Draft 10

Draft 10/27/04 revised 10/31 to add mobile home statistics; revised 11/11/04 w/Black input

Elaine Abel, William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Steve Cartwright, Norman Golden,

Ralph Johnston, Edward Karkow, James Mahan, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver (11)

Absent: Carlo Bianchi, Dana Dow, Charles Flint, Ronnie Frazier, Terry Gifford, William Travers, Gordon Webster, William Yerxa (8)

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.

On p. 3, in line 4 of the third paragraph, Karkow noted that “de” should be changed to “do”.

On p. 2 under 5 Home Occupations, secretary Alexander asked whether the motion about the maximum size of a home occupation was for “not more than 40% of the footprint” of the principal structure, as given in the minutes, or “ not more than 40% of the gross square footage” of the principal structure, as given in Bob Faunce’s summary of changes marked “revised Oct. 17, 2004”. Morris and Blodgett, who made and seconded the motion, agreed that “footprint” is what was voted.

On motion of Blodgett/Seaver, the Committee voted unanimously to accept the September 27 minutes as amended.

Karkow has arranged for members of the Land Use Committee to attend the October 27 meeting of the Waldoboro business group and make a 10-minute presentation about the revised draft land use ordinance. Karkow, Golden and Cartwright will attend. Black cannot be present but will prepare an updated handout giving the major changes to the 2002 draft ordinance.

The Committee reviewed Faunce’s latest update of the handout “Changes to 2002 Draft Land Use Ordinance proposed by the Waldoboro Ordinance Committee, October 2004”. In the last bullet, “maximize” is changed to “maximum”. The consensus was not to include anything about mobile homes in the handout. Myers recommended telling people that existing uses are grandfathered. She suggested rewording the first bullet to read:

“a) Create three Rural Village Business Districts (Winslows Mills Rd./Cross St., Old Augusta Rd./Washington Rd., and south Friendship Rd.)

b) expand the types and sizes of businesses allowed as home occupations in residential areas

Karkow wants to arrange a presentation to the Feylers Corner community group about the proposed ordinance changes. Cartwright said this group meets the third Sunday in each month except in the summer. The next meeting is November 21 at 5 p.m.

Faunce presented four maps showing changes to the boundaries of the proposed Rural Village Business Districts and the new Industrial District for Osram-Sylvania. Copies of the maps were distributed for review in advance of the meeting.

· The Old Augusta Road/Washington Road RVBD boundaries have been revised to delete lots R21/41, 42 and 45B on Old Augusta Road as decided at the last meeting.

· The south Waldoboro RVBD on Friendship Road is intended to be the same depth as the Residential District on the east side of Friendship Road. The draft ordinance (p. 3-2 #4) gives that depth as 400 feet, but Faunce said he measured the land use district map and the depth of the Residential District on the east side of Friendship Road is 500 feet. [400 feet is the depth of the Residential District on the east side of Friendship Road in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan .]

· The revised map showing the new Industrial District at Osram-Sylvania shows a 300’ buffer between the Industrial District and the Medomak River, as proposed at the Sept. 27 Committee meeting. Most of the shoreline is in the Village District, except a small portion at the south end which is in the Residential District.

· The new map showing the boundaries of the Winslows Mills/Cross Street RVBD also shows new Wellhead Protection District zones 1 and 2. Zone 1 is 1000 feet wide and extends from Kalers Pond north-northeast to east of Wagner Bridge Road. It lies along a major fracture zone providing water to the new bedrock production well of the Waldoboro Utility District. Zone 2 is defined by a circle with a radius of 2,500 feet centered on the bedrock production well, and represents the primary recharge area for that well.

Seaver asked CEO Black whether he had contacted Ronnie Reed about the change in land use district for his father’s land on North Nobleboro Road, which Reed had asked to be removed from the Industrial District. Black said he has contacted Reed and Reed is pleased with the change.

Black asked whether the setback from the river at Osram-Sylvania ought to be more than 300 feet, if the intent is to allow residential uses along the shore. Morris said the intent was for the 300-foot strip to be an undeveloped buffer zone between the industrial use and the river. Black suggested that an owner of the Osram-Sylvania property might wish to develop the river frontage for residential use. Faunce estimated that the water frontage might be worth several million dollars if developable as building lots. Golden, who made the original suggestion to make the Sylvania property an Industrial District, proposed extending the Industrial District all the way to the shoreline but prohibiting development within 300 feet of the shoreline. Morris endorsed this, saying that if a future owner wanted to develop the shore frontage, he could ask the Town for a change in the district boundary. Karkow thought this a good solution. On motion of Morris/Golden, the Committee voted 7 – 1, with two members abstaining, to reclassify the whole Osram-Sylvania property as Industrial, with the stipulation that no development may occur within 300 feet of mean high water.

Town Manager Smith suggested working within the parameters of the shoreland zoning map and ordinance, which applies to the first 250 feet back from the water. CEO Black reported that parts of the Osram-Sylvania properties are in three different shoreland zoning districts, with most of the land in the General Development District, which allows development within 25 feet of the water. The shoreland zoning overlay will thus be in conflict with the 300-foot non-development zone of the proposed new Industrial District. In the interest of completing revision to the draft ordinance, the group agreed to leave the discrepancy unresolved. Where two standards conflict, Faunce said the more restrictive standard applies.

Golden asked if anyone has approached the owners of properties proposed to be placed in the Rural Village Business District to find out how they feel about the proposed district. Faunce said the 2004 RVBD proposal allows fewer uses in the RVBD than were allowed in the 2002 draft ordinance, but increases the number of uses that do not require review by the Planning Board. Seaver and Morris said it will be important to give the public a clear explanation of the proposed changes and why they were made.

Karkow asked what are the benefits of having a comprehensive plan that is approved by the State. According to the newspapers, the Town of Bremen wants its draft comprehensive plan not to include an industrial district, even though the State requires one to be designated. Faunce said having a State-approved plan increases a town’s chances of getting grant funding.

On motion of Seaver/Cartwright, the Committee voted 11 – 0 to approve the four maps showing changes to land use district boundaries as revised at tonight’s meeting. Seaver noted that the language of Wellhead Protection District zone 2 may be revised later (see Item 5 below).

CEO Black passed out a sheet giving the differences between a mobile home and a modular home. Single-wide and double-wide mobile homes are built on a permanent steel frame or chassis and are transported on that chassis, while modular homes are transported on a trailer and installed on a permanent foundation. Modular homes are built to standards of BOCA code, the same as stick-built homes. Mobile homes built since June 15, 1976 are built to standards of the Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mobile homes depreciate in value, and some banks will not hold mortgages on them.

Faunce showed maps of mobile home locations and statistics on how many single-wide mobile homes, double-wide mobile homes, and modular homes there are in Waldoboro and along certain roads as of April 1, 2004. Copies of his data are distributed with the meeting minutes. There are 388 single-wide mobile homes in Waldoboro, including those in mobile home parks. Of these, 358 are located on rented land. Only 30 (8%) are on lots owned by the persons living in the mobile home. 92% of the people living in single-wide mobile homes do not own the land under the mobile home, and many of these do not own the mobile home either. The average value of single-wide mobile homes in Waldoboro is $21,000. The average value of double-wide mobile homes is $68,000, and of modular homes, $101,000. Faunce said that by having a large number of single-wide mobile homes, Waldoboro is providing affordable housing for the rest of Lincoln County.

Of the 388 single-wide mobile homes in town, only 25 - 26 (7%) are located in the proposed Residential District, where single-wide mobile homes are not permitted according to the draft land use ordinance, although grandfathered uses may continue. Of the 141 double-wide mobile homes in town, 18 (13%) are located in the proposed Residential District.

The 2002 land use district map places all of Dutch Neck in the Residential District, where single-wide mobile homes are not allowed, while placing part of Gross Neck in the Rural District, where single-wide mobile homes are allowed. Some residents wanted all of Gross Neck to be in the Residential District. Faunce observed that the real estate market suggests that at some point there will be no more single-wide mobile homes on Gross Neck because they do not represent the highest and best use of the land. He said prohibiting single-wide mobile homes on Gross Neck would not limit the availability of affordable housing in Waldoboro, because most of Waldoboro is in the proposed Rural District, where single-wide mobile homes are allowed.

Cartwright suggested lifting the prohibition against single-wide mobile homes in the Residential District and letting market forces prevail. Johnston thought that a bad idea. He said neighbors get upset when an undeveloped lot is sold and the new owner proposes to move two mobile homes onto the property and rent one for income. Faunce suggested that the Committee consider prohibiting two principal structures on a minimum-sized lot. Morris said the draft ordinance requires the second dwelling unit on a minimum-sized lot to be physically attached to the primary dwelling unit. This would prevent two mobile homes on a minimum-sized lot. [CEO Black says this requirement is in footnote E on p. 3-12: a dwelling unit must meet the minimum lot size requirement for its district, except that a “duplex” has the same minimum lot size requirement as a single-family dwelling.]

Cartwright said he lives in North Waldoboro in an area of attractive homes in the proposed Rural District. He is unclear why homeowners in the Rural District are not given the same protection as owners on Dutch Neck against single-wide mobile homes that lower property values.

Someone asked whether grandfathering of existing single-wide mobile homes goes with the land or with the owner of the mobile home. [1] Myers suggested that the ordinance could allow single-wide mobile homes but prohibit them from being used as rental units. Assessors’ agent Darryl McKenney said that some landowners are creating mini-mobile home parks by subdividing land and placing two rental mobile homes on each lot. Myers suggested that the Land Use Committee make a recommendation to the Selectmen to appoint a task force on affordable housing. Faunce said this would be a good idea and might induce other Lincoln County towns to provide more affordable housing, which would justify Waldoboro in becoming more restrictive about location of single-wide mobile homes.

Faunce said in North Yarmouth, where property values are high, land use districts are defined by a certain depth back from public roads. It is possible to require that mobile homes be located in the Forest Zone, 250-300 feet back from public roads where they are less visible, and require them to be visually buffered from adjacent uses.

On motion of Karkow/Johnston, the Committee voted 11 – 0 to change the draft land use district map dated 8/1/2002 to show all of Gross Neck Road and its extensions as being in the Residential District.

Faunce proposes a new Article 13 Wellhead Protection. Copies were distributed for review in advance of tonight’s meeting. Smith said he had hoped that the new language could be incorporated in the existing draft land use ordinance rather than being a stand-alone ordinance. Faunce suggested that the Committee could ask for a presentation from Rick Knowlton of Aqua Maine and Andy Tolman from the Drinking Water Standards group at the Maine Dept. of Human Services, or a subcommittee could be appointed to meet with Knowlton and Tolman. Seaver, Golden and Smith were suggested as a subcommittee with Knowlton as advisor.

Seaver noted that the Wellhead Protection District passes right through the industrial district that includes Waldoboro Environmental Park. He said his operation could not meet all the proposed criteria for Zone 2. He said it is unfortunate that the Medomak River and an industrial district are located so close to the Utility District’s new production well. He suggested tabling approval of Article 13 until after meeting with Knowlton and Tolman.

Golden said when he was downtown last he had to park at the town landing. He asked how the downtown area can expand and add new businesses if there is not more off-street parking. Morris said the dirt parking lot behind the brick office block on Friendship St. could be developed into a large multilevel parking facility. All it takes is money.

Karkow said the proposed new language about siting of docks was not acted on at the last

“a. Siting. Docks or other facilities located over mudflats are permitted for commercially licensed marine-related use. Structures for private or recreational uses are prohibited over mudflats that are active or potential shellfish harvesting areas. Applicants must demonstrate that proposed structures comply with provisions of the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA, Title 38,

Section 480). Individual lot owners are encouraged to consolidate the use of docks wherever possible to minimize waterfront congestion and detrimental effects on marine life.”

Myers asked Karkow if the proposed additional wording and reference to NRPA Section 480 will provide the Planning Board with any more guidance on criteria for allowing a dock. She said it would be helpful for the Planning Board to have something concrete to refer to. Karkow said the proposed wording will give the Planning Board resources it can refer to and cite. Abel objected that new docks would be prohibited in most of the estuary. Mahan said most areas won’t have docks anyway because the distance from the shore to the water at low tide is too great. He said that commercial docks are more polluting than residential docks.

On motion of Myers/Morris, the Committee voted 6 – 5 to accept the proposed wording on siting of docks as a revision to section F 3 a. Siting at the top of page 7 – 7 of the 2002 draft ordinance.

Time did not permit discussion of Faunce’s comments on Alexander’s list of questions distributed ahead of the meeting. Myers asked Alexander if any of the items need input from the Committee.

Alexander said two sections of the ordinance appear to be in conflict about the minimum elevation of structures above the 100-year flood elevation, and asked how this can be resolved. The shoreland zoning ordinance land use standards p. 7-7 require that “the first floor elevation or openings of all buildings and structures including basements be elevated at least one foot above the elevation of the 100 year flood”. The floodplain management ordinance p. 8-2 requires that residential structures within zone A1-30 “shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation” (100 year flood). Faunce said the language of both ordinances is mandated by the State and cannot be changed. Seaver suggested that a note be added to each section referring readers to the other so that people know to read both.

Alexander asked if the Committee wants the ordinance to include a definition of “grandfathered”. Seaver said he would welcome such a definition. Faunce recommended a computer word search to see if the word is used in the ordinance, and define it if it is used. Abel asked if there is anything in State law about when a violation becomes grandfathered. She was told that a violation never becomes grandfathered.

Alexander asked if the Committee wants to add a definition of “spaghetti lot” and if it wants to prohibit new spaghetti lots everywhere in town rather than just in the shoreland zone. New spaghetti lots with a length to width ratio greater than 5:1 are prohibited in the shoreland zone according to the 2002 draft ordinance. Members present did not express interest in prohibiting new spaghetti lots elsewhere in town.

Myers asked if it would be a good idea to allow citizens to vote individually on each section in the ordinance. Other Committee members recommended against this.

Statistics on Location and Value of Single-wide and Double-wide Mobile Homes in Waldoboro

At the Oct. 25, 2004 Land Use Committee meeting, Lincoln county planner Bob Faunce showed a map of locations of single-wide and double-wide mobile homes in Waldoboro. As of 4/1/2004 there are 388 single-wide mobile homes in town, of which 26 (7%) are in the proposed Residential District, and 141 double-wides, of which 18 (13%) are in the proposed Residential District.

Single-wide mobile homes are depreciated by the assessor. Double-wides much more closely reflect site-built home values and are assessed in a similar manner. The average value of 25 single-wide mobile homes in the proposed Residential District is $24,300. The average value of the 18 double-wides in the proposed Residential District is $67,400. Within the proposed Residential District (on both sides of the Medomak River estuary south of Waldoboro Village, from 400 feet east of Friendship Road to 400 feet west of Bremen Road south to the intersection of Dutch Neck Road), Faunce tabulated numbers and values of single-wide and double-wide mobile homes by location and gave the use where known (rental, seasonal, lived in by a relative of the property owner).

*Southern end only in proposed Residential District, per August 2000 map of proposed land use districts.

[1] Answer: CEO Black clarifies that the grandfathering is for the non-conforming use, regardless of who owns the land or the mobile home. See Article 10 Non-conforming Uses B General on p. 10-1. An existing single-wide mobile home in a district where single-wides are prohibited may continue in use, including use by new owners, but if the existing mobile home is removed from the lot, it cannot be replaced by another single-wide.

Contents