Land Use Ordinance Committee Minutes

(April 28, 2005)

 

 

Members Present                  Members Absent                   Town Resident Participants

 

Betty Bridges                            Bruce McNaughton                  Delores Butler

Cliff Hatfield                             Kirsten Hepler                          Connie Merrill

Terry Moore                            Charlie Merrill                          Nancy Hatfield            

Vonnie White                                                                           David Buchstaber

Marty Hipsky                                                                           Elaine Brown

Don Carroll                                                                              Bruce Brown

Terry White                                                                             

                                                                                               

 

 

Ms. Bridges opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.  Mr. Hipsky, meeting facilitator, asked participants to review the March 15, 2005 meeting minutes.  No changes to the minutes were requested.

 

Mr. Hipsky reviewed the:

 

   1.  summary at the end of the March 15, 2005 meeting minutes and highlighted that he intended to give town participants more time for feedback.

 

   2.  Land Use Ordinance Table of Contents stating that some felt this section was too complicated.  Mr. Hipsky offered that the Table of Contents is a means to organize the document as a whole.

 

   3.  meeting protocols:  (1) Review Sections I, II, and III line by line, (2) Discuss feedback from participants as each area is read, and (3) Document comments and questions needing research in the meeting minutes.

 

Section 1:  General Provisions

 

Mr. Hipsky:

 

First, Mr. Hipsky addressed Sections I.A.-C.  He emphasized that Section I.C.7. primarily “protects us from our neighbors” and that Section I.C.8. highlights the responsibilities of towns to be able to fiscally support any development that occurs in their town.  For instance, if a large subdivision is developed, the town is obligated to provide certain services. 

 

Mr. Buchstaber/Mr. Hipsky:

 

Mr. Buchstaber asked whether or not property abutters really have any say about what occurs next to their property.  As an example, he cited the current subdivision regulatory requirement to notify abutting property owners.  Mr. Hipsky stated that abutters can attend hearings and raise objections and concerns, which have the potential to influence the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions proposed development plans.  Additionally, there can be negotiations, for example, for buffer zones or fencing to ensure privacy.

 

Mr. Buchstaber then addressed covenants.  He stated it appears that when builders have covenants in their development plans, the covenants seem to “disappear” when the builder is finished with the project.  Mr. Hipsky stated that the covenants usually are integral to the property deeds.  He agreed with Mr. Buchstaber that the recourse to any covenant issues would likely become a civil matter for neighbors and abutting property owners.

 

Mr. Hipsky/Ms. Merrill/Ms. Bridges/Ms. Moore/Mr. White:

 

Mr. Hipsky asked participants if there were any questions regarding Sections I.A.-C.  These sections were acceptable to all.

 

Mr. Hipsky then reviewed Section I.D.  Participants did not raise any issues.

 

Mr. Hipsky noted for Section I.E. that whenever there are multiple references addressing the same issue, the more restrictive of all the official references (regulations, ordinances, laws, etc.) would be applied.

 

In Section I.F., he commented that severability is a standard element of official documents.  Severability simply means that if any one section of the ordinance is challenged, no other section of the ordinance is invalidated.  Only the section challenged is affected.

 

Mr. Hipsky emphasized in Section I.G.1.-2. that ordinances are not written in stone.  He had ordinances from other towns available, pointing out that they routinely change if not annually.

 

Ms. Merrill stated that 30 days to hold a hearing seemed like a long time.  Mr. Hipsky stated that 30 days is standard, Ms. Bridges explained the two-week advertisement requirement, and Ms. Moore commented that the Maine Freedom of Access Law sets the time limits.

 

Mr. Hipsky noted that per Section I.H.1. selectmen are required to review the ordinance annually.  Ms. Moore asked if the reference to Town Manager should be maintained considering the town’s current governance structure.  Mr. Hipsky stated it should, as we do not know what the future town governance structure may be.

 

Mr. Brown recommended changing Line 1 in Section I.I. from “when adopted” to “if adopted.”  He interpreted the current wording to mean that the ordinance was a given.  Mr. White stated that “when” and “if” meant the same thing.  Mr. Hipsky emphasized that the townspeople will vote to accept the document.

 

And finally, Mr. Hipsky stated that Section I.J. clarified that other ordinances that addressed the same issues integrated into this ordinance, would be absorbed into this ordinance and therefore rescinded.

 

 Section II:  Non-Conforming Structures, Uses, and Lots

 

Mr. Hipsky:

 

Mr.Hipsky stated that Section II.A. places the burden of proof of a challenge to any part of this ordinance on the person doing the challenging.

 

Ms. Buchstaber/Mr. Brown/Mr. Carroll/Mr. Hipsky:

 

Ms. Buchstaber addressed Section II.B.  He asked how an owner would be encouraged to move into conformance and noted that this could take many years.  Mr. Brown used the example of junkyards and the process of removal and Mr. Buchstaber asked what the town’s recourse was.  Mr. Hipsky stated that civil court was the recourse and that the CEO follows through with the court process.  Mr. Carroll offered that the process is a long process that could take years, but does not necessarily cost much depending on what the case is.  He stated that the town had expensive shoreland zoning court costs in the past.  Mr. Hipsky also stated that Maine statutes clearly specified junkyard laws.

 

Ms. Butler/Mr. Hipsky:

 

Ms. Butler asked whether or not Section II.C.1.b. permitted a non-conforming property owner (after ordinance adopted) to build on their property.  For instance, if a property owner had a lot with 200-foot frontage prior to ordinance approval and the approved ordinance required 300-foot frontage, could they still build?  Mr. Hipsky stated, “Yes.”

 

Mr. Brown/Mr. Hipsky/Mr. Carroll:

 

Mr. Brown stated that Section II.C.2.b. is just like the old grandfather clause.  Mr. Hipsky agreed that a property owner could continue with the non-conformity if an event occurs in which the current owner can no longer use the original structure.  Mr. Brown asked if, for instance, someone purposefully demolished a non-conforming structure (not permitted if ordinance approved), but left one wall standing, could they still rebuild and not have the property deemed illegally demolished.  Mr. Carroll stated he believed if any part of the structure remained standing after an event that was not within the owner’s control, for example a fire, then it would not be considered purposefully demolished.  However, he was not sure.  This will be further researched.

 

Mr. Hipsky:

 

Mr. Hipsky stated that Section II.C.4. allows an owner to continue with construction as planned if the construction was started prior to ordinance adoption.

 

 

Mr. Hipsky/Ms. Butler/Mr. Buchstaber:

 

Ms. Butler stated that she believes that Section II.B. contradicts Section II.D.-E.  Section II.B. states that “Owners of all existing non-conforming structures and uses shall be encouraged to convert such existing non-conforming structures and uses to conformance whenever possible and shall be required to convert to conforming status as required by this Ordinance.” 

 

Mr. Hipsky stated that this section needs to be researched and likely rewritten.  It appears that the “shall be required” portion of this section may refer to later sections where the ordinance specifies a requirement for conversion in specified cases.

 

Mr. Buchstaber gave another example to highlight the implications of this section.  If there were a currently non-conforming 200-foot lot (assuming 300-foot frontage approved), then all 200-foot lots would be non-conforming.  Does this mean the owners would never be able to increase the square footage of their dwellings? 

 

 

Section III:  Establishment of Districts

 

Mr. Hipsky/Mr. Buchstaber/Mr. Brown/Mr. Butler:

 

Mr. Hipsky stated that the Village Residential District (VRD) in Section III.B.1. is not a large area and that no mobile homes would be permitted within this district. Mr. Buchstaber mentioned that there were currently mobile homes within this area.  Mr. Brown asked about mobile homes used as offices.  Mr. Hipsky stated that this district’s specifications were intended to preserve the town village character.  Mr. Brown stated that a fire destroyed the village character years ago.  Ms. Butler asked why there could not be mobile homes.  Mr. Hipsky stated that this specification was addressed in the 1992 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the townspeople.  Ms. Butler stated she does not believe an ordinance should stipulate no mobile homes in any district.

 

There were no comments regarding Sections III. B.2.-3, the Mixed Residential (MRD) District and Rural Residential District (RRD).  However, Ms. Merrill’s question raised in the March 15, 2005 meeting regarding home occupations still requires research. 

 

Mr. Hipsky stated that the Residential District (RD) mentioned in Section III.B.4. is strictly residential with the same lot size requirement as all other districts.  He also noted that most of the properties must adhere to extremely restrictive DEP rules.

 

Mr. Hipsky:

 

Mr. Hipsky reviewed Section III.C.-D.  There were no questions.

 

Mr. Buchstaber/Mr. Carroll:

 

In Section III.E., Mr. Buchstaber noted that it looked like only the cape areas was affected.  Mr. Carroll stated they tried to make the boundaries so very few property owners were impacted.  Mr. Buchstaber stated the cape was about 269 acres from the dam road to the first single-wide on Rt. 143.

 

Mr. Hipsky/Mr. Brown:

 

Mr. Hipsky noted that per Section III.F., any boundary changes would have to go before the town.  He also explained that Stetson have very few districts, really only 3 as the cape is a district in and of itself.  He compared Stetson to other towns with 8 or 9 districts.  He emphasized we are proposing very simple districting for Stetson.

 

Summary:

 

Mr. Hipsky summarized the following from this meeting:

 

   1.  We need to continue to allot more time for citizen input.

 

   2.  We will review Section IV at the next meeting.

 

   3.  We will research answers to the open questions from the March and April meetings.

 

   4.  We will put copies of the draft Land Use Ordinance in the town library, town office, and Bud Belly’s convenience store.

 

 

Next Meeting:

 

Date:  May 26, 2005, Thursday

Time:  6:30-8:00 p.m.

Location:  Town Meetinghouse Basement

Agenda:  Review Sections IV, pages 1-10 of draft dated September 29, 2003

 

Future Meetings:

 

Date:  Every 4th Thursday of the month—changes will be posted at the Town Office, Post Office, and Buda Belly’s convenience store

 

 

 

 

Terry F. Moore

Secretary, Planning Board