Draft 9/1/04 revised 9/6/04 with EK input
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
August 30, 2004
1. Minutes of July 26, 2004
2. Time Frame; Prognosis for Acceptance
3. Light and Heavy Industry: Definition, Standards, Land Use Districts
4. Revised Land Use Matrix
5. Boundaries of Rural Village Business District
6. Home Occupations
7. Parking Standards
8. Lot Standards
9. Next Meeting: Monday, Sept. 27, 7:00 p.m.
Present: Elaine Abel, William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Terry Gifford, Norman Golden, Ralph Johnston, Edward Karkow, James Mahan, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver
Town official: John Black, Code Enforcement Officer
Robert Faunce, consultant
Absent: Carlo Bianchi, Steve Cartwright, Dana Dow, Charles Flint, Ronnie Frazier, William Travers. Gordon Webster, William Yerxa
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by chairman Ed Karkow in the meeting room at the Municipal Building, with a quorum present throughout.
1. Minutes of July 26, 2004
On motion of Blodgett/Morris, the Committee voted unanimously to accept the minutes of July 26 as distributed.
2. Time Frame; Prognosis for Acceptance
Karkow has met with Town Manager Smith, John Black and Bob Faunce to discuss the timetable for the ordinance revision. Smith thinks it is unrealistic to expect to complete work in time for town vote in November. Instead, it was agreed that the Committee will meet through November and aim for public hearing next spring and town vote in June, 2005. This schedule means that little more new material can be considered in the current round of revision.
Karkow asked Committee members to comment on how likely they think it is that the ordinance revision will be approved. Most people were cautiously optimistic. Myers asked for more community meetings. Karkow said it may be possible to make presentations to the Waldoboro business group and the Feylers Corner community group after the first of September. Mahan said the ordinance revision would have a better chance of passage if the road setback requirement is reduced, as this affects many people. Seaver said people are afraid that under the new ordinance they won’t be able to do what they are now doing. Grandfathering and expansion of nonconforming uses need to be explained.
3. Light and Heavy Industry: Definition, Standards, Land Use Districts
Following
discussion at the July meeting, Faunce proposes deleting the definitions of
“industry/manufacturing – heavy” and “industry/manufacturing – light” in Article
12 of the 2002 draft ordinance, and substituting a new definition (from his
8/20/04 handout): “Industrial: The use of real estate, buildings or
structures, or any portion thereof, for assembling, fabricating, finishing,
manufacturing, packaging or processing operations, including the processing of
raw materials, and or the large-scale storage of flammable or explosive
materials. The following uses are not permitted: commercial tannery; explosive
manufacturing; rendering; petroleum refinery; slaughterhouse; storage of
hazardous, biomedical or radioactive waste, except as permitted in Article 9;
and nuclear power.”
Faunce said that what is meant by “large-scale” storage is intentionally left undefined.
Article 5 N section 1 (p. 5-14 of the 2002 draft ordinance) is amended to read as follows:
“1. Environmental standards. These standards shall apply to industrial uses as defined. When submitting an application for a Site Plan Review, the applicant shall submit the following information:”
A new subsection 3 under section N is created, as follows:
“3. Specific performance standards
The Planning Board shall classify an industrial use as a light industrial use if it finds that the use meets all of the following standards:
a. Will generate less than 30 truck trips per day
b. Noise will not exceed 50 decibels at any property line from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 60 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
c. There is no outside storage of materials or waste
d. Will not create a nuisance by smoke, vibration, odor or appearance
e. Parking and loading facilities are not oriented towards any residence within 300 feet
f. The total
footprint of all structures does not exceed 20,000 10,000 s.f.
g. The use is determined to be a low-impact activity, including, by way of example only, the following; bakeries, breweries, bottling, printing and publishing, pharmaceuticals, machine shops, precision instruments, watchmakers, musical instruments, toys and sporting goods, pottery and ceramics using only pulverized clay, wood products, jewelry, assembly of electrical components, canteen services, tool and die shops, and the packaging of foods.”
On motion of Gifford/Morris, the Committee voted 10 – 1, Campbell opposed, to approve Faunce’s 8/20/04 language for industrial uses as amended, changing “and” to “or” in the definition and changing “20,000” to “10,000” s.f. for the maximum footprint for buildings. Black noted that there was a slaughterhouse in town, on Castner Road, that may still be operating. It would be grandfathered as a pre-existing use.
In the revised land use matrix under Industrial Uses, p. 2, Industrial is shown as allowed in the Route 1 Rural and Route 1 Urban Districts with a footnote, “only if PB finds that proposed use complies with the standards for light industrial use in Article 5 section N. 3.”
4. Revised Land Use Matrix
Faunce asked Committee members for comments on the revised land use matrix distributed for review ahead of tonight’s meeting. It includes the new Rural Village Business District, and permits home occupations in the Industrial District. “Home occupation” is now listed under Commercial Uses with a footnote, “See Article 5 Section K for any limitations on home occupations”. Wholesale business is allowed in the new Rural Village Business District with a footnote, “marine-oriented wholesale only”.
Myers said that under Open Space Uses, “agriculture” refers to commercial agriculture. People in the Village District or Historic Village District can keep a cow or a few chickens even though commercial agriculture is not permitted in those districts.
Seaver asked whether composting is agriculture or forestry. He said his business composts floor sweepings as an accessory use. He asked whether a commercial composting operation would be an allowed use in the Industrial District. Faunce read the revised definition of Industrial. Seaver agreed that commercial composting meets the definition, as processing of raw materials.
Myers asked why certain uses are not shaded as allowed in a given district as “home occupation only” by Planning Board permit. Faunce said he wanted home occupations to be listed under Commercial and by permission of the Code Enforcement Officer, not the Planning Board, with a footnote “See Article 8 section K for any limitations on home occupations”.
On motion of Seaver/Morris, the Committee voted 10 – 0 – 1, Golden abstaining, to approve the revised land use matrix as distributed.
Expansion of nonconforming uses. Faunce said expansions are a difficult issue for nonconforming uses. The courts say you can’t penalize success. He will provide material on expansions of nonconforming uses for review at the next meeting.
Seaver suggested that a light industrial use may grow to the point at which it no longer qualifies as light industrial. Applicants coming in for permits for light industrial uses in the Route 1 Rural and Route 1 Urban Districts might need to be advised that if their business expands, they may need to move at some point.
5. Boundaries of Rural Village Business Districts
Faunce gave out copies of tax maps showing the proposed boundaries of the Rural Village Business Districts, asking Committee members to review these and bring comments and suggestions to the next meeting.
6. Home Occupations
Faunce’s August 20 handout summarizes that the Committee agreed to reduce the number of nonresidential uses allowed in the Rural and Residential Districts, but to allow more uses as home occupations than are allowed under the existing ordinance, if the proposed use meets the performance standards listed.
The following changes were made to Article 5 K Home Occupations, page 5-12 in the 2002 draft land use ordinance.
4) Principal or accessory structure, line 2: change “principal or one (1) accessory structure” to “principal and one (1) accessory structure”. Add maximum size limit of 40% of the residence and the equivalent of 100% of the gross square footage of the residence in the accessory structure, on motion of Gifford/Morris, vote 9 – 2, Blodgett and Campbell opposed.
6) Sign, line 1, change sign size to “no larger than four (4) square feet”, on motion of Morris/Gifford, vote 6 – 4 – 1 (Abel, Blodgett, Campbell and Johnston opposed, Golden abstaining).
7) On-premise products: Faunce will provide revised language to allow sale of antiques, in addition to the items specified, on motion of Myers/Morris, vote 10 – 0 – 1, Golden abstaining. Faunce said there is a fine line between antiques and used goods or junk, so “antiques” must be defined clearly.
8) Traffic: In line 2, delete “or generate more than twenty (20) vehicle trips/day”, on motion of Karkow/Seaver, vote 11 – 0.
9) Gross floor area: Delete as separate item, combine with item 4.
Auto sales would be prohibited as a home occupation under performance standard #7. Faunce recommended allowing auto repairs as a home occupation if the use meets the performance standards. Hours of operation will be discussed at the next meeting. Faunce and Black will confer on wording and bring back wording for review and approval at the next meeting.
7. Parking Standards
Faunce presented a table giving the recommended number of parking spaces to be required for various uses. Amendments at the meeting included reducing parking space requirements for warehousing and increasing requirements for residential dwelling units (houses or apartments), and for senior citizen housing. The revised list will be considered as part of these minutes. On motion of Golden/Gifford, the Committee voted 11 – 0 to approve the proposed parking standards as amended.
8. Lot Standards
The following notes are added to “Road Setback” and “Minimum Lot Size” in the Schedule of Dimensional Requirements, Section 3 G (p. 3-12).
I. The minimum road setback of principal structures in those village areas where buildings have traditionally been sited closer to the road may be reduced to the average road setback of existing principal buildings located within 500 feet and which front on the same road.
Mahan objected to requiring setbacks of 75 or 100 feet from the edge of the road, saying that many people with homes 50 feet from the road may want to expand their homes. He was told that setbacks of structures predating the ordinance are grandfathered, so that additions can be made at the same setback. Faunce read Section 10 C. 1 on expansion of nonconforming structures, p. 10-1 of the 2002 draft ordinance. Expansions in floodplain areas and within the shoreland zone must meet special requirements.
CEO Black asked the Committee to consider reducing the minimum frontage width requirement to 160 feet instead of 200 feet. This would meet the 5:1 maximum ratio of length to width for spaghetti lots required under State law, and would allow a 20,000 s.f. lot in an urban area with public water and sewer to have only 40’ of frontage. Faunce said the maximum 5:1 ratio applies only in the Shoreland Zone. No change was made in the minimum 200’ lot frontage requirement.
J. Each lot shall have
developable area for the construction of buildings and other improvements
without utilizing land unsuitable for development. The developable area shall
have a minimum width and a minimum depth equivalent to one-half (1/2) of the
required frontage except that one dimension may be decreased by up to 25% as
long as the other dimension is increased by an equivalent amount. The
developable area shall be located outside of any setback areas and be free of
wetlands, floodplains and slopes in excess of 33% 1:4. For the purposes
of this paragraph, “wetlands” means those wetlands as identified on the National
Wetland Inventory Map, “floodplains” are as presented on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map, and “slopes in excess of 1:4” are as illustrated on the U.S.
Geological Survey Map.
Morris suggested changing “33% slope” to “slope of 1:4”. He said a 45-degree slope is a 100% slope. A 33% slope is a 15-degree slope, which he said is pretty steep for a house site. On motion of Gifford/Golden, the Committee voted 11 - 0 to change “slope in excess of 33%” to “a ratio of rise to run of 1:4”.
9. Next Meeting: Monday, Sept. 27, 7:00 p.m.
At the September meeting the Committee will consider John Black’s suggested changes to the draft ordinance and Faunce’s comments on Black’s suggestions, text changes suggested by Karkow, and the boundaries of the Rural Village Business District. Golden suggested designating the Osram (Sylvania) factory site as an Industrial District, so that industrial uses can continue there even if the plant is idle for a time. Black said the Town attorney advises that a permitted use remains permitted even if inactive, and can be resumed, unlike a grandfathered use, which cannot be resumed if discontinued for longer than a certain period.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. R. Alexander
Secretary