|
|
|
Paul Schumacher, Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
Casino Project Overview |
|
Transportation & Housing Impacts |
|
Regional Review Process & Funding for
Mitigation |
|
Environmental issues |
|
|
|
|
Council of Governments serving 39 communities |
|
Neutral on casino issue |
|
Working to learn from the lessons of Foxwoods
and other casino areas. |
|
Defining regional costs of project and ways to
address those costs. |
|
Helping Sanford Planning Board address regional
concerns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing approaches to the Casino site have
noticeable capacity issues at this time. |
|
Intersection problems and occasional bottlenecks
occur in neighboring towns already. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant road and intersection improvements
will be needed in Sanford and surrounding communities. |
|
Public transportation and satellite parking may
need to be utilized. |
|
AMTRAK expansion possibility is limited because
of a single track and competition
with freight traffic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can’t copy a plan by following the trail of
other regions that have experienced casino development, because our forms
of government are so different. |
|
Maine has no County government involvement in
land use planning. |
|
The degree of municipal control is unprecedented
when compared to other parts of the United States. |
|
There is no State or Regional Review of large
developments in Maine, other than Site Law |
|
Nationally, many casinos are on Tribal Land, and
this project will be on private land with municipal approval. |
|
|
|
|
Town of Sanford Contract Rezoning Process |
|
DEP Site Law Review |
|
Regional Planning Commission Statute Role of
SMRPC |
|
|
|
|
Enabled by a State Statute, and allows
municipalities to impose conditions in exchange for a rezoning |
|
Conditions must relate to the “physical
development or operation of the property.” |
|
It is uncertain whether this will include
requirements to provide off-site improvements outside of the Town of
Sanford. |
|
|
|
|
DEP in its Site Law Process will consider
regional impacts. The applicants
have stated that they will apply to DEP after the statewide referendum. |
|
Impacts on the environment, municipal sewage treatment and traffic
will be considered. DOT traffic movement permit is also required. |
|
There will be an opportunity for regional
municipalities to provide input at the “scoping” meeting, and presumably at
a hearing of the Board of Environmental Protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-A M.R.S.A. 2305 et seq. |
|
Statute encourages regional solutions through
the RPC without creating new entities unless necessary. |
|
SMRPC may study any problem common to 2 or more
members that it considers appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analyze costs and impacts of project |
|
Provide input into : |
|
Contract Zoning process |
|
Site
Law review |
|
DOT
Permitting |
|
Potential legislation |
|
Work
with applicants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awaiting funds as part of Sanford’s development
review process |
|
If project moves forward utilize funds for
regional reviews |
|
Providing information and regional forum for
discussion |
|
|
|
|
|
Referendum legislation itself provides a
mechanism for the State to help local governments, before the money is
spent on state aid to education and revenue sharing. |
|
However, there would be nothing to prevent the
State from keeping the casino income, and letting the local governments
take care of the local impacts. |
|
|
|
|
DOT Permit requires examination of wide range of
traffic movements |
|
How far may they go? Public transportation? Rail? Etc. |
|
DEP conditions/mitigation measures |
|
|
|
|
Willingness of Sanford to consider regional
impacts |
|
Potential legal restrictions o ability to
require conditions outside town boundaries |
|
Political considerations |
|
|
|
|
Relies on good intentions of applicants. |
|
Numerous examples country wide of tribes
captilizing foundations, development funds, non-profits and developing
grant programs for environmental, econonomic and social service needs. |
|
|
|
|
Develop legislation outside of referendum
language to provide for regional mitigation |
|
Needs support on county and statewide level |
|
Difficult because of refendum language itself |
|
|
|
|
|
Regional planning work is vitally important, and
the casino proposal is a “wake-up call” for us to work together. |
|
Even if the statewide vote on the proposed
casino fails in November, or if Sanford rejects a contract rezoning, plans
for a casino in this region probably will continue. |
|
The time to determine our regional needs, and to
make sure they are considered in an approval process is RIGHT NOW. |
|
|
|
|
|
Applicants have not yet proposed methods for
obtaining water/sewer services. |
|
Is there enough water for the proposed use?
(Estimated consumption of 1.2 million gpd) |
|
Where will sewage be disposed of ? Will this
impact Sanford’s ability to accept septage? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|