DOCSLIB.ORG

For Low Density Development in the Unorganized Area of Maine April 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Low Density Development in the Unorganized Area of Maine April 2004 for Low Density Development in The Unorganized Area Of Maine April 2004 967 Illinois Ave, Suite #3 Bangor, ME 04401 Tel: (207) 990-9100 • Fax: (207) 990-9599 FOREWORD The Unorganized Area of Maine is facing changes in land use which have placed enormous pressure on land and water resources. As parts of the Unorganized Area are converted from forestry to urban, large lot subdivision and summer camp uses, soil and water resources can be threatened. The construction of homes, septic tank absorption fields, wells, and roads, if not properly planned, can negatively affect the quality of life. In many cases, soil conditions such as wetness, depth to bedrock and steep slopes can be the catalyst for environmental degradation. Many potential soil related problems can be avoided by sound land use planning before development begins. Costs for overcoming soil limitations increase as the degree of soil limitations becomes more severe. These increased costs to make an area suitable for development are passed on to the landowner. Soil Potential Ratings for Low Density Development in The Unorganized Area of Maine is a planning tool for state planners, and others, to address soil limitations by rating soils as to the costs of corrective measures and the long term maintenance costs needed to satisfactorily overcome soil problems. The purpose of this publication is to assist landowners, state planners, developers, engineers, and others in their planning activities. Information obtained from Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps in the Unorganized Area of Maine should only be used for general planning purposes. This is because the smallest map unit delineated in these areas is commonly 16 to 40 acres and is composed of 2 or 3 soil types due to the scale of mapping. For site specific decisions, more detailed soil information such as a High Intensity Soil Survey done by a Maine certified Soil Scientist is needed. This index has been designed to be used with a variety of scales of soil mapping. It has general ratings for broad map units and more specific ratings with individual soil series within these map units if more detailed mapping is available. State officials, land use planners, land users, and other are encouraged to contact the local Soil and Water Conservation District Office for assistance when using this information. Other information concerning land use in agricultural and forestry planning also is readily available in this office. This publication is designed for use with soil survey maps and information available from the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well as more detailed certified mapping. The district office addresses are: Androscoggin/Sagadahoc Aroostook-Southern Androscoggin Valley SWCD Southern Aroostook SWCD P.O. Box 1938 (254 Goddard Rd.) RR3, Box 45 Lewiston, ME 04241-1938 Houlton, ME 04730 Phone: (207) 783-9196 Phone: (207) 532-2087 Aroostook-Central Knox/Lincoln Central Aroostook SWCD Knox/Lincoln SWCD 744 Maine Street 191 Camden Road Presque Isle, ME 04769 Warren, ME 04866 Phone: (207) 764-4770 Phone: (207) 273-2005 1 Oxford Kennebec Oxford County SWCD Kennebec County SWCD 1570 Main Street Suite 10 9 Green Street (3rd Floor) Oxford, ME 04270 Augusta, ME 04330 Phone: (207) 743-5789 Phone: (207) 622-8250 Penobscot Piscataquis Penobscot County SWCD Piscataquis County SWCD 28 Gilman Plaza, Suite 2 42 Pine Crest Drive Bangor, ME 04401 Dover-Foxcroft, ME 04426 Phone: (207) 947-6622 Phone: (207) 564-2321 Aroostook Somerset St. John Valley Somerset County SWCD St. John Valley SWCD 7 High Street 96 Market Street Skowhegan, ME 04976 Fort Kent, ME 04743 Phone: (207) 474-8324 Phone: (207) 834-3311 Waldo Cumberland Waldo County SWCD Cumberland County SWCD 266 Waterville Road 201 Main Street, Suite 6 Belfast, ME 04915 Westbrook, ME 04092 Phone: (207) 338-3069 Phone: (207) 856-2777 Washington Franklin Washington County SWCD Franklin County SWCD Federal Bldg., & Post Office 107 Park Street 51 Court Street Farmington, ME 04938 Machias, ME 04654-0121 Phone: (207) 778-4279 Phone: (207) 255-3995 Hancock York Hancock County SWCD York County SWCD 190 Bangor Road P.O. Box 819 (8 Waterboro Road) Ellsworth, ME 04605 Alfred, ME 04002 Phone (207) 667-8663 Phone: (207) 324-7015 2 Table of Contents: FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents:............................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF FIGURES:....................................................................................................... 3 TABLES: ............................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 SOIL LIMITATION RATINGS......................................................................................... 5 SOIL POTENTIAL RATINGS .......................................................................................... 5 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 7 DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL POTENTIAL RATING........................................................ 7 FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SOIL POTENTIAL RATINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................... 7 SOIL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................... 7 TEXTURE ...................................................................................................................... 8 PERMEABILITY ........................................................................................................... 8 SLOPE ............................................................................................................................ 9 SURFACE STONES ...................................................................................................... 9 WATER TABLE .......................................................................................................... 10 FLOODING .................................................................................................................. 11 DEPTH TO BEDROCK ............................................................................................... 11 RESTRICTIVE LAYER........................................................................................... 12 NATURAL DRAINAGE CLASS ............................................................................ 12 DEFINITION OF LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT................................................... 12 SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELD SYSTEM...................................................... 13 DWELLINGS WITH BASEMENTS........................................................................... 13 LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS ............................................................................... 13 RATING FACTORS .................................................................................................... 13 REFERENCE SOIL...................................................................................................... 14 SOIL POTENTIAL INDEX ............................................................................................. 16 ADDITIONAL NOTES.................................................................................................... 18 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 19 SOIL SURVEY PROJECT AREAS................................................................................. 19 INTRODUCTION TO ADDITIONAL TABLES AND WORKSHEETS ...................... 77 WORKSHEETS FOR PREPARING CORRECTIVE MEASURES ............................... 83 TABLE OF FIGURES: Figure 1 - Soil Slope Related to the Landscape.................................................................. 9 Figure 2 - Diagram Showing the Relation of the Water Table to the Earth's Surface.......10 Figure 3 - Soils in the Flood Plain are Subject to Flooding...............................................11 Figure 4 - Depth to Bedrock ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 5 - Soil Drainage Class.......................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 - Profile of Danforth Soil, Each Soil Has a Unique Profile................................ 15 3 TABLES: Table 1 - The Major Steps in Determining Soil Potential Ratings ..................................... 6 Table 2 – Figuring the Development Index ...................................................................... 16 Table 3 - Soil Potential Rating Class ................................................................................ 17 Table 4 – Soil Potential Index Values and Rating Classes for Soil Survey Project 619 (See additional note number 5 on page 17 concerning outwash soils.)............................ 21 Table 5 – Soil Potential Index Values and Rating Classes for Soil Survey Projects 620 and 621 (See additional note number 5 on page 17 concerning outwash soils.) .............. 32 Table 6 - Soil Potential Index Values
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SENATE CRA COMMITTEE -1- May 7, 2003 ALASKA STATE
    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE May 7, 2003 1:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair Senator Gary Stevens Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Kim Elton MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12 Requesting the Local Boundary Commission to consider borough incorporation for certain unorganized areas. HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Senator Gary Wilken Alaska State Capitol, Room 518 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SCR 12 Darroll Hargraves Chair, Local Boundary Commission Department of Community & Economic Development 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Kathie Wasserman Pelican, AK 99832 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Bob Ward SENATE CRA COMMITTEE -1- May 7, 2003 Skagway, AK 99840 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Keith Bettridge Hoonah City Administration Hoonah, AK 99829 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Carl Crosman HC 60 Box 306T Copper Center, AK 99573 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Roger Lewis Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Terry Kennedy Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Galen Atwater HC 72 Box 7190 Delta Junction, AK 99737 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Daniel Boone Box 53 Chitina, AK 99566 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Allen Minish Box 118 Chitina,
    [Show full text]
  • Issues in the Unorganized Areas of Northern Ontario
    ISSUES IN THE UNORGANIZED AREAS OF NORTHERN ONTARIO Dean J. Nickerson 6368187 Public Administration 931 25 August 1992 1 On a national level, there is a widespread tendency to view Ontario as a homogenous whole of big Toronto-like cities, industries and big business centres. In other words, the province tends to exhibit a powerful image as the nation's heartland and decision-making centre, an image that has often raised the ire of other regions. However, picturing Ontario as one giant suburb of Toronto or as the 401 corridor is a gross simplification of the overall character of the entire province. The industries, people and power so often seen as the defining character of Ontario is actually present mainly in the south. The remainder, northern Ontario, is a region vastly different in many respects. In addition to the dichotomies in economic base, population, settlement patterns and physical geography, some important differences also exist in the characteristics of local government. One of the most important of these is the presence of vast areas that effectively have no local government at all. Such a situation does not exist in the south, where residents are governed through the good offices of townships and counties (and their successors) established in the last century. These areas without local government, generally known as unorganized or unincorporated areas (both terms are used here) provide an interesting and often unexplored topic of study, one that this work will attempt to examine. More specifically, the unorganized areas will be looked at from the perspective of a source of difficulty for the province of Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Early Years Child and Family Centre Plan
    Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board Ontario Early Years Child and Family Centres (OEYCFC) OEYCFC Plan and Local Needs Assessment Summary 2017 Geographic Distinction Reference The catchment area of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board (Manitoulin- Sudbury DSB) includes 38 communities, towns and villages and covers a distance that spans over 42,542 square kilometres. The communities, towns and villages are represented by 18 municipal jurisdictions and 2 unorganized areas, Sudbury Unorganized North Part and Manitoulin Unorganized West Part. The catchment area of the Manitoulin- Sudbury DSB is a provincially designated area for the purposes of the delivery of social services. The municipalities represented by the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB are: Baldwin, Espanola, Nairn and Hyman, Sables-Spanish River, Assiginack, Billings, Burpee and Mills, Central Manitoulin, Cockburn Island, Gordon/Barrie Island, Gore Bay, Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, Tehkummah, French River, Killarney, Markstay- Warren, St. Charles and Chapleau. The municipalities in the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB catchment area are commonly grouped into four main areas or regions, known as LaCloche, Manitoulin Island, Sudbury East and Sudbury North. The Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB catchment area does not include First Nations territories. Data for this report has been derived, for the most part, from Statistics Canada. We have used the most recent data (2016) whenever possible and have used 2011 data where the 2016 data is not yet available. From a Statistics Canada perspective, data for the catchment area of the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB falls within two Census Divisions, Manitoulin District and Sudbury District. Manitoulin District and Sudbury District Census Divisions: The Manitoulin District – otherwise known as Manitoulin Island – includes 10 census subdivisions containing 14 communities, town and villages, and one unorganized territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Download 2021 Resolutions
    2021 Resolutions Passed by AML Membership on November 20, 2020 Alaska Municipal League Resolution #2019-01 A resolution in support of the development of a Community Dividend. WHEREAS, community revenue sharing began in 1969 to help ease fiscal problems facing local governments, stabilize or reduce local property taxes, encourage local provision of public services, and stabilize local budgets and planning; and WHEREAS, revenue sharing has undergone significant and dramatic changes since 1969, leading to a situation in 2004 where all revenue sharing programs were proposed for elimination after years of reductions, which corresponded to increased property taxes , elimination of municipal services, and reduced capacity; and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska exempts itself from local taxes even though it uses local services and approximately $1.4 billion (2017) in property taxes are paid by local taxpayers to subsidize State operations; and WHEREAS, the Alaska Municipal League has been firm in its advocacy for the absolute necessity of a form of and enough revenue sharing that strengthens the capacity of municipal governments, alleviates the need for higher local taxes, and bolsters the delivery of public services; and WHEREAS, the recent fiscal crisis experienced by the State of Alaska made apparent the reality of cost-shifting to municipalities and the potential for State reductions to municipal budgets, particularly in the form of reduced or eliminated revenue sharing; and, WHEREAS, uncertainty at the State level – due either to limits to annual
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to State and Local Census Geography
    Guide to State and Local Census Geography Guide to State and Local Census Geography The first Guide to State and Local Census Geography (1990 CPH-I-18) was issued in June 1993 as a joint venture between the US Census Bureau and the Association of Public Data Users (APDU). The book contained an overview of census geography and had information about key geographic concepts for each state as it related to the 1990 Census. The US Census Bureau updated this publication based on geography for the 2010 Census and is making it available as a web publication. The format of this publication is similar to the 1993 publication in that it has information about the census geography of each state. This edition of the publication includes: Basic information about the state o 2010 Census Population o Land Area o Density o Capital o Date Became a State o Bordering States o International Borders History of the State o Includes information as to what censuses have data for this state American Indian Areas Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Related Statistical Areas Counties County Subdivisions Places Census Tracts/Block Groups/Blocks Congressional Districts School Districts State Legislative Districts Urban Areas ZIP Code Tabulation Areas Other Information of General Geographic Interest (select states) Historical Centers of Population Most Populous, Largest in Area, and Most Densely Populated Areas Lists of Entities Page | 1 http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/geoguide.html Guide to State and Local Census Geography Alabama .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Township and Unorganized Fabric Metadata Record
    METADATA DETAIL PAGE This is a selection from the Ontario Land Information Directory for Metadata Holdings. The following represents the Basic description of an information holding. To obtain more information about this holding, see the section named Contacts. Detail Information: GENERAL INFORMATION Official Name of the Data Set or Information Holding: Township and Unorganized Area Fabric for Ontario Acronyms are Used to Identify the Data Set or Information Holding: Data Set 12 Describe the Data Set or Information Holding: Ontario Geological Survey (author) A Geographic Township is a polygon feature that indicates the fundamental land subdivision fabric of the Province. Each Geographic Township area may or may not be the same as the jurisdictional area of the township. The location of Township lines on the OBM were determined by using a combination of both survey information i.e. retracements, original township plans, surveys notes, etc.; and OBM physical features such as roads, trails, fencelines, and water bodies. In some areas where there were almost no OBM physical features available, aerial photographs may have been used to help determine boundaries. Unorganized areas are derived from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Base Map Areas. The Intended Use and Purpose for Collecting the Data Set or Information Holding: To provide a spatial geographic reference to the fundamental land subdivision of the Province. The geographic township fabric is shown as it was originally surveyed, unless it has been annulled upon the instruction of the Surveyor General. For administrative and spacial reference purposes only, this map data is unedited and is not for survey purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Information Ontario Data Description Unorganized Area G
    Unclassified Land Information Ontario Data Description Unorganized Area G-Plan Index Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”), representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Although every effort has been made to verify the information, this document is presented as is, and the Ministry makes no guarantees, representations or warranties with respect to the information contained within this document, either express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy, or fitness for purpose. The Ministry is not liable or responsible for any loss or harm of any kind arising from use of this information. For an accessible version of this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755 1878 or [email protected] ©Queens Printer for Ontario, 2012 LIO Class Catalogue Unorganized Area G-Plan Index Class Short Name: UNORGARE Version Number: 3 Class Description: The Unorganized Area data set is an index in which the geographic extent covers mostly unsurveyed territory. The geographic areas within the index are based on a grid of 7.5' latitude by 15' longitude. Each area consists of a G-Plan number and/or an area name (based on MNR's G-Plans). Abstract Class Name: SPSNTPOLY Abstract Class Description: Abstract Spatial Single-Non-Tessellating-Polygon User Object. One and only one polygon forms a single object. Polygons may NOT overlap. However, holes, gaps and islands are allowed. Examples of this are sub classes that may fall under this class are lakes wetlands, ANSIs, etc. Tables in LIO Class: Unorganized Area G-Plan Index UNORGANIZED_AREA_FT The term is actually called "Unorganized territory".
    [Show full text]
  • Schreve’ Is Just a Pencil Line
    The ‘Schreve’ is Just a Pencil Line: Struggles over Regional Assembling Along the Franco-Belgian Border By Sam Hurulean Submitted to Central European University Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisors: Jean-Louis Fabiani CEU eTD Collection Dan Rabinowitz Budapest, Hungary June 2017 ABSTRACT This study explores the current regional developments in northern France and the cross-border relations that have (re)emerged in the context of globalization and Europeanization. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, it investigates what actors are involved in the construction of the region and focuses on the power play between them to analyze how they struggle to work towards regional institutionalization. Borrowing from Latour, I approach the region as a ‘regional assemblage,’ highlighting the importance of the historical trajectory. I aim to demonstrate that the process of regional assembling can be understood as, what Bourdieu has termed, a ‘symbolic struggle’ during which particular forms of capital are mobilized in order to work towards the construction of a legitimate perception of the region. I argue that the historical trajectory has forced French Flemish regionalism to confine itself to the cultural, folkloric realm and that, contrary to other French regionalisms, it has made it difficult – if not impossible – to frame efforts in a political or ethnoregionalist way. Nonetheless, new understandings of territory, and the weakening of the state boundaries have provided space for new regionalist strategies to emerge. Key Words: Europe, France, Border, Border Region, Border Studies, Regional Identity, New Regionalism, Territorial Cooperation, Cross-Border Cooperation, Integration CEU eTD Collection i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To professor Jean-Louis Fabiani, I would like to express my gratitude for he has supported and encouraged me throughout the entire research and writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • 197301560144 P. 144.Pdf
    144 CANADA YEAR BOOK 1973 boundaries. The District Municipality of Muskoka was incorporated on January 1, 1971 to assume responsibilities, similar to those of the regional municipalities, over the reorganized municipalities of the former district of Muskoka. This form of regional government in Ontario is also contemplated in other areas. Each county, although an incorporated municipality, comprises the towns (with the exception of six separated towns), villages and townships situated within it. Some municipalities are located outside the counties in areas called districts. These districts are in the western and northern parts of Ontario and are not municipal entities. Supervisory control of municipalities is exercised by the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Ontario Municipal Board under the Municipal Act and other Acts governing aspects of municipal government. Manitoba. Manitoba has five cities, 33 towns, 41 villages and 105 rural municipalities. These are supervised by the Department of Municipal Affairs under the Municipal Act and special charters, except the MetropoHtan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Urban Affairs. There are 19 local government districts incorporated under the Local Government Districts Act where the province has placed a resident administrator to carry out the functions of a municipal council. The unorganized areas are the direct responsibility of the provincial government. Saskatchewan. All municipalities in Saskatchewan derive their powers from general Acts that are designated with the name of the type of municipality. There are 11 cities, 131 towns, 356 villages and 292 rural municipalities. The area so organized consists of most of the southern part of the province, the remainder of this portion being administered by the province through nine unincorporated local improvement districts.
    [Show full text]
  • Airborne Magnetic Residual Otter
    82°15' 82°10' 82°5' 82° 81°55' 81°50' 81°45' SURVEY PARAMETERS 407000 408000 409000 410000 411000 412000 413000 414000 415000 416000 417000 418000 419000 420000 421000 422000 423000 424000 425000 426000 427000 428000 429000 430000 431000 432000 433000 434000 435000 436000 437000 438000 439000 440000 441000 442000 443000 444000 445000 446000 447000 448000 Ontario MAGNETOMETER Campbell Lake Type: Fluxgate Ontario Geological Survey SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS BLOCK O1 1 Survey date: 1981 MAP 60 287 Nominal aircraft terrain clearance: 81 m Traverse line spacing: 250 m Control line spacing: various, 8000 to 16 000 m AIRBORNE MAGNETIC SURVEY 1 BLOCK O4 Residual magnetic field - 5 0 Survey date: 1981 Nominal aircraft terrain clearance: 126 m Traverse line spacing: 250 m Control line spacing: 7500 m OTTER RAPIDS AREA 1 Blocks O1 and O4 have been merged where overlap occurs. (West-Central) The data for all blocks are available in a digital data set (GDS 1228) HECLA TOWNSHIP KILMER TOWNSHIP that encompasses the Squirrel River, Otter Rapids and Moose River MCCLAUSLAND TOWNSHIP areas. Scale 1:50 000 SANBORN TOWNSHIP COORDINATE SYSTEM 1 km 0 2 km Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD83 Central meridian: 81°00' W (UTM zone 17N) NTS References: 42 I/4,5; 42 J/1,8. Central scale factor: 0.9996 False easting: 500 000 m False northing: 0 m © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2005. This map is published with the permission of the Director, Ontario Geological Survey. LEGEND MAGNETIC CONTOURS 10 nT contour 1000 nT contour 50 nT contour Magnetic depression 200 nT contour OTHER SYMBOLS Location map 1 cm equals 15 km (Some symbols may not apply to this map) Power line Drainage DESCRIPTIVE NOTES Administrative 50 Road The original data acquisition was neither supervised by the boundary 2 0 0 Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) nor carried out to OGS technical specifications.
    [Show full text]
  • County Subdivisions
    Chapter 8 County Subdivisions All counties and statistically equivalent entities consist of one or more geo- graphic units that the Bureau of the Census recognizes as county subdivi- sions. The two major types of county subdivisions are minor civil divisions (MCDs) and census county divisions (CCDs). A State has either MCDs or their statistical equivalents, or CCDs; it cannot contain both. Minor civil divisions are the primary subcounty governmental or administra- tive units; they have legal boundaries and names as well as governmental functions or administrative purposes specified by State law. The most famil- iar types of MCDs are towns and townships, but there are many others (see Table 8-1). In some situations, the Census Bureau must complete the cover- age of subcounty units by creating additional entities called unorganized territories (UTs) that it treats as being statistically equivalent to MCDs. The Census Bureau has established UTs in certain MCD States to account for the part or parts of a county that are not within any MCD or MCD equivalent. As of 1994, unorganized territories exist in nine States: Arkansas, Iowa, Indi- ana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota.1 The Census Bureau recognizes MCDs and MCD equivalents as the county subdivisions of 28 States and the District of Columbia (see Figure 8-1). Census county divisions are the statistical entities established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and officials of State and local governments in the 21 States where MCDs either do not exist or are unsatisfactory for the col- lection, presentation, and analysis of census statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthony M. Calcagni Partner [email protected]
    Anthony M. Calcagni Partner [email protected] Tony's real estate work focuses on acquisitions, development, and leasing of Services/Industries commercial property, easements and title matters, zoning and land use, and community associations. • Real Estate • Energy Tony has represented wind and solar power developers, water districts, • Real Estate Litigation telecommunications companies, and electric and gas companies on real estate • Solar matters both routine and complex. He has served as the Chair of Verrill's Real Estate Department since 2010. Recent projects include serving as lead real estate counsel on: • The Kibby Wind (132 MW), Stetson Wind I (57 MW), Stetson Wind II (26 MW), Rollins Wind (60 MW), Bull Hill Wind (34 MW), Hancock Wind (51 MW), and Weaver Wind (73 MW) power projects • A natural gas expansion project involving five new compressor stations • An 85-mile 345 kV electric transmission line Tony's work on these projects has included negotiating numerous easement and lease agreements, resolving a variety of title problems and disputes, working with state agencies and local officials, and arranging for project financings. Tony has participated in a number of speaking engagements on the law of easements. He served as chair of the Maine State Bar Association's Real Estate and Title Section from 2016 to 2018, and is an agent for the First American Title Insurance Company. True to his New England roots, Tony is an avid Boston Bruins and Boston Red Sox fan. He also enjoys hiking and downhill skiing with his family. Education • University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D., cum laude) – Editor, University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1993-1994) • Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]