For the second time I have written a (lengthy) letter to Kathy Howatt, the DEP staff person in charge of Kelley’s petition for release from dam ownership or water level maintenance, requesting the Department dismiss Kelley’s petition with prejudice immediately. I’m sure they won’t, at least not immediately but when the 180 day consultation period arrives around the end of September and Kelley waltzes into Kathy Howatt’s office and says “I’m here for my breach order” I am confident he will get sent packing with instructions to go home and not come back. You can only get away with so much in this life. Eventually your actions catch up with you and so too they will catch up with Kelley. He’s about out of road.

I copied the email to a bunch of other people. I am not going to post my letter on the website however because I don’t want to give Kelley the satisfaction of reading it. Kelley can request a copy from Kathy Howatt if he wants; I’m not going to give him one. Not surprisingly, Kelley is one of the most frequent visitors to this website. Hardly a day passes that he doesn’t come on the site, review recent posts and check out the water level charts.

If anyone else wants a copy, email me and I’ll be happy to send you one.

I saw Tim Chase at the store the other day, he told me that Paul Kelley finally responded to his offer saying that it wasn’t good enough, that he was actually entertaining multiple “more-attractive” offers on the dam and suggesting that Tim might want to make another (presumably sweeter) offer. Now, where I come from, this is when you cut your original offer in half but Tim said he was just going leave his offer on the table, sit tight, and see what happens. A good plan.

I must admit I am thrilled- THRILLED I say, that Kelley has multiple buyers bidding up the price of a breached dam with no flowage rights that is going to have a DEP water level order slapped on it any day. Wow! People must be standing in line to make an offer on that dam! It has got to be the hottest piece of real estate in Lincoln County! My only question is what is such a dam worth on the open market?

Paul Koenig of the Kennebec Journal has written an article about the Whitefield public meeting last Thursday, 30 May 2013. I’m not sure what issue of the paper it appeared in but it is available online at the following link. I’ll download a PDF and post it in a while. It’s a good article. Could have used a picture. I had meant to post article sooner but I’ve been a little busy and it slipped my mind. Better late than never:

• Whitefield voters reject proposal to own dam
• Local Copy (PDF)

I was told by someone watching what was going on that when Kelley was talking at the microphone I was sitting shaking my head and when I was talking at the microphone, Kelley was shaking his head. Can you say “common ground”? No? Neither can I.

You can comment on the article on the KJ site, at the bottom of the page.

In a move that surprised no one, at the Special Town Meeting held tonight, voters voted not to authorize the Selectmen to pursue negotiations to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam despite the fact that the article as worded did not commit any money or specific action by the town now or in the future. Had the article passed, the voters would have had another chance at some time in the future to vote on whatever proposal the Selectmen had managed to negotiate. Admittedly the article was poorly worded and there was some talk about amending the wording but no matter how it was worded, the sentiment in the room was clear: Whitefield voters want nothing to do with Paul Kelley or his dam.

I am not disappointed with the outcome of this meeting because I did not go into it with any expectations. I thought passage of the article was a long shot, and I was right. Paul Kelley was allowed to speak as were a number of other non-voters most of whom were Jefferson lake shore owners. Kelley was asked 2 point-blank questions which, true to form, he spoke at length about but managed not to answer to anyone’s satisfaction. One question was how much he wants for the dam and the other was who is Pleasant Pond Mill LLC anyways. I think the questioner just wanted to see Kelley baffle the crowd and he did not disappoint. Albert Boynton spoke at length and was the only speaker to garner applause. I spoke at length, and fielded some questions. Ellis Percy spoke on behalf of the Clary Lake Association.

So Paul Kelley has now struck out in both towns. If he’s still intent on getting rid of the dam (which is questionable) this pretty much leaves the Clary Lake Association as the only potential owner since it is a virtual certainty that no state agency is going to step up and ask for the dam.

Another article by Paul Koenig has appeared in today’s Kennebec Journal (and presumably the Morning Sentinel and the Coastal Journal). The article is mostly about the Whitefield Public Meeting to be held tomorrow night at 7 PM at the Whitefield School. One  requirement of the petition filed by Pleasant Pond Mill LLC is that the towns in which the lake resides must hold a public meeting to “consider and act” on the issue of dam ownership:

• Whitefield voters to consider Clary Dam purchase talks on Thursday
• Local PDF Copy if you want to down load it

Jefferson held their meeting a week ago Tuesday night and soundly voted NO to the town accepting ownership of the dam. The Whitefield Selectmen are taking a more interested and proactive role in this matter, a fact that is reflected in the wording of the article:

To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen, on behalf of the Town, to negotiate an agreement to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam, including all property rights owned by the dam owner and necessary to maintain and operate the dam, on such terms and conditions as the Selectmen deem advisable, subject, however, to final approval by the voters before the Selectmen execute the agreement.

I think the Selectmen are to be commended for their attention to this important matter, but as the KJ article states, I’m not entirely certain how I feel about their pursuit of a deal with Kelley and I won’t really know how I’m going to vote until I’m raising my hand. While I’m all in favor of the town of Whitefield owning the dam, I don’t think the voters are. So it is likely that if the Selectmen are authorized to pursue negotiations to purchase the dam that they will be wasting their time.

While on the question of wasting time, we’re neglecting for the time being the question of whether Paul Kelley’s petition is still valid and operational. DEP has labeled the petition “unsatisfactory” but they haven’t rejected it outright and Kelley hasn’t withdrawn it and according to the article has informed DEP that that Pleasant Pond Mill LLC plans to continue with the steps in the petition process, including filing a report at the end of the consultation period, near the end of September. DEP has stated in that case that they will reject the petition on the basis that Kelley failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for public notice, an opinion I share.

See you at the meeting!

I received a letter in today’s mail from Paul Kelley on behalf of Pleasant Pond Mill LLC notifying me of his company’s intent to file a petition for release from dam ownership or water level maintenance. Sadly, this news comes 54 days after he actually filed the petition so it can hardly be called “notice of intent to file” but that’s what he’s calling it just the same. Presumably he’s sent copies of his letter to all the Clary Lake shore owners but for the benefit of those interested parties who aren’t technically lake shore owners (and there are quite a few of you) I’ve scanned and posted my copy here. First I should remind everyone that according to a May 17th letter sent by the DEP to Paul Kelley, his petition was found to be unacceptable because of his very failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for public notice:

PPM’s Notice of intent to file petition

All I can say is Paul Kelley’s chutzpah knows no bounds and his arrogance leaves me breathless and dazed. Since the purpose of this mailing was simply to provide notice of something we’re already well aware of, he could have spared us the first page entirely, and most of the second one as well: was his purpose to elicit sympathy? It failed: everyone knows all about Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s epic failure to develop the Clary Mill property and all the reasons for it. We’re also sick and tired of hearing how hard he has tried to get rid of the dam and we sit here wondering, if he’s tried that hard, how is it that he still owns it?

I presume I am the unidentified “CLA board member” who objected to Mr. Kelley’s holding an “invitation-only” meeting with parties possibly interested in owning the dam and that my statement that I would boycott any meeting that wasn’t open to the general public has caused him to abandon his plans for such an exclusive meeting. No need to thank me folks! Just doing my job!

Instead of the originally planned invitation-only meeting, Mr. Kelley will now meet 1-on-1 with parties interested in owning the Clary Lake dam. First come, first served. Get in line folks.

The Whitefield Selectmen have published the warrant for the upcoming special town  meeting on May 30th at 7:00 PM at the Whitefield School. Article 2 addresses the matter of the Clary Lake dam:

To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen, on behalf of the Town, to negotiate an agreement to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam, including all property rights owned by the dam owner and necessary to maintain and operate the dam, on such terms and conditions as the Selectmen deem advisable, subject, however, to final approval by the voters before the Selectmen execute the agreement.

While I think it is unlikely that the town will ultimately vote to accept ownership of the dam, the Selectmen should be commended for their due diligence in this matter. I sincerely hope they let the Selectmen pursue this initiative to it’s logical conclusion.

Shlomit Auciello has written another article in the ongoing saga of the “beleaguered” Clary Lake dam property, this one covering last night’s Jefferson town meeting at which the town voted to reject ownership of the dam. Ms. Auciello also spoke with Paul Kelley before the meeting about the May 17th letter sent by the DEP to him in which they state their opinion that his petition has been “found to be unacceptable at this time.” Auciello reports that Kelley said that they weren’t rejecting his petition the way he reads the letter, that he believes PPM’s petition was “processed and deemed to comply with the statute.” Whatever. Here’s the article:

Jefferson voters reject ownership of Clary Lake Dam

Kelley also stated that the letter did not address “the topic we’ve been discussing for the past 3 weeks.” That “topic” could only be the matter of the flowage rights and the fact that Kelley doesn’t own them, but I’m just guessing.

Paul Koenig of the Kennebec Journal also had an article in today’s KJ about the Jefferson town meeting:

Jefferson residents OK school budget, refuse Clary Lake dam takeover

At their 21 May 2013 Special Town Meeting, Jefferson voters predictably voted not to accept ownership of the Clary Lake dam. Selectman Jim Hilton made a motion right off not to accept ownership of the dam, which was quickly seconded. He gave his reasons- basically that the Selectmen feel that the Clary Lake Association is the proper entity to own the dam and the town isn’t at all interested in being responsible for dam repairs and maintenance, and they don’t want DEP telling them they have to spend money. He also cited the letter they received today to the effect that Kelley’s petition is “deficient” and the town just doesn’t want to have anything to do with Kelley or the dam.

A number of Jefferson residents spoke up not so much in favor of the town owning the dam but to take an active interest in the proceedings and be supportive of the Association’s efforts to resolve this situation. Trudi Hodgkins specifically mentioned her support of a 3-way arrangement with the 2 towns and the Association. A Ms. Bond (didn’t get her first name) said she just wants a water level order on the lake! She said she was over at the boat launch and found it unusable. Ellis Percy spoke eloquently about the Association’s desire to own the dam and encouraged the town to “stay on board” with us.

Butch Duncan said he owns 3000′ of shore front mostly in Whitefield and spoke about how he likes the water low and that the dam should be removed.

As expected, the vote to not accept ownership of the dam was almost but not quite unanimous. The meeting was well attended. Paul Kelley was there. He didn’t say anything and wasn’t asked to speak.

DEP has come to the conclusion that Paul Kelley failed to satisfy the Public Notice requirements of the statute and have given him the option of either voluntarily withdrawing his petition now or waiting for the Department to officially dismiss it at their upcoming consultation 180 days from when the petition was filed. At least that is how I understand it. Kelley has been notified and a letter has been sent to the towns of Whitefield and Jefferson. I’ll post it here as soon I get my hands on a copy.

Here’s a copy:

Letter from DEP Regarding Deficient Petition

Anyone expecting Paul Kelley to voluntarily withdraw his petition don’t know Paul Kelley. I predict he’ll fight this decision. To do otherwise would not be in character.

Ironically, I inquired of Kathy Howatt at the very start of this fiasco whether or not Kelley had satisfactorily complied with the statute’s public notice requirement. At that time the thinking at the Department was that the requirement for public notice could be met with a single notice being published in a newspaper not more than 30 days before filing the petition. Kelley did this, posting a notice in the Kennebec Journal on April 1st 2013, one day before filing the petition with the DEP. Now it appears the Department is of the opinion that no, ALL the public notices need to be made before the filing of the petition, which it the way I interpret the law. Here’s the verbiage from the statute. You decide:

2. Public notice. Not more than 30 days before filing a petition, the dam owner shall publish notice of intent to file a petition under this article at least once in a newspaper circulated in the area in which the dam and impoundment are located. The dam owner shall notify by certified mail the persons listed in section 902, subsection 3, paragraphs B, C and D. The dam owner shall notify abutting property owners as provided in subsection 3. The dam owner shall also make a good faith effort to notify local, regional and statewide private organizations interested in fisheries, wildlife, conservation, recreation and environmental issues whose interests may be affected by the dam.

I had hoped DEP would dismiss his petition on the basis that he lacked sufficient right, title, and interest in the dam to satisfy the statutory requirements for it’s transfer, but I’ll take this dismissal on a procedural basis if that’s all I can get. If Kelley resubmits his petition, he’ll still have that title hurdle clear.

Just a quick reminder that the Town of Jefferson is holding their public meeting to consider and act on the issue of dam ownership tomorrow night at 6 PM at the Jefferson Village School Gymnasium. Unlike the Town of Whitefield’s May 30th meeting which is being held solely for the purpose of addressing the dam issue, Jefferson’s meeting serves a dual purpose: residents will also be voting on school budget issues. The the dam question is #1 on the agenda and is worded as follows:

“To see what action the town will take regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam located at 103 Mills Road in Whitefield.”

I will be there simply so I can report on the meeting. From what I can gather, this meeting is being held under duress and the outcome is virtually assured: the town will not take any action regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam. I imagine the first and last question will be “How much do they want for the dam?” to which the Selectmen will answer “We don’t know. He won’t tell us.” The Selectmen have taken a hands-off approach towards this issue from the very start and I expect their recommendation will be to do nothing and move on. I wonder if Paul Kelley will be there to field questions? That would be entertaining.

Jefferson has sent out the warrant for the upcoming special town meeting to be held on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at the Jefferson Village School Gymnasium at 6 PM. The article on the Clary Lake dam is #1 on the agenda and the wording is short and sweet:

“To see what action the town will take regarding ownership of the Clary Lake dam located at 103 Mills Road in Whitefield.”

Discussion should be lively and short-lived. I predict they will vote to take no action.

Yet another Lincoln County News article in this week’s paper, this one by Dominik Lobkowicz about last Tuesday night’s Whitefield Selectmen’s meeting. Good article. Worth reading. I was at that meeting along with Sue McKeen. We didn’t talk, we just listened. The theme of this post is “Confusion” which is what that thumbnail at left is supposed to represent. The article isn’t online so I scanned it and the photo of Mr. Kelley didn’t come out too well. Sorry.

Whitefield selectmen to look into so-called flowage rights

There’s really nothing confusing about it. At issue is whether anyone in their right mind would want to own a dam without also owning the right to flood upstream property that they don’t own. If you owned a dam without also owning the flowage rights, why you could find yourself being sued by any one of a 108 lake shore property owners (or all of them) for flooding their property without the right to do so. It’s really simple. If you own a dam, you need the flowage rights. And DEP agrees. And so does the AG.