FARMINGTON – A local attorney took to task a narrow decision made by the Planning Board last November to approve the University of Maine at Farmington’s site application permit for the college’s new education center.

After lengthy discussion before the Board of Appeals Monday night, Edward David’s appeal was unanimously tabled.

In November, the Planning Board voted 4-3 to grant the college’s application to build a 15,000-square-foot, four-story College of Education, Health and Rehabilitation building at the corner of Lincoln and High streets.

The vote was contingent on the university supplying the board with a parking plan.

The word contingent was what led the appeals board to table David’s appeal.

The appeals board decided it could not overturn the lower board’s decision because it was not a final one, a point made by Planning Board attorney Frank Underkuffler.

David stressed that he knew the building would and should be approved in the long run, but he was concerned about the process.

He suggested that the Planning Board needs to look at the bigger picture of the impact the new building would have on the town, in particular pedestrian safety.

“Somebody is going to get killed,” he said several times, saying the roads around the proposed building are narrow and that the building would invite more traffic to the area.

David cited seven reasons why his appeal should be granted.

First, he said, as an abutter to the project, he was not notified about the vote on the permit as he should have been.

However, David’s home at 125 Lincoln St. does not directly abut the lot where the building would be constructed. Code Enforcement Officer Steve Kaiser said that’s why a notification hadn’t been sent.

David argued that although he isn’t a direct abutter he is an abutter of UMF land, the entity requesting the permit. Because he wasn’t notified, David said he didn’t get to attend the meeting and air his concerns about the project.

He also voiced adamant concern that there was a conflict of interest on the Planning Board that tentatively approved the permit. David said UMF geology professor Tom Eastler pushed the permit along at the meeting and made the initial motion for approval.

“The appeals board has the opportunity to say how the Planning Board process should be done in terms of conflicts of interest and abutters notified,” David said.

He added that he was not opposed to the permit. “It’s not injuring me,” he said. “It’s injuring us to continue to do major projects without looking at the long-range impact.”

David also took issue with the Planning Board deciding not to take the permit before a public hearing. He noted that the Planning Board has discretion to decide which issues should and should not be brought before a hearing and said in this case, the board “abused that discretion,” saying the scope of the project was cause for a hearing.

Several members on the Board of Appeals expressed agreement that David should have been notified. But after reviewing the minutes, the board voted 7-0 that the decision made by the Planning Board wasn’t a final one and thus they didn’t have the authority to overturn it.

Kaiser added that “the spirit of the town” wouldn’t want to exclude anyone from having their fair chance to speak for or against a project.

As Underkuffler pointed out, “It ain’t over ’till it’s over. They (the Planning Board) haven’t finished their work.”

sdepoy@sunjournal.com

Copy the Story Link