Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
November 29, 2004
1. Minutes of October 25, 2004
2. Review of Materials from Consultant
3. Ordinance Provisions regarding Box Trailers, etc. used for Permanent Outdoor Storage
4. Prohibiting Two Principal Residences on a Minimum-Sized Lot
5. Other Ordinance Changes
6. Time Line
7. Next Meeting: January 2005, date to be announced
Present:
Elaine Abel, William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Steve Cartwright, Charles Flint, Terry Gifford, Norman Golden, Ralph Johnston, Edward Karkow, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, William Yerxa
Town officials: Lee Smith, John Black
Robert Faunce, consultant
Guests: Lincoln Davis III and Gail Montgomery, Waldoboro Business Association
Absent: Carlo Bianchi, Dana Dow, Ronnie Frazier, James Mahan, George Seaver, William Travers, Gordon Webster
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. Golden expressed appreciation to the secretary for her minutes recording the Committee’s work. Karkow expressed appreciation to the large number of people who have put in extra time in between meetings to improve sections of the draft ordinance.
1. Minutes of October 25, 2004
On motion of Golden/Campbell, the Committee voted unanimously to accept the minutes of October 25 as distributed.
2. Review of Materials from Consultant
The following materials were distributed to Committee members in advance of the meeting.
a) One-Page Summary of Changes to 2002 Draft Land Use Ordinance: Committee members agreed to change the fourth bullet from the bottom of the page to read, “Grandfather locally significant sign (Moody’s Diner roof sign)”. The October update has been used as a handout at the last two public meetings, to the Feylers Corner Community Association and the Waldoboro Business Association. The Business Association has requested a more detailed presentation.
b) Revision of the Friendship Road Rural Village District (formerly Residential): Faunce’s revised location map shows a width of 800 feet, 400 feet on either side of Friendship Road. This is the same depth as the Residential District on the east side of Friendship Road.
c) Osram Industrial District: The color copy distributed shows the Osram Sylvania property as a new industrial district shown in pink (formerly part of the Village District, except for a strip on the south boundary that was formerly in the Residential District). A footnote is added at the bottom of p. 3-11 in the Schedule of Uses, “ Uses listed as industrial are prohibited from that part of the Industrial District within 300 feet of the Medomak River downstream from Main St.”
Golden asked for clarification whether a supermarket or retail development could go on the former Osram Sylvania site if it were an Industrial District. Karkow thought not. Faunce said the change in district to Industrial will make it easier to locate a new use on the site, because it would not be considered a nonconforming use in the Village District, thus avoiding debate about whether the proposed new use is more or less nonconforming than Sylvania’s use. Faunce noted that a developer could apply for a change in land use district by Town vote if required for a future use beneficial to the community. This gives the Town more control over future use of the property.
Johnston asked about the situation regarding pollution from Sylvania’s industrial operations. Town Manager Smith said the site is not on the EPA’s Superfund list. The Dept. of Environmental Protection has a monitoring and remediation agreement with Osram Sylvania that will continue to apply even after the property changes hands. Osram will remain liable for pollution caused during its ownership of the property. Smith believes that pollution is confined to the Osram Sylvania property and the abutting property to the south. A public water line extends down Friendship Street to the plant, but homes south of the plant are on private wells. To Smith’s knowledge, molybdenum is the only industrial pollutant discharged to the Medomak River from the plant. He said DEP has a “best reasonable cleanup” program under which it can give a seal of approval to allow reuse of a property.
d) Change North Half of Gross Neck to Residential District, from Rural
The Committee voted on October 25 to change the draft land use district map to show all of Gross Neck Road and its extensions as being in the Residential District (p. 4 of 10/25/04 minutes). Faunce said he established the western boundary of the Residential District on the map as a north-south line from the tip of a tributary to Western Branch north to the intersection with the existing western boundary of the Residential District 400 feet west of Bremen Road near Dutch Neck Road. Code Enforcement Officer Black suggested using Bremen Road as the western boundary of the new Residential District all the way south to the Bremen town line. Karkow said an alternative western boundary would be 400 feet west of Bremen Road, as given in the Comprehensive Plan. Karkow recommended accepting Faunce’s proposed western boundary, and the Committee agreed.
e) Revised Wellhead Protection Ordinance
Faunce said as a result of the meeting with Andy Tolman of the State’s Drinking Water Program, he has deleted reference to withdrawal rate on p. 1 of the Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
Faunce’s revised Article 13 dated November 16, 2004 substitutes “Water Department” for “Utility District” throughout, and changes “local sewer district” to “Waldoboro Utility District” on p. 13-8.
On p. 13-7, a new subsection L 1 a. is added addressing minimum lot size per dwelling unit: “The minimum lot size shall be that required in the underlying land use district as indicated in Article 3 section G. Schedule of Dimensional Requirements.”
On p. 13-12, in e. Subsurface Waste Disposal, the words “per day” are added after “1000 gallons of sewage”. On p. 13-18 in 6. a., “per day” is added after “1,000 gallons” of sewage.
As added at the 10/25/04 meeting, Article 1 section B is revised to insert the following (underlined) text (p. 1-1): … “the Subdivision Law, 30-A, M.R.S.A. §4401 et seq.; Protection of Drinking Water Supplies, 22 M.R.S.A. §2642 et seq.; and Manufactured Housing…”
Further text changes were made at the 11/29/04 meeting:
At the top of p. 13-5, “enforcement” is changed to “enforced”.
In J on p. 13-5, “Zone 1” is added before “Immediate recharge area”, and “Zone 2” is added before “Primary recharge area”.
Golden asked what standard is appropriate for bulk storage of fertilizers, as in his business. Chemical Bulk Storage at the top of p. 13-21 defines bulk storage as anything involving “containers larger than those intended for normal homeowner or retailer purposes”. The land use table on p. 13-6 prohibits non-agricultural chemical use, storage and handling, including fertilizer dealers, in Wellhead Protection Zone 1, the 1,000 foot wide fracture zone running north-northeast from Kalers Pond; such uses may be allowed with Planning Board permit in Wellhead Protection Zone 2. Golden said his fertilizer business at Waldoboro Environmental Park has secondary containment for chemicals, but he expressed concern about the location of future expansion of the business. Smith said most of the business is not within Zone 1, and expansion could take place within Zone 2 with Planning Board review. A surveyor can determine the location of the zone boundary.
It is essential not to pollute groundwater near the new Town well. Therefore, Karkow suggested that unlike other existing nonconforming uses, existing uses within Zone 1 that represent a potential threat to the purity of groundwater (such as in-ground fuel oil tanks or an oil tanker truck) may not be grandfathered and may need to be remediated. Flint suggested that CEO Black check with the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection whether the abandoned Jerome Hoffses house at 974 Winslows Mills Road (U14/7) is a pollution source.
3. Ordinance Provisions regarding Box Trailers, etc. used for Permanent Outdoor Storage
Gifford said the draft land use ordinance should include language prohibiting or restricting the use of storage trailers, old mobile homes, derelict school buses and the like as permanent outdoor storage units. Golden and Morris agreed this should be addressed. Where such units are allowed, the ordinance should require a substantial setback from property lines and visual screening. In districts where they are not permitted, the ordinance could allow two years from the date of the ordinance for removal. Committee members had no problem with legitimate use of storage trailers for temporary storage of materials during construction or renovation, but expressed concern about permanent use of such units on business or residential properties.
CEO Black said if a trailer is registered as a vehicle, it is not covered under the current ordinance. Trailers do not have to be inspected in order to be registered. If a trailer is unregistered, it becomes a structure and can be located on a property with a permit from the CEO. Black has not checked whether the draft land use ordinance addresses storage trailers; Faunce think it does not. Faunce said he can e-mail sample language to Committee members that prohibits or restricts use of storage trailers for permanent storage. The first unit only can be grandfathered and the use can continue provided that the owner applies to the CEO within six months of the date of the ordinance and the unit meets certain requirements for buffering.
4. Prohibiting Two Principal Residences on a Minimum-Sized Lot
Footnote E on p. 3-12, the Schedule of Dimensional Requirements, says that a “duplex” is subject to the same minimum lot size requirement as a single-family dwelling. At the October 25 Committee meeting, Darryl McKenney said that some landowners are creating mini mobile home parks by subdividing land and placing two rental mobile homes on each 80,000 s.f. lot. Morris and others objected that this is a perversion of the intent of the language in the 1987 land use ordinance. The intent of the committee that produced the original ordinance was to allow a “mother-in-law” unit as an accessory use, generally temporary, to the principal single-family residence on a minimum-sized lot. It was not intended to have two principal residences on a minimum-sized lot. Morris suggested that where there are two residences on a minimum-sized lot, the ordinance should require that the lot owner occupy one of the two units. Committee members who spoke wanted to prohibit two mobile homes on a minimum-sized lot. Campbell asked whether the group would object to two houses on an 80,000 s.f. lot, or if the objection is to having one or both of the units be mobile homes. This question was not addressed.
Faunce said Waldoboro is the only town he knows of that allows two residences on the same size lot as a single residence. Some towns allow an apartment inside the principal residence as an accessory use. He offered to provide suitable language if the Committee will tell him exactly what it wants. The second dwelling unit can be required to share a common wall with the principal residence, and/or meet a size limit such as 600 s.f.
Faunce noted that the draft land use ordinance does not define “duplex”. A “two-family dwelling” is defined on p. 12-8 as “a building containing only two dwelling units, for occupation by not more than two families”. Karkow suggested adding “(duplex}” to this definition. Two mobile homes connected by a structural element such as a roof or deck could be considered a “duplex”. Faunce suggested allowing only one principal structure on a minimum-sized lot. He will supply language to allow a “mother-in-law” apartment in the principal structure, but not as a stand-alone structure; revise the definition of a two-family dwelling (duplex) to require a common wall; and prohibit more than one principal structure on a minimum sized lot, but not require the owner of the property to live on the property. He will e-mail revised language to Black and have Black distribute the revised language to Committee members for review and approval.
5. Other Ordinance Changes
a) Revise ordinance to assure that all conditions meet State law: Faunce was asked to see that appropriate language is included to meet current State law, such as under “Automobile Graveyard” to delete “unserviceable, discarded, worn out or junked” and substitute “unregistered or uninspected”.
b) Update reference to construction standards: CEO Black noted that on p. 4-3, item C. 3 referring to the BOCA Code should be deleted, and C.4, renumbered 3, should be changed to read, “The current edition of the International Building Code as adopted by the State of Maine”.
6. Time Line
Following tonight’s meeting, the ordinance text will be revised by Mike Ducharme to reflect all the changes made by the Committee and its consultant. The draft ordinance is lengthy in part because it replaces eight individual ordinances, which have been made internally consistent.
Revised copies dated January 2005 will be distributed to Committee members when available, after which a meeting will be scheduled to review the draft and forward it to the Selectmen. Two public hearings will be scheduled at Miller School a couple of weeks apart in January or February, after which further text changes may be made if indicated, and a final draft presented to the Selectmen. An electronic copy of the text will be available at the Town’s web site. A four-page summary of the ordinance will be prepared and distributed to residents. The introduction will try to explain that parts of the ordinance can be changed by local option, but many ordinance provisions are required by State statute and cannot be changed. A final public hearing will be held before the end of May, but its purpose is for information, not to make further changes to the text. The draft ordinance will be on the warrant for vote at town meeting in June 2005. This will be an up-or-down vote on the ordinance as a whole.
7. Next Meeting: January 2005, date to be announced.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.