Draft 3/15/05 reviewed by EK prior to distribution
Public Informational Meeting on Draft Ordinance
Revision
Town of Waldoboro Land Use Committee
March 14, 200
1. Discussion of Proposed Draft Land Use Ordinance Revision
2. Next Meetings: Public informational meeting Monday, March 21, 7:00 p.m., Town Office;
March 28, Land Use Committee meeting to review public comments, 7:00 p.m., Town Office.
Present:
Land Use Committee: William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Steve Cartwright, Dana Dow, Charles Flint, Terry Gifford, Norman Golden, Edward Karkow, John Morris, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver, William Yerxa (absent: Elaine Abel, Carlo Bianchi, Ronnie Frazier, Ralph Johnston, James Mahan, William Travers, Gordon Webster)
Town officials: Lee Smith, John Black
Robert Faunce, Lincoln County planner, consultant
Audience: Jim Amaral, Joseph Beardsley, Mary Ann Beinecke, Claire Bowley, Louise Boyer, Pat Brock, Richard Castner, Bill Evans, Sarah and Tim Gladu, Carleton Johnson, Keenan R. Jones, Eberhard and Renate Luethke, Al Maloney, Chester B. Mayo, Jr., Delia W. Mohlie, Shelley Pease, Sam Pennington, Ellen Winchenbach (20)
Reporters: Mike Colbert (Lincoln County News), Art Mayers (Courier-Gazette & Lincoln County Weekly)
The public informational meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Land Use Committee chairman Ed Karkow. He said the present committee has been working on ordinance revision for over a year. In February 2004 there was a public meeting. All interested townspeople were invited to attend and to join the Land Use Committee. Several people who had opposed the 2002 ordinance joined the Committee and provided valuable input. The Committee has addressed problems identified at earlier public meetings and has updated the ordinance to agree with State ordinance updates.
Karkow said that by voting for the revised set of ordinances, townspeople will be voting to have the town not change much in future. Voting against the revised ordinance will open the door to uncertainty and allow possibly undesired future development. The Comprehensive Plan passed in 1998 provided for land use districts. The purpose of these districts is to assure that your neighbors’ activities do not devalue your property or interfere with your enjoyment of your property.
The draft ordinance revision includes a new a wellhead protection ordinance to protect water quality around the Town’s new public water supply, by preventing uses that might pollute ground water near the wells. A change has been made in land use districts to make the Osram-Sylvania property an industrial district, so that light industry can continue there.
Under the proposed ordinance revision, all present structures and land uses are grandfathered, with a very few exceptions such as a potentially polluting use in the wellhead protection district.
Norm Golden, to Lee Smith: Does Waldoboro have the necessary funds to pursue litigation against violators of the proposed ordinances?
Smith: We have a legal budget, but we prefer to deal with land use violations by voluntary cooperation, using consent agreements.
Golden: Should there be a provision in the draft ordinance to match growth in population with increase in the number of code enforcement officers? John Black is overwhelmed with paperwork and enforcement of existing regulations.
Lee Smith: We used to have only a part-time code enforcement position. John has been full time in code enforcement for the past five years. We recently created another half-time code enforcement position. One and a half positions is considered adequate for a community of this size.
Karkow: There are things in the draft ordinances that will reduce the work load in code enforcement. The consolidated ordinances will be easier to work with and easier to administer.
John Morris: The new ordinance streamlines the permitting process. John Black will have more time to do what he needs to do. In the Downtown Business District, the new ordinance removes illogical restrictions such as setbacks from the road and the requirement for businesses to provide off-street parking. We did this to encourage new business development in the downtown area and to preserve the look of an 18th -19th century downtown. New lots as small as a tenth of an acre are now allowed in the downtown area. They never were, before, although existing lots are that small.
Art Mayers: Didn’t you increase the setback of structures from the road to 100 feet outside of the downtown area?
Karkow: No, we reverted to a 75’ setback.
Sarah Gladu: Do the revised ordinances provide any stronger protection for the river in the downtown area? With increasing dense development, there is need for catch basins to divert rainwater that runs downhill into the river, and curbs that divert water away from green areas into storm drains. There are problems with water quality now from the downtown area: bacteria from sewage, excess fertilizers from lawns, possible future leaks of gas and diesel fuel from gas stations. I would hope that you try to be creative in finding ways to increase protection of the water quality of the river, and get developers and business people to help.
Karkow: Sarah, you are the Town expert on water quality. Could you write up some suggestions in a few paragraphs for the Committee?
Bob Faunce, Lincoln County planner: The revised ordinances provide for improved erosion control and stormwater management. Parking lots are required to control water runoff. New developments require Planning Board review. Water coming off new sites will be better managed.
Keenan Jones: Does the revised ordinance have any provisions against light pollution, for example from big parking lots that are brightly lit all night?
Karkow: We require that exterior lights be shielded so you can’t see the element, to avoid glare onto roads or adjacent properties.
Richard Castner: You said the old ordinances had no provision for regulation of new technologies like cellphone towers. Are there any provisions in the revised ordinances that new uses involving unforeseen inventions must be reviewed by the Planning Board? What if I wanted to put up a 125-foot tower with a propeller at the top to generate electricity from wind power? Does the revised ordinance have any regulations about that? It would be unsightly.
Chuck Flint: If any item before the Planning Board attracts public opposition, the Planning Board can hold a public hearing.
Sarah Gladu: Yes, but if the use is allowed under the ordinance and the application meets the requirements, the Planning Board has to approve it.
Bo Yerxa, Planning Board chairman: We have strong provisions for notifying abutters of applications before the Planning Board and asking for their input. We have clear ordinances and apply them fairly. We have no choice but to approve an application that meets ordinance criteria.
George Seaver: I am interested in the impact of a proposed activity on abutters. The new ordinance has criteria based on impacts of the proposed land use, rather than merely listing what uses are allowed or not allowed. This is a much more general and logical way to review a proposed activity and make a rational decision about whether it is appropriate in the location proposed for it.
Castner: Thank you. I am reassured.
John Morris: The draft ordinance revision does not address a big problem other towns have experienced with large-scale crushing plants for asphalt or concrete. This is something the Town definitely needs to address.
Keenan Jones: According to the proposed ordinance revision, single-wide trailers are not allowed anywhere near the waterfront.[South of the Village, new single-wide mobile homes are prohibited on both sides of the Medomak between 400 feet west of Rt. 32 and 400 feet east of Rt. 220; existing single-wide mobile homes are grandfathered.] We need to make a conscious decision to be a retirement community or to help young people. Suppose a family that has lived here for five generations owns land on the water. Shouldn’t they be allowed to give a lot to their son or daughter for a starter home? Why should young families not be able to live on waterfront property? How was that decision made? You could accomplish the same thing by increasing the minimum lot size in the Residential District, rather than by limiting single-wide mobile homes. Let market forces dictate land use near the water rather than prohibiting single-wides.
Bob Faunce: I have figures on the value of single-wide mobile homes on separate lots (not mobile home parks) in the area that you are talking about south of the Village. The average value is $20,000. The Town is losing significant tax revenue by allowing new mobile homes on lots near the water. Existing mobile homes near the water are grandfathered. Waldoboro has a higher percentage of mobile homes than other towns in the area. Single-wide mobile homes are allowed anywhere in the Rural District, which is most of the town. If a young family wants to live on family land near the water, they could buy a previously-owned double-wide, which costs only a little more than a new single-wide.
Carleton Johnson: I was a member of the Land Use Committee when this issue was first brought up. There are several different ways of looking at it. If someone has inherited or bought property near the water and put a home on it, they could lose a significant part of their investment if a mobile home was placed next door. Market dynamics will control the situation over time. The question is, what is in the best interest of the community today.
Steve Cartwright, to Keenan Jones: I appreciate your thinking on this. We on this Committee are concerned about the availability of housing at all income levels. We do care about this. The revised land use ordinances are intended to help the town grow in the best way. We do not control market forces.
Jones: In the long term, you are making a decision that waterfront land will be restricted to those who can afford to live there.
JoAnn Myers: We on the Committee did not discuss your exact point. Bob Faunce’s information told us that most mobile homes are not owner-occupied. Waldoboro has a problem with providing enough affordable housing. Most people who can’t afford adequate housing can’t afford to own a mobile home.
George Seaver: We spent time discussing how this town can provide affordable housing. We decided there is relatively little we can do about property values in this beautiful coastal area. Market forces mean high prices for coastal land. People from out of state will pay anything to live on salt water. All housing that is here now and is legal is grandfathered. Only a small number of people will be in the position of being given land on the water and wanting to put up a single-wide mobile home as a starter home.
Jones: Let lot size dictate how waterfront land is used. Let market forces dictate. What you propose is a disservice to the historic residents of the town. If people inherit land near the water, let them put a single-wide mobile home on it. Why not?
Norm Golden: Would you like to have a provision in the ordinance that people who have lived here for a certain number of years can put any kind of housing they want on their land?
John Morris: Bob Faunce’s point is valid. The price of a previously-owned double-wide is not that far from the price of a new single-wide. All the new ordinance is saying is that if you want to put a mobile home on land near the water south of the Village, it has to be a double-wide.
Art Mayers: The land use district map previously excluded a portion of Gross Neck from the Residential District. Now all of Gross Neck is in the Residential District. Why was this change made?
Karkow: Because of the unique character of Gross Neck Road, it was originally placed in the Rural District rather than the Residential District. A petition from landowners asked to have the southern part of Gross Neck placed in the Residential District, and this was done. In 2002 we were told by Dutch Neck residents that it was spot zoning to exclude part of Gross Neck from the Residential District, and spot zoning is bad, so we made the change to treat all of Gross Neck like the rest of the land between Rt. 32 and Rt. 220 south of the Village.
Bob Faunce: Another change in the draft ordinance is the creation of three new “Rural Village Business Districts” at crossroads where historically there were stores: the intersection of Old Augusta Road and Washington Road, Winslows Mills Road and Cross St., and on Friendship Road in South Waldoboro from Finntown Road south to Back Cove Road. Light business uses such as a doctor’s or dentist’s office or real estate office would be allowed, and convenience stores. We don’t know whether this will work. If it does, the ordinance could be amended in future to create more such rural business districts.
Steve Cartwright: I have heard concern about people being able to operate businesses out of their homes.
Karkow: The draft ordinance revision allows more latitude for home businesses than the existing ordinance. We want to encourage businesses. Any reasonable proposal for a new business use will be approved in the pro-business environment of the proposed ordinance revision.
Art Mayers: In a previous public hearing it was suggested to open up more areas along the railroad tracks for businesses.
Norm Golden: When they put in new track, the railroad removed all the old sidings except the one by the propane business. Those sidings are gone. My office and George Seaver’s are within 75 feet of the railroad. We can’t ship by rail direct from our site.
Jim Amaral: Does the proposed ordinance revision put an upper limit on the size of retail stores, to prohibit “big box” stores? If you want to encourage small businesses in Waldoboro, you should prevent “big box” stores from moving in.
John Morris: No, we didn’t address that, but it should be done.
JoAnn Myers, to Faunce: Have you seen any ordinances that cap the size of retail stores?
Faunce: Yes, in Belfast and Brunswick, but they rescinded the one in Brunswick.
Dana Dow: “Big box” stores won’t come here any time soon because Waldoboro is not a “destination” location.
Karkow: That sounds to me like something for the next round of ordinance revision.
Delia Mohlie: If the revised ordinance is not approved, what will the State do to Waldoboro?
Karkow: The ordinances required by the State will still be in effect.
Lee Smith: Most of what is in our ordinances is mandated by the State, for example the subdivision ordinance and the floodplain ordinance. The State does not require site plan review.
Mohlie: Is there anything the State can do to Waldoboro if the revised draft ordinances do not pass?
Bob Faunce: Towns are required to update mandated ordinances like shoreland zoning and the floodplain ordinance from time to time. If a town’s ordinances are in harmony with its comprehensive plan, the town is in a stronger position to require that development be done in accordance with the comprehensive plan. For example, Newcastle requires that parking lots along Business Route One west of town be located so to preserve the attractive long-distance views of the town and the water. A State court recently upheld Newcastle’s denial of a permit based on visual impact. The developer did not want to comply, and the developer lost.
George Seaver: Does the wellhead protection ordinance have to be passed in order for Waldoboro to use the water from the new municipal wells?
Lee Smith: I would not recommend not passing the wellhead protection ordinance. If the groundwater area around the wells gets polluted, it could be costly to correct the situation.
Art Mayers: If the combined ordinance revision package is defeated, could the wellhead protection ordinance be passed as a separate ordinance?
Smith: Yes.
Chester Mayo, Jr.: How much wiggle room is there in the ordinance?
Karkow: The Planning Board can look at applications on a case-by-case basis to assess the potential impact on the community. A reasonable proposal will be approved.
Faunce: There are businesses that are allowed in the Residential District. The Committee wanted to lower the threshold for home occupations, so that more home businesses can be allowed by permits issued by the Code Enforcement Officer. If a business is too big to qualify as a home occupation, the application must come before the Planning Board.
Mayo: I have heard complaints that abutters have too much influence on decisions. It seems that the Planning Board has been inconsistent in its decisions.
Faunce: From my perspective, the Planning Board has been consistent, given the inconsistent ordinances it has to work with. If the proposed ordinance revisions are passed, there will be much more consistency.
Karkow: It helps us to hear people’s criticism of the ordinances. We added two Committee members who were critical of the draft ordinances, Norm Golden and Ralph Johnston. They helped us to fix things that were wrong with the ordinances.
Ellen Winchenbach: I have a business, a home occupation, on Manktown Road. Now that there are going to be two schools there, there is a potential for increased traffic. Did the Committee consider making Manktown Road a commercial zone? There is a video store at the intersection with Rt. 1.
John Morris: No, we considered only locations that were historical commercial nodes.
Karkow: What you suggest is sensible.
Keenan Jones: I live right behind the school, on Miller Road. The Manktown Road area will change significantly when the new middle school goes in. If this is going to be a business area, it ought to be looked into for a change in land use district.
Morris: SAD 40 has made a concerted effort to keep junk food out of the schools. It would defeat that purpose to have a store selling junk food close to the school.
Ellen Winchenbach: According to the proposed ordinance revision, auto sales more than a few cars is not allowed in certain districts, automotive repair and auto body work are not allowed in certain districts.
George Seaver: Some kinds of change are easier to make than others. If enough people want changes in allowed land uses in a certain district, it is relatively easy to change the land use matrix. It would be harder to create a new land use district between now and April 12.
John Morris: One person does not speak for the whole town. This Committee should consider all suggestions carefully before acting on them.
Karkow: On March 28 we will consider the public input received, and incorporate those changes we think can and should be made between now and the June vote.
Shelley Pease: It says in the Schedule of Dimensional Requirements on p. 3-13 that lots in the Route 1 Rural District must have 400 feet of road frontage. That implies a four-acre minimum lot size.
Carleton Johnson: There appears to be an internal conflict in the schedule on p. 3-13.
George Seaver: I think it’s a mistake. Let’s circle it and discuss it at the March 28 meeting.
Bob Faunce: It is not a misprint.
Lee Smith, to Pease: Shelley’s Flowers is located in the Route 1 Urban District, which requires 150 feet of road frontage.
Carleton Johnson: To address concerns from Rt. 1 landowners about how the proposed minimum lot size affects them, they should know that the MDOT approves curb cuts. Their requirements for driveway spacing are more stringent than the requirements of this ordinance. It is not an unreasonable burden to require 400 feet of road frontage for a lot in the Route 1 Rural District.
Delia Mohlie: What is the process? Tonight’s meeting and the one next Monday are people’s chance to express concerns. If people can’t attend the March 21 meeting, whom should they call? There is no opportunity for changes in the proposed ordinance revision after the May public hearing.
Karkow: After the two public informational meetings, the Land Use Committee will meet on March 28 to consider changes to the draft ordinances before presenting a final draft to the Selectmen on April 12.
Norm Golden: I was one of the most vicious opponents of this ordinance revision when I joined the Committee. Since then I have taken time to drive around towns like Damariscotta and see how they are handling business development. They are moving business growth away from downtown onto Biscay Road and Business Route 1, and growing in a logical way. Waldoboro should not have haphazard growth. Growth should be controlled.
Dana Dow: I served on this Committee originally, although I have not been involved this past year due to my political activity. I expect to read through the proposed ordinance revision between now and June. If you look through the proposed ordinance revision, you will find something to disagree with, but I believe it will be a far superior document to what we have now and is needed to bring Waldoboro into the 21st century. Waldoboro is going to grow. We need to manage growth for a reasonable rate and type of growth in order to preserve the community the way we want it.
Keenan Jones: I agree with most of what Dana said. I am not opposed to the proposed ordinance revisions as a whole, but we are making decisions that will affect our children. Let’s be careful to be fair to the children of families that have lived here for generations.
Chester Mayo, Jr.: I grew up on Cape Cod. Building there is out the top. I couldn’t live there now.
Norm Golden: I come from Marshfield, Mass. I have lived here since 1973. When I left, Marshfield had a population of 5,000, and now it is 65.000. I don’t want to see Waldoboro turn into what I left.
Keenan Jones: That can be taken care of by lot size zoning. There is a pattern of people moving to a place and creating what they came from.
Adjournment: There being no more new input, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.