2007-08-02 Land Use Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

Bowdoinham Land Use Planning Committee
Meeting Minutes, 08-02-07. (corrected)
T. Woofenden (rev. 08-03-07)

Meeting called to order at 6:05 p.m. Present: Ellen Baum, Paul Beltramini, Bob Bremm, Tony Cox, Brant Miller, Brian Smith, Todd Woofenden, Brent Zachau

The Committee reviewed the minutes from the meeting of July 12, 2007. Bob Bremm asked about the paragraphs marked as The Chair’s Perspective, and Woofenden (committee chair) indicated that these are his editorial remarks on the matters noted in the minutes.

[Note: In case this wasn’t clear from the conversation, the purpose was to offer clarification and context on procedural issues. In an earlier meeting, the group resolved to follow a project management approach that I had outlined. These notes are my commentary, but they are intended to respond to procedural questions with respect to the project outline I submitted – such as how we determine the scope of work – so that someone who was not at the meeting will understand how the project management approach addresses these concerns. –TW]

Woofenden remarked that in writing meeting minutes, his approach is to cover the salient points of the meeting, but not to provide a transcript-style set of minutes. He encouraged members to submit notes and clarifications for any issues in the minutes, as they deem appropriate. Bremm remarked that it is important to maintain a complete and accurate set of meeting minutes for the record.

The Committee discussed the draft project definition, titled The 2012 Project: Managed Growth at 250, a revised copy of which is attached. The revised version will be presented to the Select Board for sign-off as soon as it can be placed on their agenda. Points of discussion on the draft:

  • Language on location, design, etc. was struck from the second paragraph, as the group felt that this might be considered restrictive. Several Committee members felt that simply indicating “regulation of the use of land” adequately includes matters of zoning; certain types of building design considerations that may apply, such as requirements for facing material on commercial buildings; site plan review; etc.
  • Baum questioned the inclusion of the two-year review period following 2009, which, as described, is not part of the current project. Woofenden indicated that the purpose for that was to put the current project into the larger context of a fully-implemented new set of ordinances by 2012, so that, while the review period in fact is not part of this project, it will be clear to a reader of the project definition that we recognize the need for deliberate review and possible revision after the Committee’s work is completed, to achieve a fully-implemented growth plan by 2012.
  • In the section on deliverables, “a substantial portion of” was struck, and replaced with “part of,” to address concerns of Committee members on what can be delivered when. Specifically, Miller noted that if we are to present a complete and consistent set of ordinances, we might need to present an entire slate of ordinances, and not deliver them piecemeal. Therefore, while a significant amount of work will be completed by Town Meeting 2008, we may or may not offer ordinance(s) at that time to be voted on.
  • In the goals section, the item on districts was changed to clarify that the final list of districts might differ from the list provided. The Committee may see the need to join, split or modify those listed, or add new types of districts.
  • The item on nuisances was dropped, as the Committee felt that these matters were sufficiently covered by the reference to the Town’s comprehensive plan; and that nuisance issues such as those listed are routinely addressed in local ordinances, and therefore don’t need to be noted specifically in the project definition.
  • The last item was modified to clarify that while economic development is impacted by the content of ordinances, the intent is not for the Committee to assume the role of an economic development body. Rather, it is to acknowledge the need to be mindful of the economic development impact of ordinance provisions. In part, the concern is that in other towns, growth has sometimes created unintended negative consequences to towns in the form of things like expanding infrastructure costs that are not covered by a corresponding increase in the tax base, resulting in spiraling property taxes. This item, now re-written as “Support the Town’s goals with respect to the economic impact of growth,” is intended to address this type of concern.
  • The sentence on “Floats” and the one suggested float were struck, based on concerns that the term is confusing, and that the float in the draft was adequately addressed by the references to the Comprehensive Plan.
  • In the first driver, “small businesses” was substituted for “local retail and service commerce,” so that it would be clear that the Committee is not suggesting protective measures for specific, existing small businesses, but rather is reflecting the strong thread in the comprehensive plan on supporting small businesses, establishing a retail presence of small businesses for local shopping and services (rather than chain stores, box stores, etc.) and supporting low-impact cottage industries.
  • In the budget item, the place-marker dollar figure was struck, as the Committee plans immediately to form a finance subcommittee to evaluate budgetary needs. The expectation is that the finance committee will promptly meet, and propose a budget for the Select Board’s consideration as soon as possible.
  • The Committee discussed at some length the constraint pertaining to resident and property owners’ concerns. Miller expressed some concern that the concept of a “constraint” pertaining to property rights might appear to suggest that the Committee views property rights as an oppositional matter. Smith remarked that as written, the constraint compels the Committee to be mindful of property rights. Woofenden clarified that the term “constraint” in the context of this project means a boundary within which the work is done, so that in this case, as Smith notes, it means that we are committed to taking into account property owner’s concerns. Bremm proposed that “property owners’ rights” is clearer than “property owners’ expectations.” Woofenden remarked that “expectations” was suggested because sometimes a property owner’s expectations differ widely from actual rights – but that as long as it is clear that the process takes into account the actual concerns of property owners, “property owners’ rights” seems appropriate.

The Committee discussed and formed six subcommittees, the general purpose of which is to perform research and data-gathering, and to report back to the full Committee as appropriate. Subcommittee norms as listed in the agenda were discussed and adopted, with some discussion on the matter of meeting notice requirements and requirements pertaining to proper correspondence among subcommittee members. Baum requested that Woofenden ask for clarification on notice requirements and on what constitutes a “meeting,” with respect to subcommittee work.

The Committee discussed at some length the work of the Land Use Frameworks Subcommittee in particular. Baum expressed the opinion that this committee’s domain is central to the overall project. Woofenden expressed the opinion that the work of this subcommittee is not to propose an approach, but just to compile a list of the current approaches so that the full Committee has a better understanding of the “big picture” of how towns are engaging in growth management planning. Bremm pointed out the need to consider specific towns that are similar to Bowdoinham, and to gather information on their approaches and the results. Miller suggested that given the charge of researching leading approaches to land use, this subcommittee might dissolve after a short period, once the list is created, at which point the work of considering the various approaches would fall to the full Committee. Several members discussed how and when to engage paid consultants.

Subcommittee members were asked to set an initial meeting, to take place prior to the next full Committee meeting.

Recruitment of additional subcommittee members will take place as follows:

  • In general, each subcommittee will be responsible for recruiting members with the required skills to perform the work.
  • All Committee members are encouraged to submit suggestions for possible members of (all) subcommittees.
  • The Public Input subcommittee is asked to develop means for informing the public on the Committee’s interest in volunteers to serve on the subcommittees.

The subcommittees created, their charge, and the initial members, are as follows:

Finance Subcommittee.

Create an estimated budget for the project, to be presented to the Select Board for their consideration as soon as possible. Track expenditures and report periodically to the Committee.

Members: Woofenden

Public Input Subcommittee.

Design and manage public input methods and events. (Surveys, public hearings, print materials, web content, email lists, and/or any other methods deemed useful.) Work with other subcommittees as needed. (Example: The Land Owner and Residents’ Rights Subcommittee might want a survey to gather public opinion on some property rights topic, or might want to hold a pubic hearing.)

Members: Woofenden; Sara Dolan recommended

Highway Moratorium Response Subcommittee.

Research and propose several possible short-term or long-term approaches to address growth in the Highway District. Report to the Committee as soon as possible.

Members: Cox, Miller, Smith, Zachau

Land Use Frameworks Subcommittee.

Research leading approaches to land use, including zoning approaches, conservation overlay district approach, conservation subdivision concept, and others. Report to the Committee as soon as possible.

Members: Baum, Beltramini, Bremm, Woofenden

Land Owner and Residents’ Rights Subcommittee.
Research and compile a list of land owner and resident concerns and considerations, including (a) specific concerns or interests of Bowdoinham land owners and residents concerning property rights or quality of life in Bowdoinham; (b) issues unique to, or of particular impact in, Bowdoinham, such as back lots (developing large parcels with small road frontage), water bodies, etc.;

Members: Bremm, Miller, Smith, Zachau

Business and Commerce Subcommittee.

Research and compile a list of business owner concerns, projections for regional economic development, and planning considerations for business development in Bowdoinham.

Members: Cox, Woofenden

Next Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 6:30 p.m.

Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.