Peggy Roberts made some errors on page 8 in your January 20, 2006 paper. In the second paragraph she indicates Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics designed the sub-division, the drawings have no signature on them and the drawing shows 99.41 acres not 110 and 27 lots not 26. The 99.41 acres does appear to be in agreement with the town tax maps. The Billington’s lots are: 19-34-1 of 10.8 acres, 19-34-2 of 86 acres and a floater lot that has been taken from 19-34-0 which shows as 6.05 acres, but tax information shows this lot is 4.3 acres. There seems to be missing 1.75 acres that has been reportedly added to the 86 acres without a Deed. This totals to 98.55 acres, not 110 acres.

She states Mr. Benson thinks this is a very well engineered plan, but for whom? There is over 4,000 feet of road that will become the burden for all taxpayers, the cost for replacement of culverts, repair, snow removal and eventual replacement road, these are substantial costs. When completed, likely 30 or 40 children will be added the school system at a net cost to the taxpayer of over $3,000 each. All the existing taxpayers will be contributing to these costs with extra property taxes. It’s unclear who will be paying for the trails and street lights but probably taxpayers after time. Tell me how the rural character is being preserved when there is 2,500 feet of road more than needed. The big selling point for resurrecting the cluster sub-division ordinance was to reduce road lengths and maintenance. These conditions apply to all Cluster sub-divisions the Planning Board approves.

Lot 1 on the plan has some wetland shown and yet is not listed with lots that have wet land. During the 12/5/05 Planning Board meeting minutes, Perry stated “the lot that the Billingtons’ reside at is to be retained and is about 10 acres.” How can it be, is this land in the subdivision or not, is it only to be used to increase the number of lots in the cluster and then removed? If in the subdivision as shown on the plan, as a reconfigured lot, can it be separated for yet another possible later sub-division?

Mr. Billington as town manager has responsibilities to taxpayers to see laws are followed. He appoints planner, tax assessor, and code enforcement officer and has control over them in their work. Mrs. Billington, the Chair of both the Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan, has similar responsibilities. How appropriate is it to be putting forward a plan with unexplained questions about the amount land involved?

Only a few years ago in a secret meeting a town manager was removed for what appeared to be minor discipline employee problems. Are we there again?

If you have concerns, call your councilor and Planning Board representatives and ask questions. More important vote at the June referendum and Town Meeting or be ready to have increased taxes for items you may not want to pay for.

William Orr

Standish