Draft 3/22/05 reviewed by Karkow prior to distribution 3/24/05
Public
Informational Meeting #2 on Draft Ordinance Revision
Town of Waldoboro
Land Use Committee Meeting
March 21, 2005
1. Questions and Discussion of Draft Land Use Ordinance Revision
2. Next Regular Land Use Committee meeting: Monday, March 28, 7:00 p.m.
Present:
Land Use Committee: Elaine Abel, William Blodgett, Charles Campbell, Charles Flint, Norman Golden, Edward Karkow, JoAnn Myers, George Seaver (8) (absent: Carlo Bianchi, Steve Cartwright, Dana Dow, Ronnie Frazier, Terry Gifford, Ralph Johnston, James Mahan, John Morris, William Travers, Gordon Webster, William Yerxa )
Town officials: Lee Smith, John Black
Robert Faunce, Lincoln County planner, consultant to Land Use Committee
Audience: Frank Abel, Charles M. Begley, Denis E. Beaudoin, Ann Bischoff, Bruce Blake, Richard Castner, Gerry Creamer, Thomas Creamer, Norma Dodge, Carleton Johnson, Keenan R. Jones, Tyler Lupien, Chester B. Mayo, Jr., Tootie McCluskey, Larry Miller, Barbara Moe, Robert Morse, Shelley Pease, Sam Pennington, Liz Petruska, Ervin Robinson, Jean Robinson, Churchill Rood, Suzanne Rood, Valdemar Skov, Joe Tynan, Mark G. Wallace, Mahlon Wheeler, Ellen Winchenbach, Carl Wolff, Mary Wolff (31)
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Ed Karkow gave a brief history of land use regulations in Waldoboro. Waldoboro passed a land use ordinance in 1987 and a Comprehensive Plan in 1998, after which Town ordinances were revised to be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinance revision was defeated in 2002. Starting in February 2004 a 19-person committee reexamined the draft ordinance revision, fixed problems with it, and added a wellhead protection ordinance needed to protect the Town’s new municipal water supply. The revised draft land use ordinances are now receiving public comment. The Committee will review public input at its March 28 meeting, make changes, and aims to forward a revised draft to the Selectmen on April 12 for town vote in June.
Karkow said a vote for the proposed ordinances will help to keep the town from changing in disagreeable ways and will provide a better climate for businesses and residents. A vote to disapprove the draft ordinances leaves the door open to undesired events.
Sam Pennington: The ordinance revision committee has done a really good job. My house is on the water. We do not have the right to exclude single-wide mobile homes in the Residential District. I voted against the 2002 ordinance because of that, and I will vote against it this time unless this restriction is removed. I agree with Keenan Jones’s comments at the March 14 public meeting.
Karkow: This is an example of the law of unintended consequences. We allowed a mobile home to be placed on the same minimum-sized lot as a single-family home, to serve as a “mother-in-law apartment”. This compassionate provision has had the unintended result of allowing two single-wide mobile homes on a minimum-sized lot, with no family member living in either, but both as rental units. This creates uncontrolled mobile home parks. The cost of land near the water may make this moot.
Keenan Jones: I took a ride today down Rt. 220 and 32. Market forces will dictate land use. I saw more “blue-tarp” houses that ought to be replaced than I did mobile homes.
If all existing lots and uses are grandfathered, can a house trailer on a half-acre lot in the Residential District be replaced with a new single-wide?
Code Enforcement Officer John Black: The person would have to come in for a permit. If the ordinance revision passes, my interpretation is that the lot is grandfathered, but the structure is not. You could put up a stick-built house or a double-wide mobile home.
Jones: It bugs me that this ordinance protects the property values of people who live on the water, but someone can put in a single-wide mobile home next to my house in the Rural Zone. Why aren’t my property values equally important?
Carleton Johnson: If an existing single-wide mobile home in the Residential Zone were damaged or destroyed, it might meet the criteria for a variance from the Board of Appeals to be replaced with another single-wide.
George Seaver: I agree with Sam that the language should be changed back to allow new single-wide mobile homes in the Residential District.
Norm Golden: How many people in the audience would prefer not to see this single-wide issue in the ordinance? (A majority raised their hands). How many want to keep the restriction? (Three hands).
Bruce Blake: Under the existing ordinance a mobile home can go on a lot anywhere in town. There ought to be some limits. A mobile home is not appropriate in the Historic Village District.
Karkow: Yes, the Committee felt some controls on growth would be beneficial to the town.
Bob Faunce: Waldoboro is the only town I know of that allows someone to put two mobile homes on a minimum-sized lot and rent them both. That is a significant proportion of new mobile home development in town. People who rent mobile homes and do not own the land have little incentive to make improvements.
Larry Miller: If I have a mobile home 10 feet from the property line and it burns down, can I replace it?
John Black: Yes, but the replacement has to meet the setback requirements.
Miller: Suppose the rest of my lot is wetlands – do I lose the residential use of the land?
Black: You could go to the Board of Appeals.
Carleton Johnson: You have to meet the current standards, but if you suffer over a 50% loss of value, you would meet the hardship criteria for a variance from the Board of Appeals.
Valdemar Skov: The ordinance will encourage dilapidation of nonconforming structures if they can’t be upgraded. There will be more “blue tarps”. It is easier to put another mobile home on a site than to fix up an existing one.
Bob Faunce: The lot owner can put a stick-built home on the lot. There are two issues here: size, and type of home. In the Residential District under the proposed ordinance, a single-wide mobile home can be replaced with a double-wide. If the mobile home being replaced has no foundation, the owner would be required to meet the setback, but if there is an existing foundation, the Board of Appeals would rarely require moving the structure to meet the setback.
Carleton Johnson: In the Shoreland Zone a nonconforming use must be made as conforming as possible, but you would never lose the residential use of the lot. If you have a grandfathered structure that has lost over 50% of its value through gradual deterioration, it cannot be rebuilt unless it is moved.
Shelley Pease: Why shouldn’t an elderly couple living in a big house on the water be able to split off a two-acre building lot, put a mobile home on it, and sell the big house?
Bob Morse: Zoning is a taking under the fourth and fourteenth amendments. If zoning denies someone the right to build, they are entitled to compensation. It does not matter when they bought the property, compensation can still be required.
Karkow: All existing uses are grandfathered.
George Seaver: The Committee will discuss this issue at its next meeting. Our goal is to be fair to everyone.
Shelley Pease: What’s being done about the questions raised at last week’s meeting? Is it worth people’s time to give input?
Karkow: Yes, definitely. We have a list of the questions raised last week. They will be addressed at next week’s Committee meeting.
Seaver: I have serious concerns about the Wellhead Protection Ordinance. I request we look at it next Monday, and either remove it or allow it to be voted on separately from the rest of the draft ordinances. I object to section 12 D Non-conformance on p. 12-1 and 12-2: “It is the intent of this Ordinance that land use activities conform to the standards of this Ordinance. However, land use activities or uses that existed before the effective date of this Ordinance shall be allowed to continue, subject to the requirements set forth in this Article.” What does that mean? That is double-talk. The land use table on p. 12-6 is not consistent with the rest of the article. Bob Morse and I are both in the fertilizer business. Neither of us would be allowed to continue in business at our present locations under this article as written.
Lee Smith: I recommend that the Committee have Andy Tolman and Rick Knowlton and representatives of the Waldoboro Water Company present when you discuss this.
Karkow: Maybe there should be a special meeting.
Bob Morse: Can the 60 affected landowners be given advance notice of the meeting? The Wellhead Protection Ordinance would wipe out half the Industrial Park. You can’t drill a well, pile wood waste, put in a septic tank. You need to correct this before you pass the ordinance, not afterward.
Smith: It is unfortunate that the Industrial Park is located close to a public water source. We have spent four years and $2 million to locate an adequate water supply. The water needs of the community and industrial uses have to coexist. We looked at piping in water from Damariscotta and Warren. Waldoboro’s ground water is high in radium. There are no other alternatives. The State has asked us to implement provisions to protect the municipal water supply.
Morse: I contend that there is no surface water from the Industrial Park area entering the fracture zone near the municipal wells. The wastewater pond from the old Medomak Canning Company has been leaching nitrates for years, yet there are no elevated nitrates in the water samples from the test wells. You should get another hydrologic opinion.
Seaver: The ordinance defines the primary recharge area as a circle a mile in diameter centered on the bedrock production well. When you performed pump tests, the water level did not go down at all. The relation between the fracture zone and groundwater is not well understood. It may be best to put the Wellhead Protection Ordinance on a separate warrant.
Morse, to Smith: Is there a requirement that you have to have a wellhead protection ordinance in order to have a public water supply?
Smith: I am not aware of one.
Faunce: There are no alternatives. You have a $2 million investment. The Wellhead Protection Ordinance is your insurance policy.
Karkow: We should be able to fix the flaws in the Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
Seaver: The thrust of the ordinance is not unreasonable.
Blodgett: The wellhead protection issue will be addressed at a special meeting and at the Committee meeting. Let’s move on.
Frank Abel: I have a problem with the part of the ordinance pertaining to docks. Unless you have deepwater frontage you can’t have a dock. That’s not fair.
Karkow: You can have a dock over ledge, just not over mudflats.
Abel: The ordinance that failed was voted on in the voting booth. Why is this one being proposed for town meeting?
Smith: That hasn’t been decided yet. The Selectmen will decide whether the vote will be by secret ballot or in open town meeting.
Abel: Let’s get a revised ordinance that is written so that it will pass. I attended the first meeting in 2004 about an ordinance revision. At that meeting people in the audience said, “Listen to the people”. Obviously you didn’t listen. Not much has changed from the 2002 draft ordinance. You can’t push stuff down people’s throats.
Norm Golden: Maybe Bob Morse could speak to the development of docks over mudflats in light of colonial ordinances.
Morse: You can build a pier in the intertidal area as long as you own all the rights to the intertidal area. The colony of Massachusetts, of which Maine was a part, gave landowners the right to build a pier, but the rest of the rights to the intertidal zone remained with the people. These are trust rights. They came forward to the present day. The Legislature is the trustee of these rights. You can’t vote this asset away. If this ordinance passes, you will be violating a trust right and you will have to compensate people who are told they can’t build a dock. I have a thick file on this that goes back to 1840. I put it together when the Conservation Law Foundation attacked us for harvesting seaweed. An environmental lawyer in Virginia wrote a book explaining trust rights for the whole country. The book is in the State Library.
Chester B. Mayo, Jr.: The purpose of the restriction on piers was to protect the clamdiggers, right?
Karkow: Yes. We tried to strike the best balance for the community.
Morse: In attacking people’s right to build a dock you are also attacking people’s right to harvest clams. I want to see the ordinance protect people’s right to harvest clams and seaweed in the intertidal zone.
Karkow: There is a school of thought that we don’t really own the land, we pass it on to future generations. We are stewards of the environment. These issues are hard to resolve.
George Seaver: The Committee will talk about this next week.
Keenan Jones: I am against any vote that does not take place in November. The proposed ordinance excludes marinas, you can’t buy lobsters. The ordinance is too restrictive. Who are we protecting the waterfront for, rich people with second homes who aren’t even legal residents, or Waldoboro workers who make their living on the water?
Norm Golden: I’m not sure I can agree with that. If you own land in the Residential District and a business goes in next door, it degrades the value of your property.
Karkow: The ordinance is a cohesive, practical, logical document that encourages growth by protecting land values.
Jones: If you aren’t planning to sell, you don’t care about land values. My land is not on the water. You don’t care what happens to my property value.
Golden: When I bought property here I envisioned that it would fund my retirement. It was important to me not to lose property value that would help me in my older years.
Jones: The ordinance can allow limited businesses in the Residential District without requiring only residences on or near the water.
Chuck Begley: The Committee has worked hard and honestly. There are people here who are concerned about restricting trailers near the water. The ordinance revision package has five major topics, and you are giving people only one vote. I won’t vote for anything if I disagree with one or two points in it. People should be able to vote yes or no on each of their concerns. Tell that to the Selectmen. It is hard to change ordinances once they are passed. Don’t let them give you one vote when you should have five. (applause).
Norm Golden: What are the five major topics?
Begley: Trailers, trailer parks, the Historic Village District, the “flavor of Waldoboro” -- whatever that is.
George Seaver: It is not as easy as you said.
Begley: Most people won’t read the ordinance. You were told two years ago that people want a chance to vote on each ordinance, separately.
Golden: The petition was to have a vote on the ordinance revision as one package. Isn’t that right, Lee?
Smith: I can’t recall if the petition addressed one vote.
Golden: If the petition was written a certain way, we can’t argue with it. But the Wellhead Protection Ordinance was not part of the ordinance at the time the petition was received. It could still be voted separately.
John Black: June town meeting has both a secret ballot and open town meeting. There would be a better turnout in November.
Bill Blodgett: There is no Congressional election until 2006.
Seaver?: There is a school budget vote in November.
[John Black checked the wording of the petition, which was received in late 2003. It asked for a town vote on a revised land use ordinance at the earliest opportunity, but did not specify a particular month. The Land Use Committee originally aimed for a vote in June 2004, then hoped for November 2004, the Presidential election. The ordinance revision was not ready in time. The next opportunity is June 2005.]
Golden: The “big box” issue bothered me. We need jobs in Waldoboro, but what kind of jobs? “Big box” stores create a lot of jobs but they are at minimum wage.
Faunce: You want jobs that pay enough that people can afford to live in Waldoboro.
To show growth, I did four maps showing the number and location of houses in town in 1913, 1939, 1973, and 2001. There were 946 houses in 1939, 1170 in 1973, and 2122 in 2001. This is a huge increase in 28 years. If Waldoboro adds the same number of houses in the next 28 years, what will the town be like? You need land use districts and protection of drinking water sources. The ordinances are not for today but for tomorrow and the future. Do not throw out the draft ordinances. They are better than the old ones. Adopt the revised ordinances now and make adjustments later.
Karkow: The ordinance text will give three easy ways to make changes. It is not that hard to do. The people who revised the ordinances tried to do the best for the town. Anything that makes the town more attractive and stable is a step in the right direction. Unrestrained growth is not conducive to investment in business or home ownership. The Comprehensive Plan laid out a good basic structure that is simple to understand. The draft ordinances have been revised to support the Comprehensive Plan.
Chester Mayo, Jr.: Can you provide voters with a synopsis to allay fears, rumors, concerns that if someone’s trailer burns down they can’t replace it?
Karkow: Yes, we can put out a two-page summary of the ordinance changes, point out differences between the revised ordinances and the 1987 ordinance. I’m not sure if it will allay fears.
George Seaver: A lot of the ordinance content is required by the State and is not local option. Some of the ordinance language is a little more controlling than what is required by the State.
Bob Morse: If it is a law, why do we have to vote it? Where is the private property in this town? Do any of you think you own private property?
Lee Smith: There is a State shoreland zoning ordinance. If you don’t adopt a local shoreland zoning ordinance, the State will do it for you.
Valdemar Skov: Most of the talk tonight has been about creeping changes. In Cushing I hear that a huge subdivision has been approved. In Wiscasset there is talk of a big new marina. Can we prevent something like that from happening here?
Karkow. Yes. Wiscasset does not have a comprehensive plan. Bremen did a comprehensive plan but the State says it is not acceptable. We have a cluster development being built on Friendship St. with the houses up near the road and open space land down near the river. The Cushing developer is allocating some land for conservation.
Skov: I am very concerned that if there is no ordinance, we may get blindsided by a developer who buys 100 acres on Route 1 and puts in a major truck terminal.
Karkow: Yes, or a porn shop, or a bordello in the old Button Factory.
Joe Tynan: I have the same concerns as Valdemar. I have read about towns that use the power of eminent domain to take people’s land and sell it to a private developer. That is bad.
Keenan Jones: In effect, the proposed ordinance says that nothing can go near the water but houses. The ordinance is overly restrictive. You can accomplish most of what you want by lot size zoning. I could accept the revised ordinance with a couple of tweaks, but it should be voted in November, not June.
Sam Pennington: The two-acre minimum lot size passed by two votes in 1987. Don’t turn people off if you can help it. Waldoboro has only 15% of the water the rest of the state has, due to rock structure.
Bob Morse: The required number of parking spaces for industrial uses is tied to building size.
Why do you need 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f for a warehouse with one or two employees? I hope you will revisit that and be more flexible. If the Wellhead Protection Ordinance is passed, only 30% of the land can be covered by impermeable surface.
The construction standards on p. 4-3 require meeting the current edition of the International Building Code as adopted by the State of Maine. Why should we vote to adopt something we haven’t seen? It’s not logical.
Woman: I fully support that we need ordinances and a plan for growth. We have to choose a plan and give a little to secure the future. People who buy on Dutch Neck should be protected from having a restaurant next door. I’d like to see the draft ordinances approved.
Karkow: Yes, good land use ordinances give predictability and security. Ordinance revision is an evolutionary process.
Chester Mayo, Jr.: How many times has the present ordinance been amended since 1987?
JoAnn Myers: Five times.
Karkow: The revised draft ordinances do not contain major changes from the 2002 draft ordinance. We have tweaked it, fixed problems, added new ordinances such as wellhead protection and cell phone towers. It looked as though there might be a cell tower on hills all over town. Now they are required to be within 300 feet of Route 1.
Keenan Jones: Have all the ordinance changes been in the direction of increased restrictiveness?
Chuck Flint: No, the revisions have made some things easier.
Tyler Lupien: Were the land use districts proposed by this Committee?
Karkow: No, the land use districts and boundaries were in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. We have made some small adjustments.
Lupien: Did the Committee go through the matrix of land uses on p. 3-8? Why are gravel pits not allowed in the Route 1 Rural District, but are allowed in the Route 1 Urban District with Planning Board approval?
Karkow: That looks like a mistake to me. That is a good point, Tyler.
Seaver: Anyone with a reasonable suggestion should bring it up.
Bob Morse: Out of 2,122 homes, how many are on public water?
Lee Smith: About 500 homes. About 20% of buildings in Waldoboro are served by public water. The population is 5,000. I don’t expect the number of homes and businesses on public water to increase because of the new wells.
Chester Mayo, Jr.: The proposed ordinance revision is a benefit to my property. It will eliminate inequities in the old ordinances. Before, my neighbor could put a house too close to the lot line, but I could not put in a toolshed.
Karkow: No reasonable proposal for a business or residence has been turned down.
Joe Tynan: Could there be a blanket clause for each land use district, that if a majority of the residents of that district object to requirements for the district, the ordinance can be changed?
Bob Faunce: Page 2 of the draft ordinance addresses how to initiate an amendment by a petition signed by a number of registered voters equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.
Shelley Pease: Could we have a straw vote tonight?
Sam Pennington: Shelley is asking, do people want a town meeting vote or a referendum vote.
Ellen Winchenbach: I am a Selectman, and I have been listening.
2. Next Regular Land Use Committee meeting: Monday, March 28 , 7:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.