Draft 12/21/04 revised 12/23/04 w/EK changes
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
December 20, 2004
1. Revised Language for New Article 5 X. Accessory Apartments
2. Revised Language for Art. 5 W. 1. Shipping Containers on Residential Lots
3. Summary of the More Significant Differences between the Current 1987 and Proposed 2005 Ordinances: not discussed
4. Time Line, December 2004 to June 2005
5. Next Committee Meeting: to be announced
Present: William Blodgett, Steve Cartwright, Ronnie Frazier, Terry Gifford, Norman Golden, Edward Karkow, James Mahan, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver, William Yerxa
Town official: John Black
Absent: Elaine Abel, Carlo Bianchi, Charles Campbell, Dana Dow, Charles Flint, Ralph Johnston, William Travers, Gordon Webster
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by chairman Ed Karkow in the meeting room at the Municipal Building, with a quorum present throughout.
The minutes of the Nov. 29 meeting have not been distributed, therefore were not voted on.
1. Revised Language for New Article 5 X. Accessory Apartments
Faunce’s proposed language for Article 5 X. Accessory Apartments was distributed ahead of the meeting. Karkow and others agreed the suggested language is more complicated and restrictive than what they had in mind. The Committee did not want to restrict the accessory apartment only to occupancy by relatives (requiring deed restrictions and annual filings), nor to require proof of adequate septic capacity, parking, etc. On motion of Blodgett/Morris, the Committee voted 10 – 0 t o approve Karkow’s proposed wording with the addition of the word “structural” before “common wall”. The revised article reads:
“X. Accessory Apartments
Accessory apartments are permitted in any district where single-family detached residences are a permitted use. Not more than one accessory apartment may be developed within a single residential dwelling structure. The resulting two family units must share a structural common wall and will be treated the same as a two-family dwelling or duplex.”
Karkow said the Committee wants to continue to allow two-family residences on a minimum-sized lot. The new wording is intended to prevent two mobile homes from being placed on a minimum-sized lot for use as separate single-family residences.
On motion of Blodgett/Morris, the Committee voted unanimously to amend the definition of “two-family dwelling” in Article 12, Definitions, as follows:
“Two-Family Dwelling (duplex): A building containing two (2) dwelling units which share a structural common wall. Occupancy is limited to not more than two (2) families.”
2. Revised Language for Art. 5 W. 1. Shipping Containers on Residential Lots
Faunce’s proposed text for a new Article 5 section W Shipping Containers was distributed ahead of the meeting. (The definition includes semi-trailers, storage trailers, railroad cars, roll-off and slide-off containers, and the like, used for exterior storage of goods.) Faunce proposes different standards for lots in residential use than for lots in non-residential or mixed use. The Committee chose not to address canvas storage shelters.
The Committee did not want to grandfather existing storage containers on residential lots indefinitely, preferring a two-year sunset provision, while allowing temporary use during construction or remodeling. Committee members felt that temporary containers need not comply with setback restrictions. On motion of Morris, the Committee voted unanimously to delete Faunce’s language for W. 1 a. after the first sentence, and replace it with a new second sentence. The revised language for 1. a. reads in entirety:
“1. Lots in Residential Use
a. Shipping containers are not permitted on lots in residential use. Existing containers must be removed within two years of the effective date of this Ordinance.”
Faunce’s language for 1. b and 1. c. for shipping containers on residential lots was unchanged.
The Committee did not make any changes in Faunce’s proposed language for Art. 5 W. 2. regarding shipping containers on lots in non-residential use or mixed use, nor to Faunce’s proposed definition of “shipping container” for Article 12.
3. Summary of the More Significant Differences between the Current 1987 and Proposed 2005 Ordinances: not discussed
Faunce’s cover memo of Dec. 6 states that in April he prepared a summary of the differences between the current (1987) ordinance and the draft ordinance revision that was defeated at town meeting in 2002. He has now prepared a summary dated 12/6/04 of the differences between the current (1987) ordinance and the draft ordinance revision proposed for town vote in June, 2005. He asked the Committee to review the summary for accuracy and suitability. This was not discussed at tonight’s meeting. [Note: Faunce confirms that the second line of the title of his 12/6summary should read “between the current 1987 and proposed 2005 ordinances”.]
4. Time Line, December 2004 to June 2005
Karkow described the steps that must be taken between now and June by reading from Item 6 on p. 4 of the November 29 meeting minutes, which was based on Lee Smith’s input:
“,…[T]he 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.”
Black said the text revisions have already been made. He suggested, and Seaver concurred, that the first two public hearings should be held before presenting the revised draft to the Selectmen. Karkow commented that it may be overly optimistic to expect to hold public hearings in January. The Selectmen will decide whether to place the revised ordinance on the warrant for town vote in June. Karkow said the Selectmen make the decision whether to have the vote by secret ballot or in open town meeting. In either case, no changes can be made in the text at the time of the vote.
Karkow said he wants to help write the executive summary of the ordinance revision that will be distributed to every household in town. Cartwright said a two-page summary would be better than four pages. Yerxa and Seaver said people need to be reminded that most of the material in the ordinances is mandated by State law and only a relatively small part, perhaps 10%, is local option. Morris said this is true, but it is very difficult to separate what is required by State law from what can be changed by the municipality. Gifford said the people who attend public hearings generally are those who are opposed to whatever is being discussed. Supporters of the revised ordinance should be encouraged to attend the public hearings and express their support.
Karkow expressed confidence that the revised ordinances can be justified and that townspeople will accept them. The Waldoboro Business Association wants to organize a study group to compare the revised ordinance with the existing ones. More meetings can be held with local groups such as the Lions and other clubs and fraternal organizations. The more people understand about the changes, the likelier it is that the ordinance revision will be approved.
5. Next Committee Meeting: to be announced
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. R. Alexander
Secretary