Wales Planning Board

Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan

And

Revised Town Ordinances

April 12, 2005

 

Public Hearing Record

 

 

In Attendance:

 

Planning Board – Ed MacDonald, Chair; Lori Blier, Secretary; Alice DiPaolo, Lyndon Spaulding

Selectmen:  Paul Burgess, Randall Greenwood, Brian Severy

Town Citizens and Interested Parties – Approximately 35 to 40 people attended the public hearing. (A scanned copy of the sign in sheet is attached.  It is to be noted that not all attendees signed in.)

 

Documents Distributed:  Draft Subdivision Ordinance, Draft Road Ordinance, Draft Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, Draft Floodplain Management Ordinance, Draft Site Plan Review Ordinance, Draft Land Use Ordinance, Telecommunications Siting Ordinance, Definitions Ordinance, Highlights of Specific Changes to Town of Wales Ordinances, Changes to Ordinances Distributed based on March 8 Public Hearing, Proposed Amendments to the Wales Comprehensive Plan, Town of Wales Comprehensive Plan

 

Ø  The meeting opened at 7:15. 

Ø  Ed MacDonald opened the formal meeting.  He introduced himself and the remaining planning board members and thanked folks for coming.

Ø  Ed indicated we would be going over the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and then move on to review and discussion of the revisions to the town’s ordinances based on that plan.

Ø  Ed read the amendments proposed for the comprehensive plan and indicated that these revisions were required to gain acceptance of the plan by the State of Maine’s State Planning Office.  This would be beneficial should the town wish to pursue imposing impact fees, limiting numbers of permits issued, or other growth slowing measures to reduce rapid development in the town.  Ed asked if there were any questions or discussion on the proposed amendments.

Ø  David Hambleton was given the floor.  He wanted to voice his concerns about the development restrictions being proposed for property’s on Oak Hill and Sabattus Mtn. that were in the “Limited Rural District” – specifically regarding development restrictions in areas over  500’ and 600’ respectively.  He indicated that he had recently purchased the property with the intention of staying there and that with the proposed limitations as written he would be restricted from modifying his existing lot for say a garage or road upgrades or things like that.  Board members acknowledged that it certainly appeared that the language needed to be modified to allow existing developments to further upgrade their existing properties by allowing that type of development but that the specific language that would prevent him from doing those things was in the Land Use Ordinance itself and that the board would like to get through the amendments to the comp plan before moving on to the ordinance revisions.  However, since the majority of the attendees were at the hearing specifically because of that proposed language, further discussion ensued.  Following is an overview of that discussion as the Planning Board Secretary was actively involved in the discussion and unable to take verbatim notes.

Ø  It was noted by Lori Blier that since the 500’ and 600’ elevation language was in the comprehensive plan, that the concerned citizens might want to recommend that we add an additional amendment to the comp plan that changes that language.  There was some discussion on the floor that perhaps the language should be stricken completely.  Citizens and concerned parties which spoke on the issue were Bob Neal, David Hambleton, Richard Hill, Fred Hopengarten, Michael Gallagher, and others whose names either weren’t given or were missed.  The following issues were identified: 

§  Singling out 500’ (or 600’ on Sabattus Mtn.) elevation level seems arbitrary and land owners feel we would be “taking their land from them” if the ordinance were passed as written based on the comp plan recommendation – eliminate the “no development” clause – eliminate the “Limited Rural District” completely???  Take it off the table until the next town meeting???

§  Definition of development needs to be reworded or clarified.

§  Lot size, should the limited rural area require a larger lot size say 3 or more acres?

§  Need to modify language to include improvements to existing developed lots over those elevations (whatever size).

§  Accommodating existing commercial uses (specifically the telecommunications tower site).  The existing language directly contradicts the recommended usage of existing telecommunications towers in the telecommunications ordinance.

  A motion was made on the floor to include an amendment to the comprehensive plan to strike the language that specifically addresses no development above the 500 or 600 foot elevation levels of Oak Hill and Sabattus Mountain respectively.  The motion was seconded and the attendees voted affirmatively to add that amendment to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments.  (Note:  the above identified issues although listed out of order of occurrence were stated by Mr. Hopengarten for clarification to this record.  All of those issues, however, were stated throughout the preceding discussion by concerned citizens and landowners.  Board members recommended that those concerned with the elevation issue attend the next planning board meeting on April 26th at the Town Office at 7:00 p.m. to assist in any modifications of language in the ordinances relating to the “Limited Rural Districts”.  The board indicated it would take ANY assistance it could get.  It was obvious that board members were unclear on where the 500 and 600 foot elevation numbers were taken from as these documents were drafted and prepared largely by AVCOG to assist us in the comprehensive planning process and the resulting need for ordinance revisions.  The board will be in contact with AVCOG and will hopefully have our contact there for the next meeting (April 26th) – or at the very least will have had contact and be able to provide some of the answers to those questions and potentially a way to address some of the concerns raised.

Ø  Issues were raised regarding notification of landowners regarding the proposed changes.  The board explained that these changes had been in the works for over 2 years that they had been part of the comprehensive planning process and the adoption of the comprehensive plan.  Many public hearings and work sessions were held as part of the process.  Questionnaires were sent out asking town citizens what was important to them for land use planning.  That was where the “preserving the vistas” and preserving the character of Sabattus Mtn. and Oak Hill themes were derived.  Many landowners felt they should have been notified by mail that these types of restrictions were being proposed.  It was indicated by planning board members that the requirements, by law, for notification were met through the television (ch. 4) notifications, the web site, the three (or four??) public posting sites of the town and the newspaper notifications in the K.J. and the Sun-Journal as well as some articles referencing the towns work.  Landowners still felt notification was not sufficient.  A lawyer in attendance retained by one of the landowner’s indicated she felt that we did not meet the notification standards and indicated that she felt we may not have on the comprehensive plan that was adopted.  The board advised that those notifications were in the hands of AVCOG and that we were confident that they met the notifications standards by law.

Ø      People seemed ok with the addition of the proposed amendment to the comp plan eliminating the language regarding no development over 500 or 600 feet on Oak Hill and Sabattus Mountain and with reworking the language (and/or striking it) for the limited rural district during the boards next meeting or two.  Business moved on to overview of the remaining ordinance changes.  Lori Blier took the floor to go over changes to the other ordinances and an overview of the creation of the definitions ordinance.

Ø      Lori indicated that the board had created one new ordinance, the definitions ordinance, in an effort to eliminate the redundancy of the definitions across ordinances. 

Ø      Lori went over the minor changes that were made to the Shoreland Zoning, Site Plan Review, Floodplain Management, and Telecommunications Siting Ordinances.  She indicated that all of the ordinances had the definitions removed and added to the definitions document and that structure changes to the format of the ordinances were made in an attempt to make the ordinances consistent in appearance and order of content.  Other specific changes sited were:  removal of coastal and river references in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance along with changed reflecting the amendments made to the state Shoreland Zoning Laws over the last 6 years as recommended by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection; the addition of the previously omitted flood map and date to the Floodplain Management Ordinance as required by FEMA to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program; and some minor revisions as recommended in the latest state Telecommunications Siting Ordinance template as indicated by the highlighted sections of the draft ordinance.

Ø      The hearing then moved on to the changes to the Land Use Ordinance.  Lori went down through the list of major changes highlighting the addition of the land use districts established in the comp plan (Growth, General Use, and Limited Rural), which she indicated we had pretty much gone over already.  The reduction of the right of way for frontage requirements for common driveways from 60 to 30 feet generated some discussion.

Ø      Discussion moved to the revised Road Ordinance.  It was noted that the language indicated that landowners were being forced into a contractor of the road commissioner’s choice (or the road commissioner).  Lori indicated that .the purpose of this addition to the ordinance was to ensure that the culverts were installed correctly because the town was responsible for maintenance and repair of the culverts after installation and that there had been problems in the past.  She indicated that this provision was added at the request of the road commissioner because of those issues.  A board member indicated that the state put in the culverts on state roads.  Mr. Austin, who works for DOT, indicated it wasn’t the case anymore that they just did inspections.  It was agreed that the ordinance should be changed to reflect an inspection process and requirements for the installation to meet specific standards.  If it doesn’t meet the standards, the landowner needs to have their contractor bring it up to specs.  Lori asked Mr. Austin if he could perhaps put his hands on the language that DOT used for these standards and inspections and provide them to us to help revise the ordinance.  He indicated he could probably do that.  We will make the recommended changes and notify the road commissioner of the changes and ask for his approval of them as well.

Ø      Mr. Austin also indicated that the Site Distances referenced in the Site Plan were not current and not safe and should not be in the document.  Lori explained that we had not done any major changes to the Site Plan Ordinance except for changes to the structure to help make all the ordinances consistent in appearance and formatting.  He indicated the section should be removed since it was out of date and not present in the other ordinances so not appropriate to be in that one.  Lori asked Alice to note that the change should be made to the draft document.

Ø  Ed presented the major changes to the subdivision ordinance.  There was some question on the addition of restrictions to the size of subdivision outside the growth areas to 5 lots in a 5 year period unless exempt as indicated in section 9.1 General Standards.  Lori clarified that the areas outside the growth area were exempt as long as the person or that direct descendant had owned the property on June 12, 2004 and had owned the property for 10 years that the property owner could submit a subdivision larger than the 5 lot limit.  A question was asked as to whether the right of way requirement for a subdivision road was now 30’ instead of 60’.  It was indicated that the right of way was specific to a common driveway and/or access to a back lot, not a subdivision road.  (However this recorder would note that the notes from the March 8 public hearing should be reviewed specific to this question as well.  Perhaps we will look at this in subsequent meetings as well.)

Ø  Mr. Hopengarten took the floor to add for the record some of the issues that he specified in more detail in a letter to the Town Selectmen and Planning Board.  Specifically, he indicated that there were issues in the definitions in that the definitions only address “open space subdivisions” and that throughout the ordinances “open space design” and “of an open space type design” are referenced.  These are inconsistencies.  He also referenced the inconsistency with the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance which requires an applicant for a wireless telecommunications to co-locate on an existing building, site, or structure which would directly violate the “no development” clause in the land use ordinance. 

Ø  It was asked if there were any further questions or comments.  Being none, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Lori Blier, WPB Secretary

 

Related Documents:  All Draft Revised Town Ordinances, Proposed Comp Plan Amendments, Highlights of Ordinance Changes document, Town of Wales Comprehensive Plan.

 

Attached Document:  Additional Notes and Observations from the hearing provided by Fred Hopengarten of Strong Signals.

Strong Signals of Lewiston-Auburn, LLC

Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105

781/259-0088 * FAX 419/858-2421 * e-mail: hopengarten@post.harvard.edu

 

 

  April 17, 2005

 

  In re:  Proposed Zoning ByLaw Changes and 262 Oak Hill Road

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

  Thank you for the all the courtesies extended to those of us who attended the hearing of April 12, 2005.  I think the hearing was done well.

 

  During the course of the hearing, and this, of course, reflects the wisdom of the New England Open Town Meeting scheme of government, a number of concerns about the Rural Development Districts were raised.  I took the occasion to record those concerns, which are listed below.  As promised, I am providing you with my notes and comments.  I hope you will find them useful.

   

Concerns raised

 

·                    Small lots

·                    No development = no development

·                    Two or three acre minimum lot size

·                    No accommodation of commercial uses and home offices

·                    The 500’ line seems arbitrary

·                    AVCOG not present

·                    “Open space type development” has no definition

·                    Access to properties through bogs [wetlands] 

·                    Desire to avoid proliferation

·                    Land for my children to build a house as a matter of right [the family compound]

·                    Need to amend the Comprehensive Plan

 

Apology

 

  I apologize in advance if any of the following remarks reflect an absence of knowledge about the various nooks and crannies of the zoning bylaw, but, given the tight deadline, there is simply no time to research the proposed bylaw before offering the remarks below – so that this letter can reach you, and others concerned, with time to consider the issues in advance of the April 26th meeting.  I hope that at least some of these concerns are alleviated by other portions of the bylaw.

 

Small lots

 

  A concern was expressed about prior existing lots in the Rural Development Districts.  Those concerned wanted assurance that the ability to add on a room, or build a garage, would not be curtailed just because the lot is less than the new minimum size (whether it be two or three acres).

 

  The Planning Board is no doubt aware that prior existing uses enjoy protections, but there remain several types of issues which can pop up.

 

·                    What setbacks or required yards will apply to a so-called “small lots”?  Will prior setbacks apply to a small lot that is already developed?  Or will new setbacks apply to a small lot that is already developed?  [Example:  Think of a house on a 100’x100’ lot, where a new setback of 50’ in any direction is imposed.  No new porch could be constructed without a variance.]

·                    Will there be a difference in treatment between a prior existing “small lot” upon which there is no present development and a prior existing “small lot” with structure(s) already present?

 

 

No development = no development

 

  All concerned seemed to view “no development, ” when read in conjunction with the definitions bylaw, to mean no further construction at all.  There was no support for this view.

 

Two or three acre minimum lot size

 

  There was some discussion of the question of whether, if there is to be a minimum lot size in the Rural Development Districts, the new minimum for subdivisions should be two or three acres.

 

No accommodation of commercial uses and home offices

 

  There was considerable concern about the use of lots in the Rural Development Districts for home offices and commercial uses.  Examples I heard involved a classic home office, especially where a new home office is to be constructed in an outbuilding, and those who have commercial vehicles and materials stored on their land in conjunction with small businesses (such as a carpenter or landscaper).

 

The 500’ line seems arbitrary

 

  Although the 500’ line on Oak Hill (and the 600’ line on Sabattus Mountain, but this wasn’t mentioned as often) does, as reported by the Board, reflect the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, no one present could justify the choice of the line.  This would seem to be a reflection of one of the most painful elements to being a volunteer member of the Planning Board -- few pay attention until discovering that their own ox has been gored. This just slipped by, despite the Board’s best efforts at public notice, and the opportunity for discussion at Town Meeting last year.

 

  Fortunately, the solution is simple, upon further consideration, the Board can simply move to amend the Comprehensive Plan.

 

AVCOG not present

 

  Actually, this complaint seems to have several components:

 

·                    Who are these people?

·                    Though these are “professional planners,” does their suggestion really reflect what townspeople want? Or is it more of a standard approach which might be more appropriate elsewhere, but not in Wales?

·                    What is the problem, the exact problem, which AVCOG seeks to avoid? And is “no development” above 500/600’ too blunt an instrument?  Does this punishment fit the crime?

 

“Open space type development” has no definition

 

  The phrase “open space type development” appears in both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed bylaw.  But it lacks a definition.  If it refers to proposed new residential subdivisions only, it does not say so – and it must, to avoid conflicts with commercial uses and home offices, or (see below) family compounds.

 

Access to properties through bogs [wetlands] 

 

  Any new bylaw must give careful consideration to the question of permitting access to useable land when the best access must go over wetlands.

 

  Somewhat akin to this concern was the issue of who must construct culverts. There was wide agreement that there is no need for the town to construct culverts at the expense of the landowner. A simpler solution would be for the land owner to use an approved contractor (perhaps from a list of approved contractors), or a contractor otherwise qualified (a contractor who does this work for the state, for example, but does not appear on the local list), and then for the building inspector to withhold building permits until the culvert passes his inspection.

 

Desire to avoid proliferation

 

  There was sympathy for the concept that the ridges in town not lose all trees and become new Levittowns.  But the goal seems to require considerable refinement, so as to avoid “takings” prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Land for my children to build a house as a matter of right [the family compound]

 

  Some of those present felt that there should be a distinction between a commercial residential development and the construction of another home on a lot to accommodate a child, or the like.  One person expresses it this way:  “If the Kennedy’s can have a family compound on Cape Cod, why can’t I have a family compound in Wales?”

 

Need to amend the Comprehensive Plan

 

  To the extent that, despite the best intentions of the Planning Board, including its attempts at notice to the public, those concerned didn’t get the word.  The Comprehensive Plan clearly needs amendment.  In addition to the need to propose changes in the Comprehensive Plan, there was clearly a need to inquire of AVCOG whether the entire comprehensive plan must be converted into bylaws this year. I suggest that the answer is no.

 

  Changes to the Comprehensive Plan are clearly appropriate this year.  Until the Town has come to rest on the details of the comprehensive plan, this is not the year to put Rural Development Districts forward for inclusion in the zoning bylaw.

 

Lest, You Forget

 

  The Town clearly wants co-location of new cellular carriers, or other wireless communications facilities, on existing towers, if possible.  But the “no development” clause forbids it.  That’s gotta be changed.

 

  Thanks for your attention. 

 

  Sincerely,

  Strong Signals of Lewiston-Auburn, LLC

  by

 

  Fred Hopengarten, Esq.

  Managing Member

  Maine Bar #1660