if and when the day ever came that Buckfield ever needed to add on another two trucks or whatever, of course we would need another bay, so we intentionally reserved another 25 feet on the east side of the building."
With the new town garage project approved in June, the town solicited bids and hired Eric Grondhl of Professional Design Engineering, Inc.
"State law dictates that an municipal project over $100,000 must have an engineer [to] sign and stamp and seal the plans," said Dunn.
"We did not receive any local bidders," Dunn said, even though selectmen would have preferred to keep as much of the work as local as possible. Dunn explained the lack of local bids as being due to the fact that, "It's been a very busy year for contractors."
Essex Structural Steel Co. of New York won the bid for constructing the building to be used while Midstate Steel Erectors of Reedfield put it together on site.
After the foundation was begin in October, other contractors hired to the project began work. These included: EA Burns Fencing of Westbrook, who installed the compound's security fence, PDQ Door Co. of Bath, who installed the overhead bay doors, and Murray Oil Co., who installed the furnace and heating systems.
Brad Barker of Leeds was hired to complete the interior carpentry. Moelco Electrical of Jay and Pete the Plumber from Turner were hired to complete work in their respective fields.
Regarding the budget, Dunn believes the town may exceed the $200,000 allowed, despite the best efforts of Savage and McAlister to keep costs down.
"We haven't spent all of the money as yet. I think we are going to run a little short," she said, before continuing, "I won't know that for sure until spring, when I can get a paving contractor up there to see how much it is going to be to pave the site."
With costs expected to exceed the budget, some additional work has been postponed. A new workbench for the garage was estimated at $1,250. Warrants for this and other additional costs are expected to be included on the agenda for Buckfield's next annual town meeting in June 2004.
It was originally hoped that the new 50-foot by 60-foot steel building, located on John Ellingwood Road, would be operational by Christmas. Now, according to Selectman Joanne Bly, the building should be ready for the Highway Department to move into "by the end of February."
In fact, work has progressed to such a point that selectmen, mindful of the smallest details on the project, debated at a recent meeting how the sign for the building should read.
"Town Garage" was the time-honored choice. However, as Selectman Oscar Gammon pointed out, it might be time to break with tradition. Some passers-by, he said, might "stop in and expect you to change a tire."
Town Manager Cindy Dunn concurred, stating that the now-closed Buckfield Garage on Route 117 had often reported receiving inquiries for town service.
Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley suggested calling the building the "Public Works Building." However, Gammon was quick to retort, "We only do highway stuff, not water or whatever." Stanley later made a motion, unanimously adopted, that the new building will be labeled as the "Buckfield Highway Department." A sign should arrive soon that will match the tan and green color scheme of the new building.
Although the road crew will begin moving in equipment as soon as possible, Dunn believes it will be "sometime this spring" when the town will hold a grand opening and open house to celebrate at the new building.
"It's huge, compared to what we had," said highway department employee Phil Savage, referring to the new garage. He estimated the size of the current town garage at 30-feet by 40-feet.
Recognizing the need to replace the old concrete building that currently serves as the town garage, the citizens of Buckfield began setting aside money in a reserve fund in 1999.
The old building, long since outgrown and filled to overflowing with equipment, had developed cracks in walls and leaks in the ceiling.
"The other building was getting old," said Savage. "There was water all over the place. We had to unhook all the juice out of the bathroom because the bathroom had so much water running down through the light socket and everything."
"Our old garage was not economically sound by way of heat," Dunn added.
Dunn reported that she and the selectmen first "got serious" about replacing the current garage in May 2001.
In November of that year an informational meeting was held at which preliminary plans were unveiled for the new town garage, a new fire station, and a walking path to wind around that complex and the municipal building.
Deemed too costly by taxpayers, the walking path was abandoned and the fire station delayed.
"I think the path is dead," Dunn confirmed.
Citizens are currently setting aside money in a new reserve fund, first established in 2000, for a future fire station project.
"The fire station is on the back burner," said Dunn. "It is something that this town is definitely going to need to look into. However, more long-term than short-term. We are going to ask voters to continue to deposit to the fire station reserve."
With the sole focus then being the town garage, selectmen enlisted the aid of an architect to draw up plans. However, voters rejected that plan when the estimate came in at $335,000. Municipal officers then re-examined the project, this time without the architect. Once the estimated cost was brought down to $200,000 voters approved the project at the annual town meeting in June 2003.
Still, there was some controversy, according to Savage.
"Everyone thought the other building was fine," he said with a shrug before concluding, "Small town."
At that 2003 town meeting, voters set a budget for the project that included $40,500 from the reserve fund previously established and $65,000 from the town's general fund. Voters also approved borrowing $94,500 to complete funding of the project.
"We intentionally reduced our summer roads projects so that people wouldn't see an increase in taxes," said Dunn.
Dunn also commended the town's employees in the Highway Department, including Savage and Phil McAlister.
"The highway crew has been outstanding!" she exclaimed. "They've done everything they can with the town's equipment that they possibly can do to save these costs."
Savage was more humble, attributing most of the savings to vagaries of the weather. He reported work weeks of 86 and 82 hours, respectively, during the heavy snowstorms of early December. However, the bitter cold of January meant no snow, and more time to devote to the building project.
"Really saved tax dollars," he said. "[Taxpayers] ain't had to pay no overtime."
Savage did list some of the work the highway department has done themselves, thus saving the town the cost of bidding various tasks out to contract.
"We put the [exhaust] fan in ourselves," he said. "We run all the pipes around ourselves so we didn't have to hire people. We did all the landscaping."
And although the building's foundation was laid by by Thomas Barker Construction of Leeds, "We dug the hole and backfilled it, did all that stuff ourselves," said Savage.
"We built the [salt] shed and put in the calcium tank," Savage concluded, referring to the town's new liquid calcium road treatment that is now being used for the second year. Last year, the treatment was only used on state roads through Buckfield. However, voters have recently voted to expand its use.
Tanks have been installed on all of the plow trucks which spray the liquid calcium onto the road salt, said Savage.
"Salt's only good to 24 degrees, anything below 24 degrees, the salt stops working. This makes the salt work to 30 below zero," he said.
"The salt shed and liquid calcium depot came from the winter budget," said Dunn, making clear that the is was not included in the $200,000 budget for the new town garage. However, additional savings in money and time were had as the actual work was incorporated into the new town garage project.
This also now puts all of Buckfield's highway department facilities on one site, with the exception of sand.
"We have our own screening plant and everything," said Savage, referring to the gravel pit in North Buckfield. "We screen our own sand."
Due to space limitations in the current town garage, much of the town's fleet was scattered in various locations. This inventory includes three plow truck/sanders, one grader, two bucket loaders, a backhoe, a wheeler (described as a dump truck without a plow mechanism), plus a one-ton pickup and a 4x4.
Within the fenced in grounds of the new town garage is an older building soon to be vacated by C. F. Well.
Use of that building will allow highway workers to store off-season equipment on the same property, leaving room in the new building for a safe working environment when conducting maintenance on the in-season vehicles.
The new facility has also been given room to grow, something that would not have been possible with the old garage, even if its use had been continued.
"When we planned the site — laid the site out, if you will — we knew we wanted a 50-by-60 building at this point in time," said Dunn. "However, we wanted to plan ahead, so that if and when the day ever came that Buckfield ever needed to add on another two trucks or whatever, of course we would need another bay, so we intentionally reserved another 25 feet on the east side of the building."
With the new town garage project approved in June, the town solicited bids and hired Eric Grondhl of Professional Design Engineering, Inc.
"State law dictates that an municipal project over $100,000 must have an engineer [to] sign and stamp and seal the plans," said Dunn.
"We did not receive any local bidders," Dunn said, even though selectmen would have preferred to keep as much of the work as local as possible. Dunn explained the lack of local bids as being due to the fact that, "It's been a very busy year for contractors."
Essex Structural Steel Co. of New York won the bid for constructing the building to be used while Midstate Steel Erectors of Reedfield put it together on site.
After the foundation was begin in October, other contractors hired to the project began work. These included: EA Burns Fencing of Westbrook, who installed the compound's security fence, PDQ Door Co. of Bath, who installed the overhead bay doors, and Murray Oil Co., who installed the furnace and heating systems.
Brad Barker of Leeds was hired to complete the interior carpentry. Moelco Electrical of Jay and Pete the Plumber from Turner were hired to complete work in their respective fields.
Regarding the budget, Dunn believes the town may exceed the $200,000 allowed, despite the best efforts of Savage and McAlister to keep costs down.
"We haven't spent all of the money as yet. I think we are going to run a little short," she said, before continuing, "I won't know that for sure until spring, when I can get a paving contractor up there to see how much it is going to be to pave the site."
With costs expected to exceed the budget, some additional work has been postponed. A new workbench for the garage was estimated at $1,250. Warrants for this and other additional costs are expected to be included on the agenda for Buckfield's next annual town meeting in June 2004.
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Buckield, Sumner to meet with state education boss
BUCKFIELD — With concern mounting over escalating budgets in SAD 39, the Buckfield Board of Selectmen has decided to call a special meeting so they can attend a regularly scheduled meeting of the Sumner Board of Selectmen. That meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, February 24, at the Bisbee-Dyer Municipal Center in Sumner.
Both SAD 39 Superintendent William Shuttleworth and Maine Commissioner of Education Susan Gendron will be in attendance to answer questions from selectmen and the public regarding education costs.
"I think all of us that possibly can, should attend that," said Buckfield Selectman Oscar Gammon. "I would hope that the school board would be there too, but I think that it's important that the selectmen show up to these meetings."
Buckfield Town Manager Cynthia Dunn plans to post a public notice of the meeting because state law in MRSA Title-1, Chapter 13 dictates that such notice be given "if proceedings are a meeting of a body or agency consisting of three or more persons."
According to Dunn, as all three of Buckfield's selectmen — Lawrence "Skip" Stanley, Joanne Bly, and Gammon — plan to attend the Sumner selectmen's meeting, that constitutes a special meeting of the Buckfield board.
The agenda for the Sumner meeting stems directly from a December 30, 2003, letter sent to Shuttleworth by the Sumner selectmen.
That letter read, in part, "We believe that our school budget must reflect the financial realities of our towns. Therefore, we request that you hold the school budget to its present level for at least the next three years."
A copy of this letter was sent to the Buckfield selectmen, along with a request that they sign their copy and forward it to the school district.
"This letter will be more effective if it is submitted by all three towns in SAD 39," and accompanying letter addressed directly to the Buckfield selectmen said.
At their regular meeting of January 6, the Buckfield selectmen considered both letters and declined to sign the one addressed to the school district.
Selectman Bly commented at the time that the actions of the Sumner board were "inappropriate" given that they had not consulted with the Buckfield selectmen before printing and distributing the letters.
Superintendent Shuttleworth was in attendance at the January 6 meeting of the Buckfield selectmen, just as he had also recently attended a meeting of the Sumner selectmen in response to the letter they were circulating. He commented that the SAD 39 budget was already "bare-bones — to a point were it is interfering with the quality of education."
He also cited statistics showing that SAD 39's annual per pupil cost to be $600 below the state average and that, despite this, SAD 39 currently ranks within the Top 10 percent in school performance in the state of Maine.
Shuttleworth further started that a three-year cap on spending would be virtually impossible because the upcoming budget will include at least a $253,000 increase in obligations, including teacher's contracts, as well as increases in the costs of liability insurance, health insurance, and heating oil.
Suttleworth laid the blame for SAD 39's perennial budget increases squarely on the state legislature.
"The state is currently only paying 44 percent of its 55 percent school funding obligation," he said. "If the state paid 55 percent, SAD 39 budgets would have only slight increases, if any."
Gammon agreed that the voters of Maine, "need to take all necessary steps" in mandating that the state meet its 55 percent funding obligation to the school districts.
However, Chairman Stanley appeared less sympathetic, while agreeing that the three-year freeze on any budget increase, as requested by the Sumner selectmen, was "probably unrealistic," he did decline to allow Shuttleworth a free pass on personal culpability for increasing budgets.
"The [school] district needs to be aware that it is being watched by the selectmen and the people of the community," he asserted. "The selectmen are always looking at ways to cut as much as possible from the budget and still maintain an appropriate level of service. The district needs to make the same good faith effort.
"Buckfield realizes that the [school] district's hands are tied when it comes to mandated costs," he continued. "However, I strongly believe the district can look at other areas for possible budget reductions. The people are up to their necks with taxes."
With neither the selectmen of Sumner nor Buckfield fully satisfied with the results of their respective meetings with Shuttleworth, the Sumner selectmen — including Clifford McNeil, Tom Standard and Chairman Mark Silber — began looking for other outlets at which to vent their frustrations. It was decided that, if possible, a meeting with Maine Commissioner of Education Susan Gendron should be sought.
Silber explained Sumner's reasons for seeing the meeting:
"The purpose of the meeting is to explain why we wrote the letter asking for a stasis of funding in education. In other words, we don't want it to go up in the next couple of years because we as a town are feeling an incredibly high burden. Because [of this] we can't maintain roads. We don't have a tax base.
"We just want to explain to her connections between high educational budgets, mandates that the state puts on towns and school districts, and the connection between that and local taxes."
Whether the reasons for the spiraling costs of SAD 39 lay with the towns, the school administrators, or the state, Buckfield's selectmen hope to get some answers by attending the upcoming meeting in Sumner.
Despite declining to sign the letter Sumner's selectmen circulated asking for a three-year budget freeze, Chairman Stanley said, "I appreciate their frustration and understand where they are going."
Both SAD 39 Superintendent William Shuttleworth and Maine Commissioner of Education Susan Gendron will be in attendance to answer questions from selectmen and the public regarding education costs.
"I think all of us that possibly can, should attend that," said Buckfield Selectman Oscar Gammon. "I would hope that the school board would be there too, but I think that it's important that the selectmen show up to these meetings."
Buckfield Town Manager Cynthia Dunn plans to post a public notice of the meeting because state law in MRSA Title-1, Chapter 13 dictates that such notice be given "if proceedings are a meeting of a body or agency consisting of three or more persons."
According to Dunn, as all three of Buckfield's selectmen — Lawrence "Skip" Stanley, Joanne Bly, and Gammon — plan to attend the Sumner selectmen's meeting, that constitutes a special meeting of the Buckfield board.
The agenda for the Sumner meeting stems directly from a December 30, 2003, letter sent to Shuttleworth by the Sumner selectmen.
That letter read, in part, "We believe that our school budget must reflect the financial realities of our towns. Therefore, we request that you hold the school budget to its present level for at least the next three years."
A copy of this letter was sent to the Buckfield selectmen, along with a request that they sign their copy and forward it to the school district.
"This letter will be more effective if it is submitted by all three towns in SAD 39," and accompanying letter addressed directly to the Buckfield selectmen said.
At their regular meeting of January 6, the Buckfield selectmen considered both letters and declined to sign the one addressed to the school district.
Selectman Bly commented at the time that the actions of the Sumner board were "inappropriate" given that they had not consulted with the Buckfield selectmen before printing and distributing the letters.
Superintendent Shuttleworth was in attendance at the January 6 meeting of the Buckfield selectmen, just as he had also recently attended a meeting of the Sumner selectmen in response to the letter they were circulating. He commented that the SAD 39 budget was already "bare-bones — to a point were it is interfering with the quality of education."
He also cited statistics showing that SAD 39's annual per pupil cost to be $600 below the state average and that, despite this, SAD 39 currently ranks within the Top 10 percent in school performance in the state of Maine.
Shuttleworth further started that a three-year cap on spending would be virtually impossible because the upcoming budget will include at least a $253,000 increase in obligations, including teacher's contracts, as well as increases in the costs of liability insurance, health insurance, and heating oil.
Suttleworth laid the blame for SAD 39's perennial budget increases squarely on the state legislature.
"The state is currently only paying 44 percent of its 55 percent school funding obligation," he said. "If the state paid 55 percent, SAD 39 budgets would have only slight increases, if any."
Gammon agreed that the voters of Maine, "need to take all necessary steps" in mandating that the state meet its 55 percent funding obligation to the school districts.
However, Chairman Stanley appeared less sympathetic, while agreeing that the three-year freeze on any budget increase, as requested by the Sumner selectmen, was "probably unrealistic," he did decline to allow Shuttleworth a free pass on personal culpability for increasing budgets.
"The [school] district needs to be aware that it is being watched by the selectmen and the people of the community," he asserted. "The selectmen are always looking at ways to cut as much as possible from the budget and still maintain an appropriate level of service. The district needs to make the same good faith effort.
"Buckfield realizes that the [school] district's hands are tied when it comes to mandated costs," he continued. "However, I strongly believe the district can look at other areas for possible budget reductions. The people are up to their necks with taxes."
With neither the selectmen of Sumner nor Buckfield fully satisfied with the results of their respective meetings with Shuttleworth, the Sumner selectmen — including Clifford McNeil, Tom Standard and Chairman Mark Silber — began looking for other outlets at which to vent their frustrations. It was decided that, if possible, a meeting with Maine Commissioner of Education Susan Gendron should be sought.
Silber explained Sumner's reasons for seeing the meeting:
"The purpose of the meeting is to explain why we wrote the letter asking for a stasis of funding in education. In other words, we don't want it to go up in the next couple of years because we as a town are feeling an incredibly high burden. Because [of this] we can't maintain roads. We don't have a tax base.
"We just want to explain to her connections between high educational budgets, mandates that the state puts on towns and school districts, and the connection between that and local taxes."
Whether the reasons for the spiraling costs of SAD 39 lay with the towns, the school administrators, or the state, Buckfield's selectmen hope to get some answers by attending the upcoming meeting in Sumner.
Despite declining to sign the letter Sumner's selectmen circulated asking for a three-year budget freeze, Chairman Stanley said, "I appreciate their frustration and understand where they are going."
Buckfield selectmen find unique means for making appointments
BUCKFIELD — What do you do when you have to highly qualified, quality candidates and only one open position to offer them?
Buckfield selectmen experienced that dilemma at their regular meeting on February 3 when they tried to fill a vacant position on the planning board.
The opening became available when planning board member Warren Wright tendered his resignation, which the selectmen accepted "with regret" at their meeting on January 20.
Town Manager Cynthia Dunn subsequently posted the position vacancy, seeking a citizen to fill out Wright's term, which will end in June 2005.
Two applications were received, one from Roberta Hill, the other from Richard Piper.
Hill was unable to attend the meeting due to family commitments, however current planning board member Margot Siekman did speak on her behalf.
"I've known here for four or five years now," said Siekman. "She has been in environmental education and land use planning for all of her career, which is probably about 15 years now."
"I have used her in [answering] questions that I have had from the planning board many times, whenever questions come up about land use, or that involve water quality, and I feel that I do not have the expertise [to answer].
"I feel that this is a tremendous opportunity for us to get someone on the board who really, really knows about water quality issues in regard to land use and who also is a wonderful public speaker, a good writer, and who, I think, has many, many assets and who would make a tremendous addition to the planning board.
"She is very knowledgeable in subdivision law because she has been involved in, as a consultant, in many subdivision situations where she is called in on water quality issues," Siekman added.
Piper then mentioned a few of his own qualifications.
"I've got considerable experience in a lot of things you're looking for, including I've built quite a few subdivisions in Scarborough, so I'm quite familiar with the laws," he stated. "And also I've done major highway work."
Piper also commended on his being a proponent of zoning.
"Here's an example," he said, referring to Buckfield's current ongoing troubles with illegal automobile graveyards.
"Do you see any $300,000 to $500,000 houses in Buckfield? Do you see any light industry in Buckfield? Without that kind of zoning you're not going to increase your tax base."
Selectmen reviewed both applications and found themselves at a standstill.
"You're both very much qualified. I wouldn't mind seeing both of you on there," said Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley.
"Their resumes are good," agreed Selectman Oscar Gammon. "Trouble is, we've got two instead of one."
"They are both good, fine candidates. I think they would both do a good job on that board, provide good input," said Dunn.
Feeling that both candidates were equal, and with only two selectmen present — Selectman Joanne Bly was absent — it was decided to make the decision utilizing a blind draw.
Stanley wrote both names on separate slips of paper and shook them up in his hands. After releasing them onto the table, Gammon chose one at random.
"This is how the big cities do it," joked Stanley as he unfolded the chosen slip and read the name.
And so it was that Roberta Hill was appointed to the Buckfield Planning Board.
But Buckfield citizens will not miss out on Piper's experience and willingness to serve his community because he was then appointed to fill a vacant spot on the road committee.
Buckfield selectmen experienced that dilemma at their regular meeting on February 3 when they tried to fill a vacant position on the planning board.
The opening became available when planning board member Warren Wright tendered his resignation, which the selectmen accepted "with regret" at their meeting on January 20.
Town Manager Cynthia Dunn subsequently posted the position vacancy, seeking a citizen to fill out Wright's term, which will end in June 2005.
Two applications were received, one from Roberta Hill, the other from Richard Piper.
Hill was unable to attend the meeting due to family commitments, however current planning board member Margot Siekman did speak on her behalf.
"I've known here for four or five years now," said Siekman. "She has been in environmental education and land use planning for all of her career, which is probably about 15 years now."
"I have used her in [answering] questions that I have had from the planning board many times, whenever questions come up about land use, or that involve water quality, and I feel that I do not have the expertise [to answer].
"I feel that this is a tremendous opportunity for us to get someone on the board who really, really knows about water quality issues in regard to land use and who also is a wonderful public speaker, a good writer, and who, I think, has many, many assets and who would make a tremendous addition to the planning board.
"She is very knowledgeable in subdivision law because she has been involved in, as a consultant, in many subdivision situations where she is called in on water quality issues," Siekman added.
Piper then mentioned a few of his own qualifications.
"I've got considerable experience in a lot of things you're looking for, including I've built quite a few subdivisions in Scarborough, so I'm quite familiar with the laws," he stated. "And also I've done major highway work."
Piper also commended on his being a proponent of zoning.
"Here's an example," he said, referring to Buckfield's current ongoing troubles with illegal automobile graveyards.
"Do you see any $300,000 to $500,000 houses in Buckfield? Do you see any light industry in Buckfield? Without that kind of zoning you're not going to increase your tax base."
Selectmen reviewed both applications and found themselves at a standstill.
"You're both very much qualified. I wouldn't mind seeing both of you on there," said Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley.
"Their resumes are good," agreed Selectman Oscar Gammon. "Trouble is, we've got two instead of one."
"They are both good, fine candidates. I think they would both do a good job on that board, provide good input," said Dunn.
Feeling that both candidates were equal, and with only two selectmen present — Selectman Joanne Bly was absent — it was decided to make the decision utilizing a blind draw.
Stanley wrote both names on separate slips of paper and shook them up in his hands. After releasing them onto the table, Gammon chose one at random.
"This is how the big cities do it," joked Stanley as he unfolded the chosen slip and read the name.
And so it was that Roberta Hill was appointed to the Buckfield Planning Board.
But Buckfield citizens will not miss out on Piper's experience and willingness to serve his community because he was then appointed to fill a vacant spot on the road committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)