<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 07 Mar 2018 5:37 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    Hardly a week goes by without a story in the local paper about a Maine municipality grappling with what to do about an abandoned or dilapidated building in town.  The fact patterns are remarkably similar:  A home in significant disrepair, junk in the yard, an absentee property owner,  complaints by neighbors—and, consequently, political pressure to “do something about it!”

    So what can municipal officials do?  The state’s dangerous buildings law (Title 17, Sections 2851-2859 of the Maine Revised Statutes) provides several options, but—beware—each comes with its own procedural pitfalls.  

    Securing Buildings in the Case of Serious Threats to Health and Safety

    First and foremost, if a building poses a serious threat to public health and safety, the municipality should immediately act to secure it.  Notice must be served, although not before securing the building in these situations.  The Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) should attempt to contact the owner by phone or email to inform him or her of the municipality’s intentions and document the threat in writing.  The CEO should not wait to arrange for the building to be secured, however.  Any delay in these instances could raise questions as to whether the threat is, indeed, serious.

    Once the building is secured, notice must be personally served by a sheriff or deputy sheriff on the owner and all “parties-in-interest”—including any mortgagors, mortgagees, holders of the fee interest, lessees pursuant to recorded leases or memoranda of leases, lienors and attaching creditors listed in the records of the Registry of Deeds.  In other words, a title search is needed to identify all the parties-in-interest.

    Local Process:  Declaring a Building to be “Dangerous”

    The dangerous building statute sets forth a specific process for municipal officers—that is, selectpersons or councilors—to declare a building to be a nuisance or dangerous and order corrective action, including the repair or demolition of the structure.

    Under state law, a building may be found dangerous if it is structurally unsafe; is unstable or unsanitary; constitutes a fire hazard; is unsuitable or improper for the use or occupancy to which it is put; constitutes a hazard to health or safety because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment; or is otherwise dangerous to life or property.  A “building” for this purpose is defined as “a building or structure, or any portion of a building or structure, or any wharf, pier, pilings or, any portion thereof, that is located on or extending from land within the boundaries of the municipality as measured from the low water mark.”

    Before this statutory process is initiated, however, the municipality has often already taken steps to attempt to resolve the situation.  Typically, these initial steps include a CEO inspection, delivery of one or more notices of violation, and efforts to reach a consensual settlement with the property owner.  In situations where the CEO identifies the property to be a potential dangerous building, the notice of violation should warn the owner that, if the dangerous condition is not corrected within a certain timeframe, the CEO will advise the municipal officers to initiate a dangerous building proceeding.  The notice of violation should also spell out the consequences of a dangerous building proceeding to the owner, including the possible assessment of a special tax to recover the costs of expenses incurred by the municipality related to that proceeding and collection by automatic lien foreclosure.

    When these initial steps do not resolve the situation, a municipality can follow the statutory process to declare the building to be a nuisance or dangerous and to order corrective action, including demolition of the building. 

    It bears mention that demolition of property is a drastic governmental action, which can put a municipality at risk for a lawsuit and, ultimately, damages for wrongful removal.  As such, the decision to proceed should not be taken lightly and a municipality should consult with legal counsel before commencing this process to both weigh the risks and rewards and ensure that all legal requirements are met.

    In sum, the local process involves the following steps:

    1.      Conduct a Title Search:  A title search is needed to identify the owner of record, as well as all “parties-in-interest,” which is defined in state law as including any mortgagors, mortgagees, holders of the fee interest, lessees pursuant to recorded leases or memoranda of leases, lienors and attaching creditors listed in the records of the Registry of Deeds.
    2.      Schedule a Hearing and Serve Notice:  The municipal officers vote to set a hearing to adjudicate whether or not the building is dangerous or a nuisance, and issue a notice of hearing.  The notice should be signed by the municipal officers and attested by the municipal clerk.  The original must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds, and an attested copy must be personally served on each owner and party-in-interest by the sheriff or deputy sheriff in the county in which the party is located.  The returns of service must be provided to the municipality.  To allow adequate time to serve the notice on the owner and parties-in-interest, the hearing should be scheduled out about 3 or 4 weeks.
    3.      Conduct an Inspection:  If not already done, the CEO, Fire Chief, and any other municipal official with enforcement authority should conduct an inspection of the property and prepare an inspection report, with photographs documenting all dangerous or nuisance conditions—including broken windows, doors, stairways; loose bricks or trim; debris in the yard; etc.  If the CEO cannot obtain consent from the owner to inspect the interior of the building, an administrative inspection warrant should be secured.  In addition, in some circumstances, a registered engineer may need to be hired to inspect the building and prepare a written report to document whether or not the building is structurally safe or salvageable.
    4.      Hold the Hearing:  Only after the owner and parties-in-interest have been properly served may the municipal officers hold the hearing.  The CEO, Fire Chief, engineer (if hired), and any other municipal official with information about the property should present evidence relevant to the dangerous or nuisance conditions.  Any owner or any party-in-interest attending the hearing should also be given an opportunity to testify.
    5.      Deliberate:  Immediately following the hearing, the municipal officers must consider whether the building is “dangerous or a nuisance,” based on the definition in state law.  The municipal officers then sign an order containing detailed findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the building is or is not dangerous, and outlining any corrective action that must be taken by the owner to abate the situation.  (In practical effect, a draft order is either prepared ahead of the hearing and the municipal officers amend it as necessary as part of their deliberations, or the municipal officers direct the CEO or town attorney to draft the order after the deliberations and reconvene at another time to sign the order.)
    6.      Serve and Record the Order:  The signed order must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds and an attested copy must be personally served upon the owner and the parties-in-interest in the same manner as the notice of hearing was served.
    7.      Take Corrective Action:  Typically, the order provides the owner with at least 30 days to demolish or repair the building to the municipality’s satisfaction.  If the necessary corrective action is not taken by the owner, the order will give the municipal manager the authority to abate the property1.  Note that any personal property inside a building that has been declared dangerous must be disposed of in accordance with the statutory process for disposing of abandoned property, set forth in Title 30-A, Section 3106 of the Maine Revised Statutes.
    8.      Recover Expenses:  The municipality must itemize all costs related to the dangerous building proceeding action and issue a written demand to the owner.  The costs that may be recovered by the municipality include the costs of title searches, service of process, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs to secure the building, costs to repair or demolish the building, clean-up costs, and all other costs that are reasonably related to the dangerous building proceeding.  If the owner fails to pay the demand within 30 days, the municipality may assess a special tax on the property, which is included in the next annual warrant to the tax collector and is collected in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected.  (Note that because the special tax is not an ad valorem tax, it cannot be used to determine the mil rate and should be issued as a separate tax bill on the property.)  If the tax is not paid, it may be collected using the same automatic lien foreclosure process that is used to collect property taxes.

    Alternative Court Process

    State law allows municipalities to seek an abatement or demolition order directly from the Superior Court, rather than using the local proceeding outlined above.  After a hearing, the Court may order corrective action and award costs to the municipality. 

    In addition, the statute allows a municipality to use a summary process in situations involving immediate and serious threats to public health, safety, and welfare.  After the municipality files a complaint with the Superior Court, the Court may set a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the complaint and may order the owner and parties-in-interest to appear.  After the hearing, the Court may order corrective action and award costs. 

    Because many legal considerations come into play in pursuing these legal actions, a call to a municipal attorney is a necessary step in deciding whether a court process is appropriate for any given situation.

    Conclusion

    There is no question that the dangerous building process is onerous, requiring municipal officials to take numerous time-consuming and costly steps to ensure that all affected parties—that is, the owner and parties-in-interest—are properly notified, given meaningful opportunity to participate in the process, and ultimately challenge any decision of the municipal officers.  The reason for all of this process is clear—and clearly necessary:  At the end of the day, the dangerous building statute authorizes local government to demolish a person’s home.  This grant of power justifies a commensurate dose of due process.

    1Note that, last year, the Maine Legislature updated the dangerous building statute to allow for the delay of demolition of a dangerous building if an owner or party-in-interest has demonstrated an ability and willingness to rehabilitate the building.  See LD 1959 (“An Act to Protect the Public from Dangerous Buildings”), P.L. 2017 ch. 136.


    --Aga (Pinette) Dixon, Drummond Woodsum 

    Aga Dixon focuses her legal practice on public finance and municipal and land use matters. Before joining the law firm of Drummond Woodsum, Aga was a senior planner at the Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LURC) where she coordinated comprehensive planning projects, rulemaking initiatives, and regulatory reviews of significant and controversial development projects. Since then, Aga has assisted municipal clients with drafting, enacting, and enforcing ordinances that address local concerns and achieve planning objectives.


  • 03 Mar 2018 6:10 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    The votes are in! Each state association as well as the NNECAPA Board met to discuss the reorganization idea. Every state association gave direction to the NNECAPA Board that they would like to explore the option of forming Section within the NNECAPA Chapter. 

    The general outline for this process will be:

    • NNECAPA hired Rick Menard to act as consultant to draft NNECAPA Bylaws by the end of February 2018
    • Retreat of all four organizations to review draft Bylaws in March 2018
    • Final draft Bylaws for all organizations to review ready by end of April 2018
    • Final adoption of NNECAPA Bylaws during NNECAPA Conference 2018

    MAP will need to begin to review and think about adjustments to its Bylaws close to the adoption of the NNECAPA Bylaws. We should be thinking about an ad-hoc committee for this purpose by at least the end of summer 2018.

    -- Carol Eyerman, AICPNNECAPA Maine State Director


  • 03 Mar 2018 5:35 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    I prepared the following brief analysis for MAP's winter meeting in January 2018. My new position prevented my attending the meeting. For the sake of others unable to attend, I present the following snapshot of MAP’s membership.

    Last Renewed

    While MAP has about 129 planners in our database, only 70 ar
    current in their dues. Another 18 appear to be poised to renew or join for the first time, but have not provided their dues. Approximately 41 former members have lapsed for more than a year. I recently trimmed about 20 past members that were more than four years overdue on payment. I don’t know when MAP reached peak members, but I believe we had more than 100 active members about a decade ago. We are not growing.

    Membership Level

    We offer two membership levels. The overwhelming majority of current and not-too-far past members are professional planners. If you have one or more planning board members that wants to understand planning from a new light, by all mean sign them up to be MAP members.

    Employment Sector

    The large majority of current and recent members are in the public sector. Some members did not specify, and of these some are students, retirees and municipal members.

    Experience

    Our years of experience profile is pretty even, indicating a stable or possibly stagnant job market. The oldest two categories are MAP boomers. It is good to see that the less than 10 years of experience category balances the >40 cohort. This is not the case in the general population which is older. 

    Location

    MAP members are distributed much like Maine’s population, with the biggest concentration in greater Portland. There is a remarkable falling off the edge of this flat earth as you cross Route 1A between Bangor and Bar Harbor. After that there be Judy and Ken. We have a handful of out-of-staters for reasons I cannot hazard a guess. Perhaps it’s chain migration.


    Conclusions

    Membership has, at times, stood over 100.  MAP would be stronger with 100+ active, paid members now.  We operate on a shoestring in good times. Smaller numbers futher limits our options.

    There are likely to be more than enough planners in Maine, but many have discontinued paying dues while others have never joined.  We are competing with many other dues-based memberships.

    It is difficult to see how MAP can offer “private” or “member only benefits” and remain visible enough to attract additional members. We are appealing to a more altruistic basis for paying dues, which works well with some and is ignored by many. Free-riding is an easy choice in our case.

    Of our larger list of 129 persons, 51 noted membership in APA/NNECAPA. Under-reporting is likely. We don’t know how consolidation with other northern New England states and NNECAPA would affect our small network in Maine. That is a matter of discussion in the coming year.

    In the mean time, members that renew in April and May will be good to go for MAP’s 2018-2019 fiscal year. Please show your support and stay in touch. If you have questions, contact Jim Fisher at jimfisher101@gmail.com.

    --Jim Fisher, Deer Isle Town Manager, MAP Board Member and Membership Secretary


  • 03 Mar 2018 5:01 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    With every edition of Front Page, MAP highlights the "comings and goings" of planners through Bytes 'N Pieces.

    • Ben Averill has been hired as Bath’s City Planner. Ben comes to Bath from an Economic Development role in Auburn. Prior to his time in Auburn, Ben served as the Town Planner in Wiscasset. Andrew Deci is the Director of Planning & Development for the City, overseeing Ben, long-range planning, and economic development activities. More here.
    • Anna Breinich has resigned as Brunswick’s Director of Planning and Development effective December 31, 2017 after 10 years of service.
    • Ethan Croce is now Community Development Director for the Town of Falmouth. More here.
    • Dawn Emerson is now Land Use Planner for the Town of Falmouth. More here.
    • Carl Eppich is joining Milone & MacBroom Inc. as Lead Transportation Planner covering Maine, NH, and VT and southern New England.
    • Jim Fisher named the first Town Manager for Deer Isle. More here.
    • Jamie Francomano is now Executive Director of Mid-Coast Regional Planning Commission (MCRPC), serving the needs of Knox and Waldo County municipalities for planning and community development services. More here.
    • Anne Krieg has been hired by Hancock County Planning Commission (HCPC) as Regional Planner. More here.
    • City of Lewiston received Maine’s first Choice Neighborhood grant. The planning and action grant will focus on the Tree Street Neighborhoods, developing a transformation plan, and also implementing early action items to help get the work started. More here.
    • Jeremy Martin, currently with the City of Bangor, will start a new position as Planning and Development Director for the City of Camden on March 19. More here
    • Amanda Stearns is now Open Space Manager for the Town of Falmouth. More here.

    Do you have planning news to share? Email us at info@meplan.org to be included in the next edition of Bytes N Pieces.

  • 25 Feb 2018 6:26 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)
    GrowSmart Maine and the Maine Farmland Trust co-hosted a forum on Thursday, January 18 on Growing Farm-Friendly Communities.

    Maine’s food system and local food movement are growing and provide unique economic and community development opportunities in rural and suburban areas. During the forum, community and municipal leaders shared policy approaches and practical ideas for communities and farmers to work together. Attendees learned about ways communities can welcome and retain small agricultural businesses.

    Stephanie Gilbert, Farm Viability & Farmland Protection Specialist with the Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation, & Forestry moderated the panel discussion, which featured: 

    • Bud Benson, Town Planner, Town of Standish 
    • Mark Hews, President, M. E. Hews and Company, LLC 
    • Rod Melanson, Planning Director, Town of Topsham 
    • Kate Newkirk, Co-Chair, Town of Winslow Agriculture Commission 
    • Matt Randall, Agricultural Compliance Supervisor, DACF 
    See a recording of the session here: https://vimeo.com/252893286

    A second verion of the panel will be held on March 14 in Bowdoinham, co-hosted by GrowSmart Maine and Bowdoinham Community Development Initiative in partnership with Maine Farmland Trust. More info

    Related Resources 

    GrowSmart Maine Educational Brief on Farm Friendly Communities – 2 page resource with additional matrix outlining current policies & support tools in towns & cities across Maine. 

    Maine Farmland Trust’s Municipal Policy Website – Resource hub for citizens and municipal leaders looking for example ordinances, comp plans, and community engagement tools to boost their town’s farm friendly status. 

    The Value of Farms, Monetary & Beyond – Natural Resources Economist Rachel Bouvier shares the economic benefits of farmland & working farms for Maine communities in this GrowSmart Maine blog post. 

    Guide to Cultivating Maine’s Agricultural Future – Created by Maine Farmland Trust and the American Farmland Trust; full of helpful information for citizens and municipalities. 

    Farm Friendly Community Checklist & Survey – Use this tool from Maine Farmland Trust to determine if your town is farm friendly. 

    Town of Topsham Local Food Systems Case Study – Learn how agricultural heritage, local partnerships, and local government leadership combine to advance local food in Topsham.

  • 25 Feb 2018 6:07 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)
    The Blueprint: Following recommendations from the City of Auburn’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the 2014 New Auburn Village Center Plan, to “encourage new development or modifications to existing buildings to occur in a manner that reflects key elements of the traditional downtown development pattern”; Auburn made the commitment to implement a Form Based Code (FBC).

    Starting in 2014, the City Planning Staff and the Auburn Planning Board worked over a two year period and developed a simple, easy to understand and administrate FBC for close to 100 acres of Downtown Auburn and New Auburn. The Auburn City Council adopted the FBC in May of 2016--see more on the city's website

    Nuts and Bolts: Initially, staff made a careful evaluation (calibration) of the downtown’s physical, historical and architectural character and arrived at five character-based types (transects); two Traditional Neighborhood types, two Traditional Downtown types and a Downtown Core type. Each transect or district description in the adopted zoning ordinance contains sections on: Intent and Purpose, Characteristic Features and Pictorial examples, Building Placement and Configuration (by graphics), Building Frontage Types and External Elements. Much thought and deliberation was put into the level of detail and site elements to be regulated. The overall emphasis was on building form, simplicity of design elements, regulating what is most important in the end product and avoiding things like street design, landscaping, lighting and building materials. 

    For more information on how to bring Form Based Code to your community see the Auburn FBC Case Study Presentation.

    Making It Run: Almost as much time was spent on how to administrate the Form Based Code in a way that would be understandable but flexible. 

    Some highlights are: 

    • Projects under 12,000 s.f. can go directly to a building permit if all the requirements are met 
    • The Planning Board can waive elements of the FBC requirements provided justification is made and the project still meets the intent
    • Allowable uses are generally more flexible than traditional zoning and parking requirements were lowered 
    Success To Date: New developments are underway with more under consideration.
    • 62 Spring Street: A new 4 stories, mixed use with 41 work force and market rate apartment units is now under construction. 
    • 48 Hampshire Street: A 53 unit work force and market rate apartment has been approved and is applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits and could begin construction in 2019. 

    Form Based Code Files:

    --Douglas M. Greene, AICP, RLA, Urban Development Coordinator, City of Auburn
  • 25 Feb 2018 5:50 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    The Maine Association of Planners is proud to represent planners and others involved in planning across this great state. One of the best contributions we can make to support planning is to connect and support our professional planning community. 

    Maine is a big state and the planning community is a busy bunch. The Planner Profiles series gives us a chance to meet each other and learn about our skills, interests, and experiences online.

    Meet Samantha Horn-Olsen, Planning Manager, State of Maine Land Use Planning Commission:


    HOW MANY YEARS IN PLANNING PROFESSION? 

    11 years

    CURRENT JOB

    Planning Manager, Land Use Planning Commission

    TELL US ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND

    I have lived in many states, and did my undergraduate work in Biology and English Literature at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. After field jobs out west, interests in science, people and decision-making led me to a Master’s program in the Human Dimensions of Fisheries and Wildlife, and subsequent professional positions that all focused around improving public decision-making in public policy. I came to Maine in 1999 to work for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and have been here since, living first in Bowdoinham and then Readfield.

    WHAT LED YOU INTO PLANNING? 

    Planning in the unorganized territories is very much about a healthy relationship between people, economy, community and natural resources. When I had the chance to move from aquaculture policy to a rural planning role in 2008, it seemed like a natural next step.

    WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT PLANNING IN MAINE? 

    Planning and permitting for the unorganized territories (which comprise half the state) require attention to such a varied set of geographies and cultural and economic norms that it is a unique policy puzzle that is important both to the local residents, and to the overall state economy and identity. The areas we serve include coastal islands such as Monhegan, the “big woods”, the farms of The County and the blueberry barrens Downeast, and the recreational hubs of the western mountains and the Moosehead area. It is never dull!

    WHAT IS THE MOST REWARDING ASPECT OF YOUR WORK? 

    Working with engaged and thoughtful residents, landowners, and stakeholders to design creative policy solutions that will actually work across the entire 10.4 million acres. It is an intellectual challenge that is made meaningful by the incredible commitment and creativity of the folks with whom we collaborate.

    WHAT IS THE MOST CHALLENGING ASPECT OF YOUR WORK?

    Making sure that, with a staff of 20 for planning, permitting, and code enforcement, we can tackle all of the issues and large projects that need attention while still providing excellent service to someone who wants to construct a camp, or even just a deck or shed.

    TELL US ABOUT YOUR DREAM PROJECT – WHAT KIND OF PLANNING WORK WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE MORE INVOLVED WITH? 

    The rural areas in Maine are undergoing an economic sea change. It would be rewarding to be able to spend more time looking at the specific factors that may lead to success in this transition. To the degree that there are viable business ideas out there, we would like to anticipate the need and enact proactive land use solutions that provide a “glide path” for economic growth while also protecting the natural resources and local character that fuel the desirability and identity of the state.

    WHAT IS YOUR NICHE OR MAIN EXPERTISE? 

    Natural resource policy, conflict resolution, rural planning issues, public process, and consensus building.


  • 25 Feb 2018 5:30 AM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)
    The Board continues to review how we conduct business and what we might want to focus on to make MAP an organization that can better provide for professional and citizen planners. With that in mind, the Board has focused its efforts this year on the NNECAPA Conference/50th Anniversary, membership, finance, awards, and communications.

    Amanda Bunker, Professional Development chair, is spearheading the NNECAPA Conference/50th Anniversary planning effort. She has gathered a small group of volunteers to assist in this process. This is a large undertaking and a big focus of the entire Board this year. Mark your calendars for October 24-26, 2018 in Point Lookout, Maine.

    Lynne Seeley, Vice President and Communications Chair, is crafting newsletters with our consultant, Caitlyn that are gathering attention of an audience that includes New Yorkers and Planetizen readers. Way to go! 

    Jim Fisher, Membership and Awards Committee Chair, is in the process of whittling the membership database to those people who are actually members. Through this process, we will get a better idea of who our members are and where they live and work. See Jim's update on membership here. Jim also is working to renovate the awards process so that it is easier to nominate. The nomination period for 2018 awards is open, and volunteers are needed to help with the selection process--check out the details on the Awards page

    Jane Lafleur, Treasurer, is working with me to write a financial policy that will hopefully bring clarity to a process that is run by volunteers and when those volunteers shift roles. She is also working with our bookkeeper, Kathy Cirillo, to organize and keep track of our finances more closely and provide monthly reports. 

    We are going to be saying goodbye to a few Board members this year, so if you would like to be of service to the planning community in this way, please email me at ceyerman@topshammaine.com

    Here’s to 2018 and thank you for the support! 

    Respectfully, 

    Carol Eyerman, AICP 

    MAP President 

    PS: If you want us to decide everything, then by all means sit on the sidelines. If not, join one of the committees or volunteer for the short projects, we would love to hear from you.

  • 17 Nov 2017 10:00 PM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)

    On November 3rd, Sarah Marchant, president, NNECAPA and Carol Eyerman, president, MAP hosted a meeting to review the ideas for reorganization of NNECAPA and the state associations. Sarah went through the events leading up to the meeting and described what the tri-state taskforce had worked on and recommended so far. For more on this, please review the white paper.

    During the November 3rd meeting, responses to the white paper via email were read and the group gathered in person held discussion about the following: different options for chapter reorganization, geography, funding/budgeting, membership fees, state autonomy, bylaws, social media, newsletter(s), workload, volunteerism, and next steps. Detailed notes are available here.

    Essentially, all in attendance and via email leaned toward option 3, which is to move toward a model where NNECAPA is the chapter and each state is represented as a regional section. Next steps include: update the white paper and include a timeline, draft bylaws, taskforce review, and run all be general membership of all organizations. 

    Carol Eyerman, AICP

    MAP President/Interim Treasurer

    NNECAPA Maine State Director


  • 28 Oct 2017 12:36 PM | Maine Association of Planners (Administrator)
    With every edition of Front Page, MAP highlights the "comings and goings" of planners through Bytes 'N Pieces.
    • Sean Gambrel has joined the City of Bangor’s Planning Department as a Planner & Historic Preservationist. Sean previously worked with the City as GIS Administrator and is excited to be back in the planning field after several years focused solely on GIS. 
    • City of Rockland community and economic development director/ acting city manager Audra Calder-Bell resigned to take the job of Town Manager in Camden, Maine. 
    • Jamel Torres joined the Town of Scarborough's planning department. 
    • Jen Boothroyd has departed HCPC and is now working for Eastern Maine Health Systems in Brewer.
    • The Bethel Area Age Friendly Initiative received $5,100 for a fall prevention and home safety program for seniors through AARP. 
    • The Orton Family Foundation and JB Lafleur Consultants (Jane Lafleur) are joining together to Grow Community Heart & Soul in Maine. Over the coming year, Lafleur and the Orton Family Foundation staff will be working together to launch a three-pronged strategy to Grow Community Heart & Soul in Maine. This strategy includes: 1) outreach to Maine’s towns and small cities through a series of regional outreach workshops, in collaboration with regional partners; 2) the creation of additional Heart & Soul training curricula focused on “Getting Ready for Community Heart & Soul”; and, 3) direct Community Heart & Soul coaching in towns. Lafleur will continue to coach those already in-process (the 4 towns making up the Mahoosucs Region, and Bucksport and Rockland as well as several new communities). We have already received initial interest from two regions to host these outreach workshops and we look forward to hearing from more regions and communities who would like to host an informational session and possibly host follow up “Getting Ready for Community Heart & Soul” follow-up sessions. If you would like further information, please contact Jane Lafleur at jblafleur@jblafleurconsultants.com or call (207) 691-0971.
    Do you have planning news to share with Maine planners? Email info@meplan.org to be included in our next edition of Bytes N Pieces.
<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
                           Terms of Use  Privacy Policy            
  
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software