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.