Still under debate and an issue on the upcoming Nov. 7 ballot is the topic surrounding gravel pits and quarries in Windham.
What began as a businessman trying to open a quarry in the town of Windham has turned into a tear in the community as a proposed gravel pit and rock quarry ordinance proposal creates extensive speculation, debate and civil divide.
This past Tuesday night’s Windham Town Council meeting held another installment of the Busque proposed quarry review. After the past two sessions, involved parties and town officials see no swift conclusions to the debate.
“Well, there are 18 sections of review left for the proposed quarry, and after Oct 10’s meeting getting through only one question, it could take quite a while,” said Roger Timmons, Windham’s code enforcement officer.
But Busque and those opposed to his proposed quarry have since become part of a growing concern in the town.
Margaret Pinchbeck, one of the abutters to Busque’s proposed site, organized many of the neighborhood’s surrounding abutters and an outside lawyer to draft an ordinance change in hopes of keeping a rock quarry from operating in her neighborhood.
“This whole thing really started because a lot of us felt we did not get our due process,” said Carl Russell, owner of Avante Garde Pet Care along Route 302 – the closest abutter to the proposed site.
Russell claims that Sebago Technics, one of the firms Busque contracted for the project, did not make a proper attempt to contact abutters. Busque and his associates claim they did.
“But all of that is hindsight now,” said Russell. “What’s happened now is that this thing has caused a greater interest in just what can and can’t happen in the town.”
When it comes to the proposed mineral extraction ordinance by Pinchbeck and her group, ambiguities in the language expanded concern to other existing quarry and gravel pit owners in town.
“This is obviously an extreme over-reaction to one project in town,” said Ken Grondin of R.J. Grondin & Sons Construction. “And because of that, we now have this poorly written document that is likely to create some legal challenges. If the town finds that it needs revision, so be it. But let’s bring in all the players.”
Timmons is proof of the ambiguity of the proposed ordinance. He produced an e-mail sent to Scott D. Anderson, the lawyer who wrote the proposal, with several questions Timmons was looking for clarity on.
“They keep saying that the new ordinance will not affect existing operations, but I just don’t see how that will be,” said Timmons. “I have too many questions, and as I interpret the document now, I feel that I would have to act accordingly on existing operations, were this thing to pass.”
Timmons also produced a letter written by Anderson, vouching that the proposed ordinance would not affect existing pits. Timmons refused to sign the letter, restating that he would not give his word on something that was unclear and ambiguously written.
“There’s a copy of the existing ordinance,” said Timmons, referring to a copy of the document written by him in 1995. “It’s served us well, and if people want changes in it, then so be it. But I think that everyone should be involved, businesses, towns people, the council… a good representation of all the people.”
Tim Tandberg is concerned that people are getting the wrong idea about his involvement in trying to defeat the amended ordinance.
“I just want people to know that Timmons and I did not write the old ordinance by ourselves,” said Tandberg. “If you research the history, you’ll find that members of the town council at the time, members of the community, and those looking to, or already owning pits were involved in the drafting of the document. The way it should be done. If people want more changes, I think the same thing should happen again – not to have one lawyer write a draft based on the information contained in the old ordinance and what his interested party has told him.”
“In hindsight, I guess it would have been good to check with someone like Timmons,” said Pinchbeck. “We have seen that there is some gray area in the text, and we are working on fixing it up.”
The problem with fixing the document now is that no changes can be made to it once it has been petitioned and submitted for vote, which it has. Some members of the community, such as Tandberg and other pit owners and employees, hope that the proposed ordinance will be voted down, stating they believe it will affect their jobs, possibly to the point of unemployment. Other community members, such as Pinchbeck, Russell and others hope that the ordinance will be voted in, stating that the change will only pertain to new operations.
“The thing I think should be taken into consideration the most is what kind of basic precedent may be set,” said Timmons. “The ordinance has a retroactive clause, moving backwards to any quarries begun since 2005.”
It is possible, Timmons and others say, that the retroactive clause may open a door to anyone wishing to change things in the town of Windham, to work on retroactive clauses.
“I just don’t think that’s fair,” said Timmons. “You can’t go changing the rules on someone. Can you imagine if you built a home, and the ordinance was to have it 40 feet from the road. And six months later, people want the ordinance changed to have it 60 feet away, and in it they want it to go back to the beginning of the year. It may not happen, but it would make it possible that you would have to pick up your home and move it 20 feet. That would be awfully unfair.”
“This thing is tearing the town apart,” said Tandberg. “I understand that this is their right as homeowners, and I empathize with them. I also understand the rights of a business man, and I feel for them. I just hope that everyone can find a way to work together, and I feel that this ordinance proposal is hurting that possibility.”
“I hope people vote for the ordinance,” Pinchbeck said. “It’s just not right and fair that us residents, who have been here for a long time, can suddenly find ourselves next to a rock quarry that we do not want, and were not given the fair chance to oppose.”
“I feel for the people of the town that don’t want the quarry,” said Timmons. “And I feel for Mr. Busque since he’s done everything asked of him by the rules set in place.”
Copies of Windham’s existing mineral extraction ordinance can be found at the local town hall, as well as a copy of the proposed one for the Nov. 7 election.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
