Kittery Citizens petition to request a stop to the 900 unit development.

Kittery petition to request a Special Election for a binding referendum to change to a Kittery Town ordinance is being circulated in hopes of preventing the 900 unit development.

Due to the proposed 900 residential unit at the Kittery Business Park, the outcry of the citizens frustration have been heard by many Kittery Residents. In the coming weeks, there will be an attempt to garner just over 500 Signatures or more then enough to force the Town to call for a Special Election.

A Special Election for a binding resolution that will be requested by the people to have their voices heard and changed the ordinance that allows this proposed 900 Unit project in the Business Park. In the next few days ourkittery will post where you can sign the petition to have a special election called to change the ordinance. Volunteers are needed to help get the signatures so feel free to reach out. Email me @ stopthe900@gmail.com or through ourkittery contact page. Just over 500 signatures are needed. Must equal or exceed 10% of 4,984 (2020 Gubernatorial Vote Count) = 499

There are others circulating the petition so stay informed.

Opinion and points to ponder,

  1. 900 units and along with the previously approved 300 units a significant increase to the Town of Kittery residential housing totals. Some say over 25%
  2. Increase in public safety Police, Fire and Security issues
  3. No guarantees that the units will be sold off to other developers or even section 8 corps.
  4. Potential filling of the wet lands and or re directing of ground water.
  5. Clear Cutting trees and vegetation. Take a look to the right as you go onto I-95 from Rte 236 and Rte 1.
  6. Impact to schools, hospitals, infrastructure, traffic etc.
  7. Environmental impact, water displacement, animals, birds etc.
  8. Who is pushing this and to what expense to Kittery and the environment?

Wording:

The changes below that are being requested will be available with the petition signature page.

Pursuant to Kittery Town Charter, Section 11.02, Petition for enactment of ordinances, we the undersigned voters of the Town of Kittery herewith and hereby call for a special town election for the purpose of submitting to a binding referendum vote the
question of adopting the following ordinance: “Shall the Inhabitants of the Town of Kittery repeal Kittery Town Code Title 16, Land Use and Development, §16.3.2.10, Mixed-Use-Neighborhood, MU-N ordinance (lined out copy attached) herewith and replace with the original Business Park Zone ordinance (underlined copy attached) with immediate effect?”

EXPLANATION: The current Mixed-Use-Neighborhood zone purpose is “To encourage higher density, mixed-use development that provides increased housing opportunities and a desirable setting for business while balancing such increased development with environmentally conscious and ecologically sensitive use of land.” Because presently published plans reflect a density and type of development far greater than anyone may ever have envisioned consistent with Kittery’s Comprehensive Plan goal to maintain our historical character, reversion to the decades long plan’s intention of a business park is warranted.

As per the Town Charter

Article XI. Initiative and Referendum
§ 11.01. General authority.
(1) Initiative. The qualified voters of the town have the power to propose ordinances to the council and, if the council fails to adopt an ordinance so proposed without any change in substance, to adopt or reject it at a town election. (Amended by vote of the people 11-7-17)
(2) Referendum. Voters of the town have the power to require reconsideration by the council of any adopted ordinance and, if the council fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a town election. (Amended by vote of the people 11-7-17)
§ 11.02. Petition for enactment of ordinances.
(1) Voters of the town may at any time propose the enactment of any lawful ordinance by filing a petition stating the complete text of such ordinance, and signed by a number of qualified voters of the town totaling not less than 10% of the number of qualified voters of the town who cast votes in the previous guberna
torial election with the town clerk. The council shall call a public hearing in the manner prescribed in § 2.14, subsection 2, to be held within 30 days from the date of the filing of such petition with the town clerk, and within 60 days after said public hearing hold a special town election for the purpose of submitting to a referendum vote the question of adopting such ordinance, unless prior to the election, such ordinance is enacted by the council in the manner prescribed for ordinances in general.
Such ordinance takes effect in the same manner as ordinances of the same kind adopted by the council, provided a majority of those voting thereon have voted in the affirmative. (Amended by vote of the people 11-7-17)
(2) Any such proposed ordinance must be examined by an attorney for the town before it is submitted to the voters. The attorney is authorized to correct the form of such proposed ordinance for the purpose of avoiding repetitions, illegalities and unconstitutional provisions, and to assure accuracy in its text and
references and clarity and precision in its phraseology, but may not materially change its meaning and effect. (Amended by vote of the people 10-4-94: amended by vote of the people 11-7-2000; amended by vote of the people 6-11-02; Amended by vote of the people 11-7-17)

Removal of Ordinance

§ 16.3.2.10  Mixed-Use-Neighborhood MU-N.

[Amended 9-26-2011 by Ord. No. 11-15; 9-24-2012 by Ord. No. 12-10; 6-10-2013 by Ord. No. 13-02; 9-28-2015 by Ord. No. 15-05; 11-26-2018 by Ord. No. 10-18]

A.  Purpose: To encourage higher density, mixed-use development that provides increased housing opportunities and a desirable setting for business while balancing such increased development with environmentally conscious and ecologically sensitive use of land.

B.  Permitted uses.

(1)  Accessory buildings and uses including minor or major home occupations;

(2)  Art studio/gallery;

(3)  Business and professional offices;

(4)  Business services;

(5)  Conference center;

(6)  Convalescent care facility;

(7)  Convenience store, neighborhood grocery facilities excluding the sale of gasoline;

(8)  Day-care facility;

(9)  Dwellings, limited to the following:

(a)  Multiunit residential;

(b)  Dwelling units on the upper floors of a mixed-use building that is served by public sewer;

(10)  Eldercare facility, attached dwelling units only;

(11)  Elderly day-care facility;

(12)  Food store;

(13)  Grocery store;

(14)  Hospital;

(15)  Hotel;

(16)  Industry, light (less than or equal to 20,000 square feet in gross floor area);

(17)  Inn;

(18)  Liner buildings, as part of a mixed-use building;

(19)  Low-intensity recreation;

(20)  Nursing care facility, long term;

(21)  Personal services;

(22)  Public open space or recreation;

(23)  Public utility facilities including substations, pumping stations, and treatment facilities;

(24)  Repair service;

(25)  Research and development;

(26)  Restaurant;

(27)  Retail use, not to exceed 30,000 square feet in gross floor area unless part of a mixed-use building;

(28)  Selected commercial recreation, except shooting and archery ranges;

(29)  Shop in pursuit of trades;

(30)  Specialty food and/or beverage facility;

(31)  Theater;

(32)  Veterinary hospital.

C. Special exception uses.

(1)  Commercial kennel;

(2)  Commercial parking lot or garage;

(3)  Construction services;

(4)  Equipment sales and rentals (only on lots with frontage on Route 236);

(5)  Gas service station (only on lots with frontage on Route 236);

(6)  Industry, light (greater than 20,000 square feet in gross floor area);

(7)  Mass transit station;

(8)  Mechanical service;

(9)  New or used motor vehicle sales (only on lots with frontage on Route 236);

(10)  Repair garage (only on lots with frontage on Route 236);

(11)  Retail use, greater than 30,000 square feet in gross floor area and less than 50,000 square feet in gross floor area;

(12)  Undefined use; additional commercial/business uses not defined by Chapter 16.2.

D. Undefined uses: will be considered by the Planning Board based on the following criteria:

(1)  If the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning district purposes; and

(2)  If the use meets special exception criteria found in § 16.6.4.4.

E. In addition, the undefined use must meet one or both of the following criteria:

(1)  If the proposed use has substantially similar impacts as a listed use.

(2)  If the proposed use is compatible with existing uses within the zoning district for which it is proposed.

F. Standards.

(1)  All development and the use of land in the MU-N Zone must meet the following standards. Kittery’s Design Handbook illustrates how these standards can be met. In addition, the design and performance standards of Chapters 16.8 and 16.9 must be met unless noted otherwise below.

(2)  All submissions must include a lighting plan. Hours of operation and number of employees for businesses must also be provided.

(3)  The following space standards apply:

(a)  Minimum land area per dwelling unit – mixed-use building: 4,000 square feet for first residential unit plus 3,000 square feet for each additional unit, no minimum land area for business or commercial uses when combined in a building with residential uses except that the total lot size must be at least 20,000 square feet.

[1]  NOTE: ADA-compliant units may be located on the first floor through a special exception permit by the Planning Board but only 50% of the first floor may be such ADA-compliant residential units.

(b)  Minimum land area per dwelling unit – multiunit residential: 4,000 square feet for first unit, plus 2,500 square feet for each additional unit up to 16 units per acre of lot size. Total lot size must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet.

(c)  Mixed-use or multiunit residential buildings which encompass at least 50% of required parking within the building: Two additional residential units may be added to each story above the parking with no additional land area required.

(d)  Mixed-use buildings which encompass at least 50% of required parking within the building and include a liner building for nonresidential uses buffering parking from the street: One additional residential unit may be added to each story with no additional land area required.

(e)  Minimum land area per bed for long-term nursing care and convalescent care facilities that are connected to public sewer: 2,000 square feet.

(f)  Minimum land area per residential unit for eldercare facilities that are connected to public sewer: 3,000 square feet.

(g)  Minimum lot size: 20,000 square feet.

(h)  Minimum street frontage: 75 feet.

(i)  Minimum front setback on Route 236: 30 feet.

(j)  Minimum front setback on Dennett Road: 50 feet.

(k)  Minimum front setback on Martin Road: 100 feet.

(l)  Maximum front setback all other roads: 20 feet.

(m)  Spacing between buildings: 15 feet.*

(n)  Maximum rear and side setbacks: 20 feet.**

[1]  NOTES:

* Or as required by the Fire Department or State Fire Marshal’s office.
** Except as may be required by the buffer provisions of Code. See Landscaping, Screening and Buffers § 16.3.2.10F(9).

(o)  Maximum building height: 50 feet (exclusive of solar apparatus).

(p)  Maximum impervious and outdoor stored material coverage: 70%.

[1]  NOTE: With Best Management Practices (BMPs)  and Low Impact Development Practices (LIDs)  as defined in Chapter 16.2 and based on Maine DEP’s Maine Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Volumes I – III, as amended from time to time, incorporated in site design, otherwise 60%. Maximum on-site stormwater infiltration is the desired and measurable outcome.

(q)  Minimum setback from streams, water bodies and wetlands in accordance with Table 16.9.

[1]  NOTES:

[a]  With Best Management Practices (BMPs)  and Low Impact Development Practices (LIDs)  as defined in Chapter 16.2 and based on Maine DEP’s Maine Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Volumes I – III, as amended from time to time, incorporated in site design, then wetland setbacks pursuant only to Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)  Rules Chapters 305 and 310.

[b]  Without Best Management Practices (BMPs)  and Low Impact Development Practices (LIDs)  as defined in Chapter 16.2 and based on Maine DEP’s Maine Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Volumes I – III, as amended from time to time, incorporated in site design, wetland setbacks pursuant to Kittery Town Code Title 16, Table 16.9.

[c]  The Town shall retain expert consultation (qualified wetland scientist and/or Maine-certified soil scientist)  to determine wetland delineations and classifications and to perform soil testing as needed, all of which shall be paid for by the applicant at the time of sketch plan. The qualified wetlands scientist and/or Maine-certified soil scientist shall determine through field investigation the presence, location and configuration of wetlands on the area proposed for use. Any wetland alterations proposed must also be reviewed by the Town’s consultant(s)  at the applicant’s expense. These requirements are in addition to engineering, stormwater management/BMPs, traffic or other types of peer review that may also be required.

(r)  Minimum open space:

[1]  Lot size less than 100,000 square feet: 15%.

[2]  Lot size greater than 100,000 square feet: 25%.

[3]  NOTE: This requirement may be met by a payment-in-lieu to the Wetland Mitigation Fund. These fees shall be set by Town Council. Landscaping, screening and buffer requirements must still be met.

(4)  Parking:

(a)  Parking is encouraged within buildings. New or revised surface parking areas, garages, and entrances to parking within buildings must be located to the rear of buildings. If a rear location is not achievable, as determined by the Planning Board, parking, garages and entrances to parking must be located to the side of the building. Screening and/or fencing is required for surface parking areas along a street. See Subsection F(9), Landscaping, Screening and Buffers. Parking requirements are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)  parking generation rates.

(b)  Joint-use agreements (between businesses and residences)  for parking are encouraged. A plan describing how joint-use parking needs will be met is required as part of any development that proposes such parking and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.

(c)  Parking requirements for nonresidential uses may be met partially or in full by parking on the street except that no parking is allowed on Route 236, Dennett Road, or Martin Road. Such on-street parking plans must be reviewed by planning staff prior to submission and then reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.

(d)  Electric car charging stations are allowed in parking lots but must not interfere with pedestrian movement on sidewalks.

[1]  Parking for development that includes trails and low intensity recreation: Development that includes the creation of public trails and low intensity recreational opportunities such as wildlife observation stations or boardwalks may apply the pertinent off-street parking standards below. All other off-street parking standards as found in § 16.8.9.4 shall apply.

[2]  Multiunit residential buildings and mixed-use buildings that include residential.

[a]  One parking space for studio and one-bedroom dwelling units.

[b]  One and one-half parking spaces for two-bedroom dwelling units plus one guest parking space per every four dwelling units.

[c]  Parking spaces for more-than-two-bedroom dwelling units.

(5)  Loading docks, overhead doors, service areas and outdoor storage areas.

(a)  Loading docks and overhead doors must be located on the rear or side of the building. Loading docks must be screened from view by adjacent residential uses. This screening must consist of the following:

[1]  A fence, constructed of a material similar to surrounding buildings, of sufficient height as determined by the Planning Board to accomplish the screening. No fence may be less than six feet tall.

(b)  All service areas for dumpsters, compressors, generators and similar items as well as any outdoor storage areas must be screened by a fence at least six feet tall, constructed of a material similar to surrounding buildings, and must surround the service or storage area except for the necessary ingress/egress.

(6)  Site design. Site design and building placement must be attentive to the surrounding environment including sun, wind and shade patterns related to proposed and existing buildings. A sun/shade analysis may be required by the Planning Board.

(7)  Energy and sustainability. Energy efficiency is allowed and encouraged through the use of solar power, geothermal, and other alternative and sustainable power sources.

(8)  Building design standards.

(a)  New buildings must meet the general design principles set forth in the Design Handbook except as noted below. In general, buildings should be oriented to the street from which they derive frontage, with the front of the building facing the street. The front facade must contain the following:

[1]  A front door for pedestrian access.

[2]  Windows.

(b)  Flat roofs, proposed to locate heating, cooling, or other such mechanical or electrical apparatus off the ground, are acceptable provided that such apparatus are screened from view and the screening is designed as an integral part of the building to aid both aesthetics and noise attenuation. Flat roofs proposed for the purpose of solar array installations are also acceptable.

(9)  Landscaping, screening and buffers.

(a)  A landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is a submission requirement. However, a landscape plan done by other design professionals may be allowed at the Planning Board’s discretion.

(b)  Native trees, shrubs and herbaceous plantings are preferred and must be drought and salt tolerant when used along streets. A diversity of tree species (three to five species per every 12 trees)  is required to provide greater resiliency to threats from introduced insect pests and diseases.

(c)  Any required plantings approved by the Planning Board that do not survive must be replaced within one year.

[1]  Landscaping along the street frontage of each building must consist of one of the following:

[a]  Street trees. A minimum of one street tree must be planted for each 20 feet of street frontage. Trees may be planted in groups or spaced along the frontage. However, trees must be planted to ensure survival, using silva cells, bioretention cells or tree wells. Trees are to be a minimum of 2.5-inch caliper and 12 feet high at the time of planting. Existing large healthy trees must be preserved if practical and will count towards this requirement.

[b]  Pocket park. The park must be at least 200 square feet. A minimum of three trees and a bench for sitting are required. Park must be vegetated with ground cover except for walkways.

[2]  Surface parking areas that abut a street must provide screening in one of the following ways:

[a]  One tree per 25 feet of street frontage backed by a fence constructed of a material similar to surrounding buildings which must screen the parking area from the street except for necessary vehicular and pedestrian access. Trees must be at least 2.5-inch caliper and 12 feet high at the time of planting.

[b]  A combination of trees and shrubs including at least 50% evergreen species, all at least six feet high at time of planting, in a planting bed at least eight feet wide. Plantings must be sufficient, as determined by the Planning Board, to screen the parking area from the street except for necessary vehicular and pedestrian access. Planting beds may be mulched but no orange- or red-dyed mulching material may be used.

[3]  A minimum of 10% of any surface parking area consisting of 10 or more parking spaces must be landscaped with trees and vegetated islands. This requirement is in addition to the screening requirements in Subsection F(9)(c)[2] if the parking area abuts a street. Bioretention cells and rain gardens may be utilized to meet the landscaping requirements and perform stormwater management.

[4]  Buffers required between residential uses and mixed use or nonresidential uses, and between adjacent residential zones and this zone must be 50 feet wide and consist of one of the following as determined by the Planning Board:

[a]  Existing natural woodland and vegetation.

[b]  Existing natural woodland augmented by the planting of additional trees consisting of a variety of species at least 2.5-inch caliper and 12 feet high.

[c]  A fence at least six feet high, constructed of material similar to surrounding buildings, with plantings of trees and shrubs at least six feet tall on either side of the fence.

(10)  Open space. Open space must be provided as a percentage of the total parcel area including freshwater wetlands, water bodies, streams and setbacks. Required open space must be shown on the site plan with a note dedicating it as open space. The open space must be situated to protect significant natural features and resources, minimize environmental impacts and promote an aesthetically pleasing site.

(a)  Wherever possible, large healthy trees and areas with mature tree cover must be included in the open space.

(b)  Location of open space must promote the continuity of open-space networks across adjacent parcels.

(c)  Where possible, open space and open-space networks must include public trails and low-intensity recreational opportunities.

(11)  Special situations. Expansions or modifications of 1,000 square feet or less to existing uses are exempt from landscaping, screening and buffer requirements.

(12)  Conditions for approving special exception uses in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zone. All applications must include a narrative describing why the use proposed will promote the general welfare (specifics may be found in Chapter 2 Definitions for special exception)  of the Town of Kittery, how the use proposed will meet the special exception criteria found in § 16.6.4.4 and how the proposed development will adapt and relate to the natural environmental conditions found on the site

Proposed Changes 16.3.2.10  Business – Park B-P.

A.  Purpose.

To encourage investment that promotes development of a high-quality park-like setting for both the business and residential communities.  Cluster mixed-use development must be used on larger tracts of land where offices, retail sales, services, lodging, open space, housing and light manufacturing space are blended with residential and moderate entertainment to foster general business growth and a sense of community.  The intent of cluster mixed-use development is to provide a more efficient use of land than might be obtained through segregated development procedures.

B.  Permitted Uses.

1.  The following land uses are permitted for projects that are cluster mixed-use developments:

a.  Art studio/gallery;

b.  Building materials and garden supply;

c.  Business and professional offices;

d.  Business services;

e.  Commercial parking lot or parking garage;

f.  Conference center;

g.  Cluster residential development;

h.  Grocery, food store, convenience store, including gas station;

i.  Light industry;

j.  Mass transit station;

k.  Mechanical services, excluding junkyard;

l.  Motel, hotel, rooming house, inn;

m.  Personal service;

n.  Place of public assembly, including theater;

o.  Public open space recreational uses, recreational facilities, and selected commercial recreation;

p.  Public utility facilities including substations, pumping stations, and sewage treatment facilities;

q.  Repair services;

r.  Research and development;

s.  Restaurant;

t.  Retail uses and wholesale businesses excluding used car lots and junkyards;

u.  School (including day nursery), university, museum, hospital, municipal or state building or use, church, or any other institution of educational, religious, philanthropic, fraternal, political or social nature;

v.  Shops in pursuit of trade;

w.  Veterinary hospital;

x.  Warehousing and storage; and

y.  Specialty food and/or beverage facility.

2.  The following land uses are permitted for projects that are not cluster mixed-use developments:

a.  Business and professional offices;

b.  Accessory uses and buildings; and

c.  Business services.

C.  Special Exception Uses.  None

D.  Standards.

The following standards must be met unless modified per Article XI Cluster Residential and Cluster Mixed-Use Development.  Multiple-parcel development is subject to Chapter 16.10, Article II, Master Site Development Plan:

1.  Design and performance standards in Chapters 16.8 and 16.9.  The Design Handbook provides examples of appropriate design for nonresidential and multi-unit residential projects.

2.  Except for cluster mixed-use developments, the following space standards apply.

Minimum land area per dwelling unit 10,000 square feet with sewer service

Minimum lot size 120,000 square feet

Minimum street frontage 150 feet

Minimum front yard 50 feet

Minimum rear and side yards 30 feet*

*Except as may be required by the buffer provisions of this Code, and except where the side and/or rear yards of the proposed nonresidential-use abut a residential district or use, in which case a minimum of forty (40) feet is required.

Patios, sheds, parking lots and golf courses must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from streams, water bodies and wetlands.

Maximum building height 40 feet

Maximum building and outdoor stored material coverage 50 percent

3.  Cluster Residential Development.  In a cluster residential development, the above standards may be modified in accordance with the special provisions of Article XI of Chapter 16.8, including that there is no minimum lot size, and with the conditions that: (Ordained 9-28-15)

i.  Minimum Principal building separation as required by the Fire Chief, but not less than 10 feet.

4.  Other standards.

a.  Parking.

All new or revised parking must be visually screened through the use of landscaping, earthen berms, stone retaining walls and/or fencing from adjacent public streets and abutting properties (see the Design Handbook for appropriate examples).

b.  Building Design Standards.

Kittery’s characteristic buildings reflect its historic seacoast past.  The primary architectural styles are New England colonial (such as Cape Cod and saltbox), Georgian, Federal, and Classical Revival.  New buildings must be compatible with Kittery’s characteristic styles in form, scale, material, and color.  The front elevation must contain one or more of the following elements: (i) windows, or (ii) display cases (see design handbook for examples of acceptable materials and designs).  Strict imitation is not required.  Design techniques must be used to maintain compatibility with characteristic styles and still leave enough flexibility for architectural variety.  To achieve this purpose, the following design standards apply to new and modified existing building projects:

i.  Exterior Building Materials and Details.

Building materials and details strongly define a project’s architectural style and overall character (see the Design Handbook for examples of acceptable materials, building scale, and designs).  “One-sided” schemes are prohibited; similar materials and details must be used on all sides of a building to achieve continuity and completeness of design.  Predominant exterior building materials must be of good quality and characteristic of Kittery, such as horizontal wood board siding, vertical wood boards, wood shakes, brick, stone or simulated stone, glass and vinyl, or metal clapboard.

ii.  Roofs.

A building’s prominent roofs must be pitched a minimum of 4:12 unless demonstrated to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that this is not practicable.  The Board reserves the right to evaluate such on each and all specific proposals.  Acceptable roof styles are gabled, gambrel, and hipped roofs.  Shed roofs, and roof facades (such as “stuck on” mansards) are not acceptable as prominent roof forms except as provided above.  Flat roofs may be considered in context where it can be demonstrated to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that the structure is not obtrusive and where visual impact can be shown to be minimal.  The roof design must screen or camouflage rooftop protrusions to minimize the visual impact of air conditioning units, air handler units, exhaust vents, transformer boxes, and the like (see the Design Handbook for examples of appropriate treatments).

iii.  Loading Docks and Overhead Doors.

Loading docks and overhead doors must be located on the side or rear of the building and screened from view from adjacent properties in residential use.

c.  Landscaping Standards.

To achieve attractive and environmentally sound site design, and appropriate screening of parking areas, in addition to the landscaping standards contained in Chapter 16.8, the following landscaping requirements apply to new and modified existing developments:

i.  Landscape Planter Strip.

Landscape planter strips, interior and exterior to the project, are encouraged.  A minimum of forty (40) feet in depth of vegetated landscape buffer must be provided adjacent to all public right-of-way lines that are common to parcel exterior boundary lines and include the following landscape elements:

(A) Ground Cover.  The entire landscape planter strip must be vegetated except for approved driveways, walkways, bikeways, and screened utility equipment.

(B) Street Side Trees.  In the event project development is to be approved based on a development master plan, development standards are to be applied to the land as defined by its perimeter, rather than by the individual lots, tracts and parcels into which the land may be divided.

Development not based on a master development plan must, as a minimum, provide one street tree for each twenty-five (25) feet of street frontage.

The trees may be spaced along the frontage or grouped or clustered to enhance the visual quality of the site (see the Design Handbook for examples).  The trees must be a minimum 2.5 inch caliper, and be at least twelve (12) feet high at the time of planting.  The species should be selected from the list of recommended street trees in the Design Handbook.  Existing large healthy trees must be preserved if practical and will count toward this requirement.

(C) Planter Strip.  Shrubs and flowering perennials must be planted at a minimum of fifteen (15) plants per forty (40) linear feet of street frontage unless existing woodlands are being retained or such planting is inconsistent with the retention of rural landscape features.  The plant material should be selected from the list of recommended materials in the Design Handbook.  The plants must be placed within the planter strip to enhance the visual character of the site and augment natural features and vegetation (see the Design Handbook for examples of appropriate treatments).

ii.  Outdoor Service and Storage Areas.

Facilities for waste storage such as dumpsters must be located within an enclosure and be visually buffered by fencing, landscaping, and/or other treatments (see the Design Handbook for examples of appropriate buffering).

d.  Traffic and Circulation Standards.

Sidewalks and roadways internal to the parcel must provide adequate pedestrian and traffic circulation both internally and externally, and provide safe and sufficient connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods.  (See the Design Handbook for appropriate examples).

e.  Open Space Standards.

Open space must be provided as a percentage of the total parcel area, including freshwater wetlands, water bodies, streams, and setbacks.  Twenty-five percent (25%) of each parcel, or individual lot if applicable, must be designated as open space.  Required open space must be shown on the plan with a note dedicating it as “open space.” The open space must be situated to create an attractive environment on the site, minimize environmental impacts, and protect significant natural features and resources.  Where possible:

i.  Individual large, healthy trees and areas with mature tree cover will be included in the open space; and

ii.  The open space will be located to allow the creation of continuous open space networks in conjunction with existing or potential open space on adjacent properties.

KITTERY’s SMOKE AND MIRRORS SHOW!

LET THE DEVELOPMENT BEGIN.

What does the saying mean, When the FOX watches the HEN house? Look up the saying. Does the chaos ensue. This article saves the best story for last. This is an opinion based article.

As usual, Kittery is up to its old tricks. Smoke and Mirrors. A library that was supposed to cost 5 million is now up to 6.1 million. Yes, there were funds raised by the Library, but to what extent. Should the Taylor building which was once Library Property should have been sold to help the library. The committee at the time said no. Dineen’s old Law Office is the property of the Town of Kittery, as well as his old garage on Old Post Road.

If we are giving away Town Property then should Kittery think about the FOOD PANTRY. How about letting them have the Old Fire Department. Some of these properties are to be sold to recoup what we paid including the cost from fighting this for over 30 years to litigate that mess.

I asked the Town Manager a question based on a few resident concerns asked of me. This question was posed to the Town Manager before the article regarding the sale of the Taylor Building to a non-profit.

Madam Town Manager

Just a quick question since I am being hit with questions, Is the Library Project over budget and are you looking for ways to offset this shortfall.? I was told that the school was being involved. Doing an article on Ourkittery and want to make sure the facts are correct. Any information would help keep it accurate.

Her response.

Dear Mr. Denault,

The Library project is tracking under budget; not overbudget.  There are no shortfalls so there is no need to find ways to offset what doesn’t exist. The School has no involvement in the project.

Sincerely,
Kendra

Well there you have it.

Then a few days later, we learn that the much touted Kittery Schools Universal Pre K that was needed in Kittery has been postponed. Maybe we should look at how to fund this for the working parents. https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/education/2022/02/21/kittery-me-schools-no-pre-k-2022-23/6690966001/ Has the school’s budget been hit again?

I digressed: Onto the Taylor Building once owned by the Library.

What prevents the Art Association from selling the building when they can’t sustain the visitors and making a sizeable profit. Well within their rights of course. Why couldn’t we make that space available to local developers and entrepreneurs and made MICRO APARTMENTS. Should Kittery have sold it for the highest bidder on the market and let realtors sell it. What will the Town Managers explanation or spin be? The appraisal I knew about is over three years old. Would you sell your property with an appraisal that was over a year old? How is that effective financial management? Is Kittery in the real estate business now? It seems there are many things this Town can do.

I was recently asked, ‘Who are the people on the Taylor Building project and were any of them connected to the Kittery Art Association somehow? ‘

SALE OF TOWN PROPERTY

The sale of the Taylor building to the Kittery Art Association. An RFP was put out, but apparently only one bid was received. Is this is true, where was it put out and how?

Was this advertised well enough? Why did the people who expressed interest a year ago wanted to spend a million dollars for the building not come forth? (A local restaurant and property entrepreneur told me that is what they would have spent.) The Town Manager had meetings with these interested parties a few times as I was told.

Well, the Taylor building was sold at the latest assessment? ASSESSMENT? Did the Town mean appraisal? Who did the appraisal? Talk was that it was appraised a year or so ago at about $750.000. But I believe it to be three years ago. Let make the appraisal public and the date is was appraised. What would people pay since property values have soared recently well above assessment, and who who would have paid more for the Taylor building then it was worth. I suggest that many people would have wanted this building.

Again, Kittery has not changed. Bidding wars are not unheard of.

Remember that Wentworth Dennett School, it was given away (Sold) for $50,000 to $75,000 dollars and well below the market value. You can’t blame that sale on this Town Manager, but apparently the TOWN still has the mind set to give away your tax dollars. The Council while I was on tried to give away the Old Fire Department on Walker Street. for $45,000 dollars. Then it was to be sold at fair market value to fund moving the ambulance garage to Gorges Rd. fire department. Keep your eyes on this if you even care.

THE CLAM FLATS

The attached letter (below) from our Town is in defiance of the October 4, 2021 “Notification of Changes” issued by Bryant Lewis of the Maine DMR.

  1. What is the logic of this Town letter?
  2. What caused this letter sixteen weeks after the State ruling?
  3. What facts are the Town Officials responding to?
  4. Why now, after 16 weeks is it unlawful to dig for shellfish?

Once again it is easier for our town’s management to just say NO than go to work and do something worthwhile for the taxpayers! There used to be $2000 paid annually to the Shellfish Warden while the clam flats were closed (first closed around 2008 and never reopened). Could not that money have been better spent to seed the flats to overcome the impact of green crabs?

When was the last time our Town seeded any of the flats, or followed any of the four paragraphs of the Shellfish Conservation Committee’s job responsibilities? (if they have been doing any of these things perhaps it would be appropriate for the reports to be posted on the Committee’s website). The last time I asked to see the Warden’s State required annual report, the town clerk could not come up with it. Is it now available to the public?

While I was on the Council, I challenged the $20,000 expense spent annually on that so-called environmental engineer that couldn’t tell us if that money was doing any good as he didn’t keep records comparing one year to the next. I voted to defund that study. I may be wrong, but I think instead of funding the annual study, we permanently hire his technician. Was that a cost savings for the Town?

Another question asked of me by a resident for our out Town management: Has the recently appointed Shellfish Warden been certified as such by the Maine DMR ?, if so when?, if not then I assume he has no enforcement authority. Has it become customary to assign enforcement authority prior to training and certification?

Town of Kittery Shellfish Licensing Information

Per Title 12.6 of the Kittery Town Code, it is unlawful for any person to dig or take shellfish from the shores and flats of Kittery without a current Kittery Municipal Shellfish License.

The Town of Kittery is not currently issuing Shellfish Licenses.

The Shellfish Commission is working with the Department of Marine Resources to reopen the inter-tidal areas for shellfish harvesting. In the interim, clamming and other shellfish harvesting is not permitted in Kittery.  When updates are available, they will be posted on the Shellfish Conservation Committee page located here. 

For more information or questions on shellfish licensing, please contact Shellfish Warden, Chuck Moran at 207-703-4415 or cmoran@kitteryme.org.

Shellfish Licensing Information Kittery

The State opened the Clam Flats and Kittery did not. A recent citizen asked, Is the Town Manager the shell Fish professional now? Does the shell Fish commission know what the hell is going on? Does Kittery even have a certified Shell Fish Warden?

FOREVER CHEMICALS IN THE WELL WATER

In November, as is told to the residents, (we have no reason to suspect we are not being told the truth) but Kittery discovered forever Chemicals in the well water around the dump and residents and Town Employees drinking this water.

  1. Why have you not heard more about this.
  2. Did Kittery use the same company that Well’s Maine did.?
  3. Why has there not been updates? Is Kittery hoping it goes away.
  4. What are the results?
  5. How long has this problem really been known?
  6. Has past and current employees been told not to drink the water?
  7. Pay attention to the PEASE issue and mitigation avenues.

Perhaps the Town Council should drink the water from the TAP at the dump until this is resolved.

The Harbor Master BOAT AGAIN!

We are now purchasing another, Yes another Harbor Master Boat again, which according to my sources, can’t go under the Spruce Creek Bridge. A Town Manager a few years ago, stood fast in not supporting the Fire Department in a portable rescue boat purchase. The old KPA was called out on their poor choice of buying a boat that can’t be used in the creeks.

The Harbor Master falls under the Kittery Port Authority, or does it? Are we buying this boat from Town Funds or perhaps we used the CIP or are we using Public Safety Impact fees? What is the definition of Public Impact Fee spending? FIRE AND POLICE?

How many Harbor Masters does Kittery need? Are there plans to pay for training for others to attend Harbor Master School. Shared resources perhaps.

How much controversy was created when the KPA bought a boat the was useless in some areas and the controversy when the Fire Department used it to save some boaters? Bravo to the Kittery Fire Department for using Town Property to save a life. They finally had to buy their life saving boat with donations. DONATIONS! Are you kidding me!

WHERE WALDO?

Oh, has anyone seen Councilor Cyrus Clark. Perhaps someone should let him know the attendance for Town Council is a requirement. He said during the Town Council Campaign that he does not want to run but will only do it to make sure Denault does not get back on. A politician who tells the truth, That is rich! BUT, how useful is Clark as an Elected Official in matters that impact the Town of Kittery? The Town may need his help on this next issue.

WHERE IS CLARK?

900 UNIT DENNETT PIT SUBDIVISION: SAY WHAT!

A proposal is on the agenda for the planning board. 900 unit subdivision in the Dennett Road Pit and based on my review and opinion (I know), it looks like they have to fill in the wet lands. What TIFF money is being used to assist. Was any of this money needed to lower the SEWER ABATEMENT FIASCO? Has that bill or expense been realized yet?

A day care, A Brewery, Convenience stores. No tad poles, fiddle heads, wildlife, such as deer, redirecting water to the back yards for the Martin Road residents. How are we allowing filling of wet lands? Is there a Marijuana Store proposed?

Where is the outrage. OUTRAGEOUS! 900 Unit development and if you multiply most will house two people, is 1800 people. It supposed to exit onto onto Rte 236. Perhaps the Planning board should make the 300 unit development exit the same way and share the cost relieving the traffic from Dennett Rd. Who is going to ask these questions? This is the same board that created Aroma Joe’s exit.

Here is the Agenda. Don’t tell me you “DID NOT YOU SEE IT COMING”

NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 2—98 Dennett Road and 27 Route 236—Master Site Development Plan Review
Action: Application acceptance, continue application to a subsequent meeting, or vote on sketch plan application. Pursuant to 16.6 Master Site Development of the
Kittery Town Code, owners/applicants 98 Dennett Road, LLC and c/o Sheila Grant with agent Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. requests sketch plan approval for a
master site development plan comprising 900 dwelling units, ±30,000-sf of commercial retail space, ±29,000-sf of medical office space and ±42,000-sf of lab/life
sciences with appurtenant road and stormwater infrastructure and 13,241-sf of wetland alteration on real property totaling 82 acres with an address of 98 Dennett Road,
(Tax Map 12, Lot 3-1), and 27 Rt. 236 (Tax Map 20 Lot 13) in the Mixed-Use—Neighborhood (MU-N), Residential-Suburban (R-S) and Commercial-2 (C-2) zoning
districts along with Resource Protection (OZ-RP) and Stream Protection (OZ-75-SP) Overlay Zones.

https://www.kitteryme.gov/planning-board/agenda/planning-board-meeting-25

Maybe it is time KITTERY TAXPAYERS make the Town Manager live in this Town as they all did in the past instead of two States away.

I will end this article with this simple statement. Many of you got what you voted for.

Hold on to your seats Kittery, the ride has just begun!!

Much more to come.

Kittery rental.

Single Studio Apartment for Rent in Kittery Point on a Private Road- Available April 1st, 2022 $1500 A month Includes the following: All utilities including Heat, Electricity, Cable. Own private entrance. Must be a single person,

Includes all snow and trash removal. Parking for car. Sorry No Pets and No Smoking allowed no exceptions.

References required and Last month, Plus Security Deposit of $1500.00 is due upon rental agreement.

For more information please email, or call/text 603-343-8907

Outrageous! Did Kittery Officials violate Maine Law?

Seacoastonline : MAINE AG ‘concerned about legality’ of Kittery Pot Lottery

  • Who in Kittery made this decision?
  • If the law was violated, who is to blame?
  • Who will be ultimately responsible?

Update. https://amp.seacoastonline.com/amp/7248682001
KITTERY, Maine — The town’s 2021 marijuana business lottery did not violate state law, according to the state attorney general’s office.

They said: “Although there is no express legislative authority for a municipality to conduct such a lottery, because of the specific facts of this case, the Office of the Attorney General does not currently intend to pursue legal action in this matter,” Johnson wrote.

Previous post.

We learned from the Portsmouth Herald that a letter dated January 12th, 2022 was sent by the Attorney Generals office to Kittery, that the Maine Attorney General is ‘concerned about legality’ of the Kittery Pot Lottery.

The below posted article by IAN LENAHAN in the Portsmouth Herald, published 5:01 a.m. Feb 8, 2022, Link below, but be forewarned, the link may cost you a subscription fee. Free to those who get the paper delivered. To read the full article, buy the paper, login or get a subscription. The Herald’s full article is lengthy.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2022/02/08/kittery-marijuana-shop-lottery-legality-reviewed-maine-attorney-general/6665943001/

Article by IAN LENAHAN: KITTERY, Maine — The town’s retail marijuana business license application lottery held last fall is being reviewed by the state attorney general’s office, where an official stated she is “concerned about the legality” of the process.

The town lottery charged applicants $750 each and raised more than a half-million dollars in revenue for Kittery. 

A letter from Maine Assistant Attorney General Katie Johnson on Jan. 14 said it is illegal in Maine to conduct a “game of chance” without a license from the state’s Gambling Control Unit. The letter, further states it appears Kittery engaged in “unlawful gambling” when it held the lottery inside Town Hall council chambers Oct. 28, 2021.

Johnson’s letter reads. “As we understand Kittery’s lottery, it would constitute gambling as both a ‘contest of chance’ and a ‘lottery.’”

end of Portsmouth Herald pasted snippets.

The article goes on with a response from Town Manager Amaral and the Town’s Attorney.

If the law was violated, who is responsible for that roll of the dice?

See the Maine Law below and the penalties associated with violating Maine Law..

MAINE LAW 17-A, §954. Unlawful gambling

1.  Any person is guilty of unlawful gambling if that person intentionally or knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity.  [PL 2005, c. 663, §13 (AMD).]1-A.  A person is guilty of unlawful gambling if the person is under 21 years of age and plays a slot machine as defined in Title 8, section 1001, subsection 39.  [PL 2005, c. 663, §13 (NEW).]

2.  Unlawful gambling is a Class D crime.  [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]

3.  A person convicted of a violation under this section must forfeit to the State all income associated with that violation.  [PL 2005, c. 663, §13 (NEW).]

Don’t be surprised if the marijuana retailers, both recreational and medical establishments file a class action lawsuit? Government especially Kittery is not above the law.

The link to an article posted in ourkittery. CLICK HERE it’s FREE

Stay tuned for more information, because it is coming.

Councilor Clark blames Obese and Unvaxxed for hospital crowding.

The Kittery Town Council considers Mask Mandates again. Councilor Cyrus Clark’s blames the obese and unvaxxed for hospital crowding. Maybe he meant overcrowding. Read the article and watch the video clips at the end of this article.

During a recent Town Council Meeting over creating a mask mandate in Kittery, (1-24-2022, Town hall streams @ 1:05:00). During the Citizen Comments, a 40 year practicing physician with experience in infectious diseases, spoke to the Council about his belief that the Town of Kittery should institute a mask mandate and offered explanations as to why we should be wearing masks.

Chairperson Spiller,@1:07:15 said to the Doctor, when you contacted me over two weeks ago, I reached out to the Vice Chair and Town Manager to see if we should pursue this action and then added they were not enthusiastic about it and then SPILLER states she informally polled the Town Councilors (outside of the public view) as to their thoughts on the matter.

NOTE: It is the authors opinion that this conversation should have been conducted in public with the publics input. At the least, one of the 6 remaining Councilors or the Town Manager should have had the fortitude and cautioned Chairperson Spiller to do this in public not conduct an informal poll outside of the public’s view. The safety of the public should be a transparent conversation.

Spiller goes on and says of those (councilors) which responded, (the statement was not entirely clear), what she says she heard is that the mandate raises more controversy. She turned to the council (which was finally in the public forum) and asked for their opinion (in public).

After three Town Councilors spoke to their opinions, it moves on to Council Cyrus Clark a 4 year Councilor Veteran Cyrus Clark. His statement is at @1:10:38.  Cyrus Clark says he has no taste for this at all and it’s a personal responsibility or personal choice to wear or not wear a mask.

Councilor Cyrus Clark states the hospitals are crowded not because people are not wearing masks, but because people are unvaccinated. He says that is why the hospital is crowded. He then makes a statement that the hospitals are crowded because people are obese. He says a massive amount of people are drastically overweight.

“It’s not that they are not wearing a mask” Clark responds. At 1:11:10 Chairperson Spiller tries to shush him up and interrupt his rant.  He continues on and says that’s truth “if the hospitals are full it’s not because we are not wearing masks, it is because people are unvaccinated do you disagree”? Chairperson Spiller responds and says she absolutely agrees with that point and says let’s not go. 

It appears that Cyrus Clark apparently could not make up his mind whether the hospitals are overcrowded or as he states, crowded because they are filled with those who are unvaccinated or obese. Watch the video and decide for yourself.

Just what Kittery needs, our own Dr. Fauci.  Outrageous!  

Perhaps Councilor Cyrus Clark should educate himself on the ways people can get Covid? Mask or No Mask, Obese, Underweight people and Unvaccinated and include all the ways one could get infected. Incidentally he and the other councilors failed to mention minorities, yes RACE.

Did you know that the CDC suggest minorities are more susceptible to COVID? (see the links below). Not one councilor nor the Town manager brought this up. Also, according to the CDC there are many proven cases of the vaccinated getting COVID. Also there are many scientific articles about weight and Covid. (See Below).

https://www.businessinsider.com/people-slightly-nearly-overweight-have-lowest-covid-19-risk-cdc-2021-3

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

The Council consensus vote on the mask mandate went as follows.

Stevens           Yes       with explanation

Clark                No        with explanation

Dow                 No        with explanation

Pelletier          No        with NO explanation

McGuire         Yes       with explanation

Hamm            Yes       with explanation.

Spiller             No         with an explanation. Paraphrase: We can’t enforce it. We will hold off.  Listen below as she suggests Omicron will be a relatively be a minor issue.

For CDC information on the COVID-19 pandemic, follow the link below .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html

Maybe we should follow the science and not the addlepated.

CLARK’s COMMENTS during the meeting.

The following video contains comments from a Dr. with over 40 years of experience and all the other councilors comments.

Kittery to go into executive session.

Town Council Special Meeting Agenda 1/27/22

Submitted on January 24, 2022 – 1:28pmRevised on January 24, 2022 – 1:41pm Upload file:  PDF iconcouncil_packet_1-27-2022_executive_session.pdf Date:  Thursday, January 27, 2022 – 5:00pm

Executive Session
a. (010322-01) The Kittery Town Council moves to go into Executive Session with the Town Manager and Town Attorney in accordance with MRS 1.6.E to discuss pending litigation resulting from the Marijuana Licensing Ordinance.

Recently the Town’s Marijuna Ordinance has been in the news, See the below links.

Is the Town of Kittery designing a playbook?

Since it is an (Executive Session) or a Closed Door session, one could speculate that the context is from the Agenda, ‘pe litigation resulting from the Marijuana Licensing Ordinance.

Remember, over 600 citizens signed a petition to allow Recreational marijuana in Kittery. The voters also mandated it in Kittery. The Town of Kittery has a habit of sticking medical marijuana locations in residential areas, on dead end roads, near day care centers and the elderly. If you are not concerned you should be for it can pop up right next door to you.

We have business districts of Rte 1, Bypass and Rte 236 that would be very good to put these shops instead of next to residential homes lowering their values.

Green Truck Inc. located on Route 236, owned by a Kittery resident had tons of support. After getting the petition that many of you may have signed at the polls, there was panic at the Town Hall. The Town Manager approached Council with concerns it would derail her ordinance of marijuana. There were several question raised.

  1. Where should we put them?
  2. What would happen if the voters vote on the language the petition asked for?
  3. What was the ordinance?
  4. How can we stop this from happening?
  5. Where was Councilor Cyrus Clark on the issue, did he abstain? After all he is in the business. How did he vote? (See the records).

Who is Cyrus Clark you might ask ? Well he is a Marijuana Entrepreneur and I would add a very smart one. He had multiple conversations with me regarding his stance of retail and medical marijuana coming to Kittery Maine. He was very well informed of the issues since he had a marijuana business in Wells, Maine. He claimed he even worked with the State of Maine on marijuana regulations. He certainly appeared to be in the know and shared his extensive knowledge with the Town Manager and Council.

Well, it did not go so good for those who signed the petition. Then comes the lottery for a business license. Coincidentally, shortly after the ordinance change and lottery, Clark opened a marijuana store in York, Maine right over the Town Line.

Read it on Seacoastonline.com

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/york-weekly/2021/12/28/tops-farm-york-maines-only-medical-marijuana-dispensary-opens/9023106002/

The article starts by saying Owner Cyrus Clark has been in the medical marijuana business for nearly 9 years. Cyrus is also a Kittery Town Councilor for those who did not know. Outrageous!

Would a reasonable person believe or have the opinion that there is a conflict of interest here? Now we learn that Sweet Dirt is considering a law suit against Kittery over the Town fiasco retail marijuana lottery the Kittery came up with. If you had the money, you could buy as many chances as you could afford. Where is the outrage?

I am curious if Cyrus Clark abstained from that discussion or offered input with the workshops, the Town Manager, Council?

Did he disclose that he was opening a store in York Maine?

Was this lottery legal under Maine Law? Kittery raised over $535,000 dollars on this fiasco (my opinion). The big winner was Theory Wellness. ( BOSTON — Theory Wellness, a marijuana dispensary operating in three Massachusetts locations, agreed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution and penalties for its failure to pay hundreds of employees premium wages on Sundays and covered holidays under the state’s wage laws. Aug 27, 2021) https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2021/08/27/theory-wellness-fined-nearly-300-k-shortchanging-employees/5615833001/

https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/kittery-nets-535k-in-fee-income-alone-as-cannabis-store-applicants-roll-in

People have asked if it was fair, was it a rouse to raise money, was it deceptive? How could the little guy compete with the big guys and the big money I ask?

Along comes the Lawsuit. Perhaps it should be a Class Action Lawsuit.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/12/31/maine-pot-sweet-dirt-eliot-threatens-lawsuit-kittery-weed-license-lottery-process/9043283002/

RIGGED they say! Outrageous. Who are they to accuse Kittery of being deceitful? Kittery is above board.

Back to the petition, the Location of Green Truck is on Rte 236, the corridor to the inlands. The petition should have gone forward. It is my opinion as well as others that it was a stacked deck. They never saw it coming. How did Green Truck or other small businesses make out with the carefully crafted ordinance? Not so good, according to the owner. I’ll let them tell that story.

A recent statement from the owner of Green Truck confirms the frustration:

“There are no shops on Route 236. Theory Wellness is corporate out-of-state money and Indico already has a store in Kittery. Kittery led everyone to believe it would be a first come first serve like all other license applications have always been handled in Kittery . That is until Jeff Pelletier changed it at the very last meeting with zero input. Our lawyer said we have a solid case to sue but I didn’t want to waste any more time or money on Kittery. The article is really good, I just wish I would have made more of a stink and got some exposure for our company.”

The quote was referring to the Sweet Dirt threatens to sue article.

Why did Kittery ban them from Rte 236 and North of the Route 1malls? There are plenty of Marijuana shops on Route 236 in Eliot and South Berwick. I am of the opinion that other shops don’t like any competition. Could there have been competition from South Berwick, Eliot or even the new Medical Marijuana location in York Maine?

Stay Tuned . its about to get interesting.

Kittery’s discovery: PFAS leaking from the dump to the ground water?

It is my opinion that the Town of Kittery still has a lot of explaining to do.

The need of Government to be truthful should overshadow the need to contain the damage.

All Citizens need their Town and Federal Government to be honest. Thank you to IAN LENEHAN of the Portsmouth Herald for staying on top of this health crisis.

The IAN from the Portsmouth Herald has just done another article on the PFAS’s in the well water around the Kittery Dump. In case you missed it, below is OURKITTERY’S post and the current article in the Portsmouth Herald. YOU NEED TO READ IT.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2022/01/13/kittery-maine-residents-near-dump-solutions-possible-pfas-water/9174942002/

As you read it keep in mind as a result of the PFAS’s in the ground water, that families drink this water, their pets drink it, wildlife drink it, the wildlife eat food that grows as a result of the water, the animals move around and of course ground water travels long distances.

The Big Question. Were there ever any tests done that were done incorrectly? and if so WHEN and what company! Has anybody notified the previous homes owners of the affected area.? Another question that should be asked, Should Kittery begin planning for the unexpected long term health ramifications in the future? The damage it can cause could be huge. We are talking about the potential health issues and how it people could be adversely affected by PFAS years to come.

Perhaps a diverse committee to examine all the aspects, the evidence and get experts who know this stuff to help Kittery with a robust plan for the affected citizens and develop a plan to clean up the area or craft a mitigating plan to stop the seepage. This process needs to be transparent and not held in executive session.

Kittery’s Web Site. (Free to read)

https://www.kitteryme.gov/resource-recovery-facility-transfer-station/pages/pfas-sampling-associated-closed-municipal-landfill

PFAS in residential well water.

Webinar on ASDWA's New PFAS - Source Water Protection Guide and Toolkit -  ASDWA

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/12/13/pfas-found-kittery-maine-dump-nearby-home-wells-tested/6488248001/

  1. How long has this been going on?
  2. Who knew?
  3. How long did they know?
  4. What is the mitigating plan?
  5. Has the recent interest expired?
  6. Since it may not affect someone, has the interest faded?
  7. What if it did affect you or your family, how would you feel then?
  8. What health risks are associated with PFAS’s, what health concerns can we expect?
  9. How many families are potentially affected?
  10. How is the wildlife affected by it and the deer meat hunters feed on?
  11. Has anyone walked out behind the dump through the green ooze in the water seeping from the hill?
  12. What is really buried at the landfill that history has shown us is dangerous now but not known then? https://bangordailynews.com/2021/11/23/outdoors/hunters-warned-to-throw-away-meat-after-detection-of-forever-chemicals-in-fairfield-deer/embed/#?secret=qmtOR6k7OU

Should we be warning Hunters in Kittery the meat may be contaminated.?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/can-epa-get-rid-toxic-forever-chemicals-n1281707

THE FOREVER CHEMICAL.

What does PFAS do to your body? A growing body of science has found that there are potential adverse health impacts associated with PFAS exposure, including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and cancer. These chemicals can easily migrate into the air, dust, food, soil and water.

The questions should be expanded since the disclosure by the Town of Kittery.

  1. Who will be held responsible if there are health effects of the potentially affected Kittery’s residents.
  2. When does the health effects or contamination begin to show?
  3. Should the residents be tested at the Town’s expenses as they did at Pease ? https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/activities/pease/community-fact-sheet.html
  4. The Town Dump has been there for over 5 decades. We just now heard about this! Did this come to light after a Town Employee raised an unrelated alarm to the DEP? Very coincidental either way? I am sure it is unrelated but the fact is, PFAS’S are known as the forever chemical and according to the Portsmouth Heralds article, its been found in the well water of adjacent properties of the Kittery Town Dump;
  5. Do you know the history of what was dumped there over the years?
  6. How far does ground water travel? i.e. Does well water end up in their septic tanks and then is pumped out dropped off at the Sewer treatment plant, processed and dumped into the river?

KITTERY needs to be pro-active and needs to be moving on this, at the very least by providing water lines for the residents at Kittery’s expense.

KITTERY, Does anyone get it?

In my opinion, things to be watching in 2022.

  1. DPW/THE DUMP
  2. Town of Kittery’s lack of diversity.
  3. PFAS’s found in well water
  4. Marijuana
  5. Affordable Housing
  6. Teachers

The DPW and Dump!

THE DPW and the DUMP. Well, I was hoping things would work themselves out and I sincerely tried to right this wrong while I was a Councilor, but you all know how that ended. Things are still happening and I hope that losing all of the hardworking employees (we lost five in five weeks plus several more prior to that) is not the answer to the problems there. I’ll let you form your own conclusions to situations that I have been alerted to.

  1. It was brought to my attention recently in writing, that there was an alleged, male on males employees sexual harassment incident, the assailant gets a week off and is then promoted.
  2. Alleged EPA violations and complaint.
  3. Clynk issues (recycling cans)
  4. Alleged overtime abuse by a supervisor,
  5. Harassment, hostile work environment.
  6. The alleged installation of an on demand Hot Water Heater without a license (according to the statement from a Town worker), a town mechanic installed it without a license or permit.
  7. Allegations of an operator using the town loader to clean his own driveway in Kittery,
  8. Allegations of harassment of the original whistle blower.
  9. Allegedly putting an inspection sticker on plow trucks with bad wheel bearings. How dangerous is that?
  10. If you care to talk to any of the former employees, they’ll fill you in on the rest.

DPW employees are leaving in droves and now the Transfer Station is forced to close on Wednesday and will open at a later date. Outrageous!

In reference to the notice of the Transfer Station Haz-Mat Wednesday closures, not once were the residents told that there is a staffing problem, morale issues or questionable practices by the supervisors. Yes, I know, “a personnnel issue” would be their excuse to not release this information. See Below from the KITTERY MAINE PAGE FACEBOOK POST. Incidentally, a very well run page. Some of the following are posts from tenured Town Employees who now can speak out without fear of reprisal.

These Town Employees have homes, families, and work history between 2 and 15 years of experience and the institutional knowledge and stories they can tell will shed the spot light on WHAT IS GOING ON!. They just don’t quit. Especially before Christmas.

Now to another public safety issue, ONE that finally got in the press.

PFAS in residential well water.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/12/13/pfas-found-kittery-maine-dump-nearby-home-wells-tested/6488248001/

  1. How long has this been going on?
  2. Who knew?
  3. How long did they know?
  4. What is the mitigating plan?
  5. Has the recent interest expired?
  6. Since it may not affect someone, has the interest faded?
  7. What if it did affect you or your family, how would you feel then?
  8. What health risks are associated with PFAS’s, what health concerns can we expect?
  9. How many families are potentially affected?
  10. How is the wildlife affected by it and the deer meat hunters feed on?
  11. Has anyone walked out behind the dump through the green ooze in the water seeping from the hill.
  12. What is really buried at the landfill that history has shown us is dangerous now but not known then?

Should we be warning Hunters in Kittery the meat may be contaminated.?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/can-epa-get-rid-toxic-forever-chemicals-n1281707

THE FOREVER CHEMICAL.

What does PFAS do to your body? A growing body of science has found that there are potential adverse health impacts associated with PFAS exposure, including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and cancer. These chemicals can easily migrate into the air, dust, food, soil and water.

The questions should be expanded since the disclosure by the Town of Kittery.

  1. Who will be held responsible if there are health effects of the potentially affected Kittery’s residents.
  2. When does the health effects or contamination begin to show?
  3. Should the residents be tested at the Town’s expenses as they did at Pease ? https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/activities/pease/community-fact-sheet.html
  4. The Town Dump has been there for over 5 decades. We just now heard about this! Did this come to light after a Town Employee raised an unrelated alarm to the DEP? Very coincidental either way? I am sure it is unrelated but the fact is, PFSA’S are known as the forever chemical and according to the Portsmouth Heralds article, its been found in the well water of adjacent properties of the Kittery Town Dump;
  5. Do you know the history of what was dumped there over the years?
  6. How far does ground water travel? i.e. Does well water end up in their septic tanks and then is pumped out dropped off at the Sewer treatment plant, processed and dumped into the river?

KITTERY needs to be pro-active and needs to be moving on this, at the very least by providing water lines for the residents at Kittery’s expense.

Now, let’s address the elephant in the room. Does Kittery have a lack of diversity on Town Boards and Employment? The definition of DIVERSITY is: The practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

This question was recently asked during the November 2021 election and it still needs to be asked;

  1. Why?
  2. What is being done to address it?
  3. Why are people afraid to discuss it?
  4. Should the personnel board be reestablished?
  5. Should the ability to hire and fire and promote employees be governed by a personnel board complete with diversity and inclusive to ensure fairness?

LET US NEVER FORGET it happened in Kittery!

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2020/06/13/seacoast-has-long-history-with-ku-klux-klan/113956360/

In the mid-1920s, 400 klansmen marched through Kittery Foreside. At the time, membership of the KKK in Maine neared 40,000.

The Kitterians Auxiliary of the Klu Klux Clan.

http://diannefallon.com/fragments-of-history-when-the-kkk-came-to-kittery/

Lets move on to MARIJUANA. Over 600 people signed a petition to allow Recreational marijuana in Kittery. The voters also mandated it in Kittery. The Town of Kittery has a habit of sticking medical marijuana locations in residential areas, on dead end roads, near day care centers and the elderly. If you are not concerned you should be for it can pop up right next door to you.

We have business districts of Rte 1, Bypass and Rte 236 that would be very good to put these shops instead of next to residential homes lowering their values.

Green Truck Inc. located on Route 236, owned by a Kittery resident had tons of support. After getting the petition that many of you may have signed at the polls, there was panic at the Town Hall. The Town Manager approached Council with concerns it would derail her ordinance of marijuana. There were several question raised.

  1. Where should we put them?
  2. What would happen if the voters vote on the language the petition asked for?
  3. What was the ordinance,?
  4. How can we stop this from happening?
  5. Where was Councilor Cyrus Clark on the issue, did he abstain? After all he is in the business. How did he vote? (See the records).

Who is Cyrus Clark you might ask ? Well he is a Marijuana Entrepreneur and I would add a very smart one. He had multiple conversations with me regarding his stance of retail and medical marijuana coming to Kittery Maine. He was very well informed of the issues since he had a marijuana business in Wells, Maine. He claimed he even worked with the State of Maine on marijuana regulations. He certainly appeared to be in the know and shared his extensive knowledge with the Town Manager and Council.

Well, it did not go so good for those who signed the petition. Then comes the lottery for a business license. Coincidentally, shortly after the ordinance change and lottery, Clark opened a marijuana store in York, Maine right over the Town Line.

Read it on Seacoastonline.com

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/york-weekly/2021/12/28/tops-farm-york-maines-only-medical-marijuana-dispensary-opens/9023106002/

The article starts by saying Owner Cyrus Clark has been in the medical marijuana business for nearly 9 years. Cyrus is also a Kittery Town Councilor for those who did not know. Outrageous!

Would a reasonable person believe or have the opinion that there is a conflict of interest here? Now we learn that Sweet Dirt is considering a law suit against Kittery over the Town fiasco retail marijuana lottery the Kittery came up with. If you had the money, you could buy as many chances as you could afford. Where is the outrage?

I am curious if Cyrus Clark abstained from that discussion or offered input with the workshops, the Town Manager, Council?

Did he disclose that he was opening a store in York Maine?

Was this lottery legal under Maine Law? Kittery raised over $535,000 dollars on this fiasco (my opinion). The big winner was Theory Wellness. ( BOSTON — Theory Wellness, a marijuana dispensary operating in three Massachusetts locations, agreed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution and penalties for its failure to pay hundreds of employees premium wages on Sundays and covered holidays under the state’s wage laws. Aug 27, 2021) https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2021/08/27/theory-wellness-fined-nearly-300-k-shortchanging-employees/5615833001/

https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/kittery-nets-535k-in-fee-income-alone-as-cannabis-store-applicants-roll-in

People have asked if it was fair, was it a rouse to raise money, was it deceptive? How could the little guy compete with the big guys and the big money.

Along comes the Lawsuit. Perhaps it should be a Class Action Lawsuit.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/12/31/maine-pot-sweet-dirt-eliot-threatens-lawsuit-kittery-weed-license-lottery-process/9043283002/

RIGGED they say! Outrageous. Who are they to accuse Kittery of being deceitful? Kittery is above board.

Back to the petition, the Location of Green Truck is on Rte 236, the corridor to the inlands. The petition should have gone forward. It is my opinion as well as others that it was a stacked deck. They never saw it coming. How did Green Truck or other small businesses make out with the carefully crafted ordinance? Not so good, according to the owner. I’ll let them tell that story.

A recent statement from the owner of Green Truck confirms the frustration:

“There are no shops on Route 236. Theory Wellness is corporate out-of-state money and Indico already has a store in Kittery. Kittery led everyone to believe it would be a first come first serve like all other license applications have always been handled in Kittery . That is until Jeff Pelletier changed it at the very last meeting with zero input. Our lawyer said we have a solid case to sue but I didn’t want to waste any more time or money on Kittery. The article is really good, I just wish I would have made more of a stink and got some exposure for our company.”

The quote was referring to the Sweet Dirt threatens to sue article.

Why did Kittery ban them from Rte 236 and North of the Route 1malls? There are plenty of Marijuana shops on Route 236 in Eliot and South Berwick. I am of the opinion that other shops don’t like any competition. Could there have been competition from South Berwick, Eliot or even the new Medical Marijuana location in York Maine?

Folk lore says Kittery has always been alleged to have a shady past, secrets and back door politics and those back door politics are still cultivated in Kittery.

The list of stories are endless and this is only what leaks out.

  1. The Dump, allegedly a recent call was made to the EPA by a Town Employee on an unrelated issue to the PFAS’s and coincidentally a few weeks later, the Town tells the press that there are tests for PFASs being conducted around the dump.
  2. Allegedly private work is still being done on Town Employees personally owned vehicles during work hours.
  3. A few years ago, a planning Board member (who also hid behind an alias name on Facebook) built an ADA apartment with an expired permit. The Permit was over three years old. He was Busted, the apartment was not even to code.
  4. The Land Trust received $50,000 dollars from Kittery Taxpayers to buy more land. Then came a complaint from a resident of Kittery Point who made allegations that a planning board member was trying to buy the land for pennies on the dollar and the Land trust was in the red and needed cash. Allegedly the Town Manager stopped it after being given that information.
  5. The planning board member attempted to thwart contributions from local businesses who wished to donate to the Wood Island Life Saving Project.
  6. The teachers and their pay. How many have left the district since 2014. Almost 100? Why?
  7. The Sewer Sticker Shock. Eliot votes NO on funding and Kittery is now short $1.5 million. The 2012 Council flips the cost burden onto the tax payer who needed the sewer. You could not opt out. Elderly, single moms and families could not shell out over $20,000 dollars per hook up. Shapleigh School gets hooked up with no one knowing it, at what cost? This needed to be hooked up to avoid the overpass piping by the Trading Post bridge that keeps freezing.
  8. Affordable housing, needed, yes, but at what cost? Accessory Dwelling units every where, septic tanks sized to a few rooms and now added rooms with an ADA, are we sure about this? https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/11/24/kittery-accessory-dwelling-units-program-to-help-affordable-housing-crisis-adu/8722457002/
  9. Selling foreclosed parcels and buildings now considered Town Property well under market value. These should be sold at current market values to lower the town debt.
  10. An Ogunquit Maine resident was once sitting on a Kittery Maine residential Town board and voting on spending your tax dollars. Many of the board members and Council knew it when it was happening.
  11. Residential additions being permitted, built and completed and no change to their taxes assessments.
  12. The list goes on and on.

As more former employees realize they are now able to speak truthfully about the abuse of power and town funds they witnessed, the truth will eventually be unearthed . It is time Kittery wakes up and asks the questions “What is going on?” It is time for an independent investigator NOT one hired by the Town Manager or by the paralegal from the Town’s Law Firm, to do due diligence. A credible investigation not steered by fear, management or a Council. A real investigator with the sole purpose to investigate and discover the problems and its source, no matter what or who it may be.

There is a COMMON DENOMINATOR. What else is being kept from you?