Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board recommends edits to solid waste ordinance and sends language to town manager and Select Board

Town of Skowhegan Planning Board · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Board reviewed and cleaned up language in the town’s solid waste management ordinance (notably a confusing opening paragraph), agreed to merge and reorder sections addressing residents, nonresident taxpayers and commercial haulers, and voted unanimously to forward the revised ordinance to the town manager and Select Board.

The Town of Skowhegan Planning Board discussed and voted unanimously to recommend revisions to the town’s solid waste management ordinance, directing staff to clean up a confusing opening paragraph and to reorder and clarify sections covering residents, nonresident taxpayers and commercial haulers.

Board members said the first paragraph of Section 9 could be misread to prohibit residents from transporting their own waste and agreed to remove or relocate that paragraph into the permit and commercial‑hauler provisions. After discussion about wording and formatting, the board asked staff to merge and reorder provisions so the ordinance opens with residency provisions, follows with nonresident rules and then addresses commercial haulers and their permitting.

A board member asked whether the town manager would see the draft before it advanced; staff said it will be routed to the town manager and Select Board and then to town meeting. The board then voted to recommend adoption and to forward the cleaned draft to the town manager and Select Board for their review.

The measure now moves forward through the Select Board and town meeting process; the Planning Board’s action was unanimous and procedural rather than prescriptive about specific new fees or enforcement changes.