6/29- 7/1/04 draft
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
June 28, 2004
1. Minutes of May 24, 2004
2. Definitions and Criteria for Light and Heavy Industry
3. Business/Commercial Activities at Crossroads in Rural and Residential Districts
4. Open Space Subdivisions (replaces Cluster Housing Development text, Art. 5 Section G)
5. Standards for Single Lots not Part of a Subdivision
6. Input from Dutch Neck Community Meeting June 24
7. Press Releases
8. Next Regular Committee Meeting: Monday July 26, 7:00 p.m.
Present: Elaine Abel, William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Charles Flint, Ronnie Frazier, Norman Golden, Ralph Johnston, James Mahan, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver
Absent: Carlo Bianchi, Steve Cartwright, Dana Dow, Terry Gifford, Edward Karkow, William Travers, Gordon Webster
Town officials: Lee Smith, John Black
Robert Faunce, consultant
Audience: Teresa Gregory
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by vice chairman Blodgett.
1. Minutes of May 24, 2004
On motion of Campbell/Myers, the Committee voted unanimously, Abel and Yerxa abstaining, to accept the minutes of May 24 as distributed.
2. Definitions and Criteria for Light and Heavy Industry
George Seaver’s 6/9/04 memo regarding light and heavy industry was sent to Committee members ahead of the meeting for review. Seaver believes that in practice it is impossible to predetermine whether a use is light or heavy industry, and that this determination should be made by the Planning Board on a case-by-case basis using eight criteria listed, to determine whether the proposed use will have a negative effect on adjacent properties. If so, the use is relegated to a district that allows heavy industry. Faunce objected that this makes it hard for an applicant to determine in advance whether a proposed industrial use will be allowed in the district in which the property is located. No action was taken on Seaver’s list of specific text changes to the draft ordinance, contained in his 6/9 memo.
Faunce presented ordinance language from four other towns regarding light and heavy industry. Many towns employ use of raw materials as the defining criterion to distinguish between light and heavy industry. Lewiston’s ordinance defines light industry, but not heavy industry. Light industry involves processing of previously prepared material; heavy industry involves processing of raw materials. Auburn’s ordinance defines both light and heavy industry. In order for the use to be classified as light industry the applicant must demonstrate that the use will not create a nuisance from noise, fumes, etc. Heavy industry involves the use of a building or site for assembling, fabricating, manufacturing, packaging or processing operations. Portland uses much the same definition as Lewiston. Portland uses the expression “low impact industrial uses” rather than “light industry”. The Portland ordinance defines low impact industrial uses as compatible with residential and other low impact industrial uses with regard to the level of traffic generated, emission levels, lighting, and odors generated. Boothbay Harbor’s ordinance lists performance criteria for light industry. All seafood processing is considered heavy industry.
Seaver said it is partly the scale of the operation that determines whether a proposed use will have a negative effect on abutters. Flint pointed out that a sawmill located in the center of a 1000-acre property would have no effect on abutters due to noise at the property boundaries, and would be compatible with residential uses. The individual situation must be a factor in the decision. Faunce said that what Seaver is recommending is performance-based zoning. If the Planning Board is the only entity that can make the decision whether a use is light or heavy industry, this introduces uncertainty into the process, is cumbersome to administer, and invites legal challenges. How can the noise level of a proposed industrial use be measured before it is operational? Flint said the advantage of performance zoning is that it is flexible and can be applied to new types of use not listed in the Schedule of Uses matrix. Morris said if the revised land use ordinance were to use performance-based zoning, the text would have to alert applicants to the fact that they may be required to provide additional information. The review process would be less clear. Applicants complain when the Planning Board requires them to provide extra information that costs them money.
Golden said light industrial uses are allowed in only the Route 1 Rural, Route 1 Urban, and Industrial, and there are no residential uses in these districts. Morris disagreed, saying there are homes in the Route 1 Rural district, and the Industrial District boundary abuts a residential area. Faunce said uses that are actually light industry, such as boat-building, are allowed in other districts according to the Table of Uses matrix.
Faunce asked for a straw vote whether Committee members want performance-based zoning for industrial and other non-residential uses. The vote was 4 in favor of performance-based zoning for industrial uses and 6 opposed. Seaver abstained. Morris summarized that Committee members want to keep the traditional way of determining whether a proposed use is light or heavy industry, but to give the Planning Board latitude to consider performance standards in making the determination.
3. Business/Commercial Activities at Crossroads in Rural and Residential Districts
At the last meeting it was suggested that stores be allowed at and near certain rural crossroads. This would recognize an historic settlement pattern of concentrations of land uses at and near these intersections, e.g. North Waldoboro Four Corners. Lot sizes and setbacks could be reduced and certain business/commercial uses allowed at crossroads that would not be allowed elsewhere in the Rural or Residential district. The Town Manager gave Faunce a 1967 Waldoboro map that shows small business districts at four or five locations including North Waldoboro Four Corners, the corner of Finntown Road/Friendship St., and the corner of Ledges Circle or Dutch Neck Road with Bremen Road. Faunce said if the Committee favors this approach, he will look into it and come back with some proposals. Morris said local residents might oppose business development at the intersection of Bremen Road and Dutch Neck Road, which is an area of attractive homes.
4. Open Space Subdivisions (replaces Cluster Housing Development text, Article 5 Section G)
Sample ordinance language for open space subdivisions was sent out for Committee review ahead of the meeting. Blodgett said that at the Dutch Neck community meeting June 24 (see Item 6 below) there was a strong consensus that cluster subdivisions should not be required, but should be encouraged. Faunce said the proposed open space type of subdivision likewise would not be required but would be encouraged by strong incentives. The incentive is reduced infrastructure costs by grouping houses on only part of the property, the rest of which is kept as permanently undeveloped open space. There is no density bonus. Overall density is the same or less than a conventional subdivision. Lots can be as small as ˝ acre and the road frontage requirement can be reduced to zero. The result is a win-win situation good for the developer, good for subdivision residents, and good for the town. Faunce said the Planning Board makes the decision whether to allow the option of an open space subdivision in any given case; the developer cannot insist on it.
Secretary Alexander suggested changing “zoning district” to “land use district” wherever it occur in the text (subsections 3 and 4, pp. 6 and 7 of the model text). On motion of Golden, the Committee voted unanimously to replace the ordinance language in Article 5 Section G with the Open Space Subdivision language, with the understanding that this type of subdivision is not required but provides incentives to the developer.
5. Standards for Single Lots not Part of a Subdivision
Faunce has suggested provisions for CEO review of new single lots that are not part of a subdivision. At present new single lots are not required to meet town standards for lots in a subdivision, such as adequate driveway sight distances, boundary survey, wetlands delineation, or net residential acreage. (Black clarified that for individual lots on State roads, he cannot issue a building permit unless the driveway meets the required sight distance.) A problem may occur when a person with a house on a 3.5 acre lot divides the property. The newly-created lot may meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements, but the residual lot may be nonconforming, with too little frontage. The nonconformity of the residual lot is typically discovered only when the deed to the new lot is received by the Town and the new lot boundaries are drawn on the tax map.
The Committee discussed how to address this. The suggested solution is to require persons who wish to divide property to get approval from the Code Enforcement Officer and provide proof that not only the new lot but the residual property meets ordinance requirements, before the new lot can be sold.
Under the ordinance language proposed by Faunce (based on the Town of Raymond ordinance), lots abutting town roads are limited to a single driveway and must share a driveway with an adjacent undeveloped lot, unless considerations of sight distance preclude this. Stormwater drainage from new development on single lots must be directed to buffers on the property rather than to road ditches. The applicant must submit a stormwater management plan that demonstrates compliance with the stormwater standard, generally by use of vegetated buffers on the downslope side of the lot. Phosphorus export from the lot must be calculated and minimized. Erosion control must be addressed. The proposed lot must have a developable area having a minimum width and depth of one-half the required frontage, in order to assure that development can occur outside of wetlands, floodplains and slopes greater than 33 %.
Under Faunce’s proposed language, lots existing as of the date of adoption of the revised ordinance are grandfathered. The Code Enforcement Officer keeps a file of all lots. The CEO can modify the standards for cause. The intent is not to make lots undevelopable, but to improve traffic safety, protect the environment, and reduce stormwater impacts on ditches along town roads. The CEO can determine how much of a lot is wetland by consulting existing maps of wetlands and floodplains. A wetlands delineation on the ground is not required in order to demonstrate that half of a lot is buildable.
[At the top of p. 2 of the proposed ordinance, Section 3. Lots Abutting Town Roads, the town name Raymond should be changed to Waldoboro if the model ordinance is used.]
CEO Black said the 16-page Raymond ordinance is not what he had in mind for Waldoboro. He wanted a minimum lot size ordinance that applies to newly created lots and residual lots outside subdivisions, to ensure that lots outside subdivisions have 80,000 s.f. and meet the frontage requirement. Committee members agreed that what is wanted is a short simple text section giving minimum requirements for single lots (minimum road frontage, minimum developable area, adequate sight distance from driveway entrance) and requiring a pre-division conference with the Code Enforcement Officer, who will determine whether a survey is required. The text would warn people that if the lot they create does not meet the minimum standards, it may not be buildable. Morris said the text should say the preferred location for new driveways is at the side boundary of the lot, so that two adjacent lots can share a common driveway, unless the sight distance requirement cannot be met at that location.
Discussion: Golden suggested requiring a boundary survey for all lots sold. Blodgett objected that owners of very large parcels should not be required to provide a survey, which would be prohibitively expensive and unnecessary, if the intent is only to show that both the newly-created lot and the residual lot meet minimum size and frontage requirements. Morris suggested a common-sense solution, that the CEO can require a perimeter survey only if there is doubt whether both the new lot and the residual lot meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Black raised a philosophical point, that it should be legal to create and sell a substandard-sized lot that is not a building lot. Abel agreed. Seaver suggested that the burden should be on the person who wishes to build on the lot, to demonstrate that there is adequate buildable area.
Flint agreed with Faunce’s premise that people who wish to subdivide land outside a subdivision must obtain CEO review before the sale. Morris said enforceability is a problem. Attorneys would have to be alerted to the new requirement and would have to require their clients to prove that the new lot and the residual lot both meet the local ordinance. Real estate agents likewise should be informed of the new requirement. Black raised the issue of enforcement on the owner of a residual lot that does not meet the size or frontage requirement. Should there be a fine of $100/day until the owner acquires more land? What if no adjacent land is available?
Flint asked whether the Town has the right to reject a lot after it has been registered at the Registry of Deeds. Faunce said yes, if the lot is illegal. How much of a problem this is depends on how frequently it happens. If only one lot per year is substandard, it is not a big problem.
Yerxa asked whether there is any ordinance language for single lots regarding phosphorus export. Black said neither the current ordinance nor the 2002 draft ordinance addresses phosphorus for single lots outside subdivisions. Yerxa recommended that the Committee consider requiring owners of single lots outside subdivisions to minimize export of phosphorus from the lot.
VOTE: On motion of Golden/Flint, the Committee voted unanimously to ask Faunce and Black to create minimum single-lot standards for lots outside subdivisions that specify minimum lot dimensions, minimum buildable area, and driveway sight distance, and to require a pre-division conference with the CEO, who can require a survey if necessary to determine that both the new lot and the residual lot meet ordinance standards. Suggested new language will be provided for review at the next meeting.
6. Input from Dutch Neck Community Meeting June 24
CEO Black and several members of the Land Use Committee attended the June 24 meeting of the Dutch Neck Community Association. A handout was available describing the proposed ordinance changes. Blodgett said the presentation was well received. Some people commented that if the proposed ordinance changes had been as well explained in 2002 they would have been passed. Abel noted that most of the people who attended are summer residents, not Waldoboro voters.
The next scheduled community meeting is at the West Waldoboro Community Club on Bremen Road on July 1. Committee members are welcome and encouraged to attend.
7. Press Releases
Golden said there has been nothing in the papers for two months about the land use ordinance.
8. Next Regular Committee Meeting: Monday July 26, 7:00 p.m.
The July agenda will include the items not discussed from tonight’s agenda: format for handouts to the public for best understanding of proposed ordinance changes; comparison of state laws and rules and local ordinances; parking requirements proposal; statement requiring consulting wildlife habitat maps for project development; language for development in areas where public sewer and water may be added in future; lot frontage width adjustment; lunch wagons; change in noise ordinance to allow licensed inspected motor vehicles to operate on private property and public highways; mass gatherings. Material on most of these items has already been distributed.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. R. Alexander, Secretary