Draft 7/27-29/04 revised 7/30/04 with Karkow input
Minutes
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
July 26, 2004
1. Minutes of June 28, 2004
2. Light and Heavy Industry; Hazardous Materials
3. Changes to Schedule of Uses: Further Restrictions in Rural and Residential Districts; More Commercial Activities in Rural Village Business District
4. Discussion of Proposed Requirements for New Lots not in Subdivisions
5. Additional Note on Road Setback in Article 3 Schedule of Dimensional Requirements
6. Next Meeting: Monday, August 30, 7:00 p.m.
Present: William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Steve Cartwright, Charles Flint, Norman Golden, Ralph Johnston, Edward Karkow, James Mahan, John Morris, JoAnn Myers (10)
Absent: Elaine Abel, Carlo Bianchi, Dana Dow, Ronnie Frazier, Terry Gifford, George Seaver, William Travers, Gordon Webster, William Yerxa (9)
Robert Faunce, consultant
Town official: John Black
The meeting was called to order at 7: 04 p.m. by chairman Ed Karkow.
1. Minutes of June 28, 2004
On motion of Campbell/Myers, the Committee voted unanimously to accept the minutes of June 28 as amended to add Bo Yerxa to the list of attenders.
2. Light and Heavy Industry; Hazardous Materials
Faunce presented suggested new language for light and heavy industry, based in part on George Seaver’s suggested performance-based standards - see Faunce’s July 19 memo. Faunce said some of Seaver’s suggested standards are hard to quantify and apply objectively. Faunce suggested one of two approaches. Either the ordinance could define light industry, with the applicant having the burden to prove that the proposed use meets the standards, or the ordinance could define “industry” and the applicant would have to prove that the proposed use is small in scale and low-impact, so that it would be a compatible use in districts other than the Industrial District. Faunce presented a list of criteria by which to measure industry: truck traffic, noise, odors, likelihood of growth or expansion, parking, outside storage of materials or waste, use of potentially dangerous materials, and potential need for heavy equipment. He said some of these, such as parking, are not useful in distinguishing between light and heavy industry. Truck traffic could be limited to a threshold (e.g. 50 trips/day) above which the use is deemed heavy industry, but who would count the truck traffic? Odor is hard to measure. Odor testers can be hired, but are expensive. Potential need for heavy equipment is hard to define broadly enough to cover a variety of uses. The Committee did not want to use criteria that would penalize an industry for growth.
Golden said Rockport’s draft comprehensive plan is available this week for public hearing. He asked Faunce and Black to get a copy to see how Rockport handles light vs. heavy industry.
Faunce said Osram, which manufactures light bulb filaments, is not heavy industry by most definitions, but Flint pointed out that Osram uses a lot of ammonia, and produces waste molybdenum. The possibility of release of hazardous materials into the air or ground water might require classifying Osram as heavy industry. Karkow, Flint, Morris and others favored applying performance standards rather than relying on definitions of light and heavy industry to determine what land use district is appropriate for an industrial use. Golden said Seaver’s definition of light vs. heavy industry also considers impact on neighbors. The scale of the operation and the amount of space between the use and neighbors are important in determining impact on neighbors. Size limit: Golden suggested specifying a maximum building size, above which a proposed use would be required to be in the Industrial District. Morris said the size limit should include the amount of outside storage of materials or inventory.
Faunce recommended using the categories Light Industry and Industry, and suggested that use of raw materials automatically makes a use heavy industry, but Morris pointed out that a potter uses clay, yet a small pottery operation would not be considered heavy industry. This example emphasizes the importance of scale of operation and use of performance standards in determining whether a proposed use is appropriate in a district other than the Industrial District.
Myers summarized Committee members’ consensus that a use will be presumed to be heavy industry appropriate only for the Industrial District unless the applicant can show that the proposed use is low impact and meets performance standards for location in another land use district. Karkow suggested adding “low impact” to the definition of light industry. Faunce offered to bring back language to the next meeting for review and approval.
3. Changes to Schedule of Uses: Further Restrictions in Rural and Residential Districts; More Commercial Activities in New Rural Village Business District
Following up on discussion at the last meeting, Faunce presented a recommendation to create a new land use district, the Rural Village Business District, to be located at certain rural crossroads that formerly contained businesses, have buildings that could be converted to business uses, and have space for off-street parking. He gave out a map showing the four proposed locations: Winslows Mills Road at Cross Street, Winslows Mills Road at Orff’s Corner Road, Washington Road at Old Augusta Road (North Waldoboro Four Corners), and Friendship Road from Finntown Road south to Back Cove Road. He showed photographs of the crossroads, existing structures and business uses. Flint pointed out that the previous business uses at these crossroads were discontinued as people became more mobile. He asked whether it is realistic to expect that new businesses will want to locate at these rural crossroads. Faunce thought a physician’s office or real estate office could appropriately be located in a Rural Village Business District, especially if such uses are not allowed (except as home occupations) in the Rural and Residential Districts. Flint pointed out that the intersection of Winslows Mills Road and Cross Street is part of the Industrial District according to the 2002 land use district map. Morris suggested separating the intersection from the Industrial District and including it in the proposed Rural Village Business District. Faunce said the boundaries of the Rural Village Business Districts will be defined by map and lot or within a specified radius from the intersection, and will be determined later.
Faunce asked the Committee to revisit the commercial uses listed in the Schedule of Uses in the draft Land Use Ordinance (pp. 3-8 – 3-10) and determine for each use whether it is appropriate in the Rural District, Residential District, or in the proposed new Rural Village Business District.
Faunce recommended prohibiting certain commercial uses in the Rural and Residential Districts, and allowing commercial uses in the Rural Village Business District. Existing uses would be grandfathered, and certain uses would be allowed as home occupations but not otherwise. Karkow said he would prohibit all the listed uses in the Residential District.
The Committee’s decisions are shown on the attached table. Myers said if the table is shown to the public, the table should note that many uses are allowed as home occupations.
Discussion of allowed commercial uses in Rural, Residential and Rural Village Business Districts:
Auto sales, service and repairs: Cartwright said such uses should be allowed in the Rural District if small in scale. Black said auto repairs are not considered a home occupation in the current land use ordinance, and require Planning Board review. Myers noted that the definition of home occupation in the draft land use ordinance does not exclude auto repairs. Faunce said the definition of home occupation in the draft ordinance is too broad, and should address auto repairs specifically. He suggested that scale of a home occupation can be limited by requiring that if the use is conducted in an outbuilding, the size of the building cannot exceed the size of the home. He thought size is more critical than number of employees. He recommended expanding the definition of what uses are allowed as home occupations, as a trade-off for prohibiting certain uses in the Rural and Residential Districts.
Auto body shop: Such shops typically have banged-up vehicles on site. Visual buffering can be required. The Committee decided to allow auto body shops in these three districts only as home occupations.
Boat building and repair: Flint said owners of waterfront property should be allowed to build and repair boats. Golden said all new boatbuilding operations are located away from the water because of the cost of waterfront land. Faunce suggested expanding the definition of home occupation to include boat building and repair. The consensus was that boat building and repair should be allowed in the Rural District.
Commercial farm, garden: A definition of these uses is needed.
Convenience stores with fuel pumps were not wanted in any of the three districts because of the risk of soil contamination. Convenience stores without fuel pumps were allowed in the Rural Village Business District.
Hotels, motels and overnight cabins were felt appropriate only where served by public water and sewer. Hotels were seen as a magnet attracting people to a revitalized downtown village, which then could support more shops.
Commercial kennels, a traditional rural use, were not wanted in any of the three districts because of the problem of barking dogs annoying neighbors. It was suggested that there could be a performance standard to allow commercial kennels set back far from the road and neighbors on a very large lot, if the use can meet the noise ordinance.
Recreation facility: Faunce was asked to change the definition on p. 12-20 – 12-21 of the 2002 draft ordinance to specify that a small low-impact use such as tennis courts would be permissible, but not a car race track. The Committee will vote on districts in which a redefined receation facility is allowed after reviewing the new definition.
Restaurant: Faunce favored allowing restaurants as a use in the Rural Village Business District. Others felt any new restaurants should be on town water and sewer.
Wholesale businesses: Golden and Morris said this is a matter of scale. Small wholesale businesses would not be objectionable, but large ones would. Morris suggested adding size limits to prohibit large warehouses or acres of outdoor storage, and limiting the volume of truck traffic. Flint asked whether the Planning Board can decide on a case-by-case basis what wholesale businesses are compatible with rural or residential uses. The sense of the Committee was not to allow wholesale businesses in these three districts, except fish wholesalers. Morris said selling lobsters wholesale does not require much space and need not be on public water or sewer. Myers suggested changing the definition of “wholesale” on p. 12-29 of the 2002 draft ordinance to exempt fish wholesalers.
Faunce asked for consideration of two uses not listed in the Schedule of Uses: retail, and service.
The Committee wanted to allow retail sales in the Rural Village Business District, but no service businesses in any of the three districts.
Institutional Uses
Churches: Golden recommended allowing new churches in the Residential and Rural Village Business Districts, but not in the Rural District, as part of a general effort to discourage sprawl. Black said parking may be a problem in the Rural Village Business District. Morris thought parking for a once-a-week use should not be a concern. Cartwright urged that churches should be allowed in all three districts, if the Committee wants the ordinance revision to be passed.
Nursing and convalescent homes: It was felt that these uses should be on town water and sewer.
Social and fraternal organizations: Flint said there should be a specified maximum size for such uses in the Rural Village Business District.
4. Discussion of Proposed Requirements for New Lots not in Subdivisions
Following discussion at the June 28 meeting, Faunce presented revised lot standards for individual lots (see new Article 4 in Faunce’s July 19 memo distributed in advance of tonight’s meeting). Under Faunce’s proposed language, a new individual lot must be approved in advance by the Code Enforcement Officer, must meet the minimum dimensional requirements of section
3. G of the 2002 draft ordinance, and must contain a developable area with a minimum width and depth equal to half the minimum frontage requirement, e.g. 100’ x 100’ where the minimum road frontage is 200’. The developable area must be not be located on a slope in excess of the maximum slope allowed for septic systems by State plumbing code. CEO Black will research this and supply the maximum percent slope, to replace “33%” in Faunce’s draft. Lots abutting town roads are limited to one driveway entrance onto the public way, and the driveway must comply with the minimum sight distance requirement of section 4. S. 2.k. 3) of the draft Ordinance (p. 4-25). The new lot standards are enforced by the Code Officer, who has the power to grant exceptions.
Committee members objected to Faunce’s proposal to require shared driveway entrances (“If an adjacent lot on the public way is vacant, the driveway shall intersect the public way at the common lot boundary unless this results in less than the minimum sight distance…. This provision is intended to allow two adjacent lots to have separate driveways but share a single point of access onto the town way.” ). Faunce said this is a safety issue. Under the current ordinance, driveways serving individual lots are not required to meet the sight distance requirement. The proliferation of individual driveways suburbanizes rural roads. Black said people will resist being told where to put their driveways. Blodgett objected that a shared driveway entrance is not appropriate for large lots. Either the two neighbors will have to live close together, or go to the expense of a long driveway. Flint and Cartwright agreed this requirement is unreasonable for large lots. Black has consulted town attorney Peter Lynch, who advised that the Town would be infringing on State subdivision law by regulating the creation of new lots. Black will consult Maine Municipal Association and report at the next meeting. Karkow suggested adding language encouraging people to share driveway entrances, but not requiring it.
5. Additional Note on Road Setback in Article 3 Schedule of Dimensional Requirements
Faunce’s July 19 memo suggests adding a note to the Road Setback section of the Schedule of Dimensional Requirements in Article 3 G (p. 3-12 of the 2002 draft ordinance) that the minimum road setback of principal structures in village areas where buildings have traditionally been sited closer to the road may be reduced to the average road setback of existing principal structures located within 500 feet on the same road. There was no discussion of this suggested note.
6. Next Meeting: Monday, August 30, 7:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. R. Alexander
Secretary