2009-03-18 - Land Use Planning Committee - Public Hearing Minutes

Land Use Planning Committee

Public Hearing Meeting Minutes

3/18/09

6:30pm Bowdoinham Town Hall

LUPC members in attendance: Ellen Baum, Brian Smith, Brent Zachau, Brant Miller, Richard Morin, Paul Beltramini, Paul Baines.

Members not present- Todd Woofenden- Chair

Staff in Attendance- Tony Cox – Community and Economic Development

Staff Absent- Nicole Briand CEO/Planner

Brian Smith opening the hearing at 6:30pm and gave a description of the process the group has gone through to come up with proposed ordinance. He said that the group is diverse and not everyone has always agreed on each and every aspect on the proposed ordinance. He explained that the purpose of this meeting is to gather input from public, as it relates to our draft to date of the proposed ordinance changes. He stated that the group is looking for specific comments and concerns and possible recommendations for revisions to what is in the draft. The group will try to answer questions about the draft, but may have to get back with specific answers due to the fact that Nicole Briand, Town Planner CEO who has had a family illness and Todd Woofenden LUPC chair, who has a prior work commitment, are not present tonight. The two of them have been compiling and coordinating the overall work of the committee. The group will discuss the statements made by the public at tonight’s hearing and the one on March 25^th and has the opportunity to revise the ordinance before presenting it to the Selectmen for consideration at the June town meeting.

Brain then showed samples of how 20 acre pieces would be divided up. He showed the current state, proposed village II, proposed residential I zoning and MUD, residential II, Rural Residential, Agricultural-Open Space.

Ellen Baum: board anticipates 2 separate warrants for town meeting: 1 is rewording of the ordinances to make for consistency and continuity while keeping the ordinances themselves the same and 2 is a separate warrant of the different districts...

Brian Smith asked up for comments at 6:50

Albert Stehle: his property is in open space/agricultural district... is there information from wildlife biologist about where wildlife corridors are needed. His question is why is all his land in the green zone, when other lands on the Carding Machine Road (including state owned land) is blue zone? Just because the state buys land around me (I was there first) it’s not fair that my land gets zoned in the most restricted way.

Brian Smith: lot of input from whatever resources we could get: IFW 5 or 6 times; forester couple of times, every kind of state input we can get. But can’t answer specifically why Stehle’s land is in that zone.

Brent Zachau: thinks it was drawn that way because of a nearby pond.

Brian Smith: duly noted

Dan Billings: because of the shoreland overlay district, could that bring other land under the shoreland requirement?

Ellen Baum: The answer is No. We have the overlay district because there are different requirements in the Shoreland zone. This is largely adopted from the state. There are some stream sections that we have added to shoreland zoning.

Brian Smith: stream protection district, 75 feet setback, for 5 major streams in town. Some recently added.

Brent Zachau: because of state laws, though, any stream requires you to deal with 75 feet setbacks.

Dave Mann: map looks pretty broken up. How can, for example, on person on Ridge Rd. be next to residential 2 and the next one agricultural. Issue is some people are more restricted than others. His question: could this show favoritism?

Dick Morin: my land is in 2 different zones, separated by 2 different uses. The underlying idea of the zoning is to make it easier than to develop in the village than in the outlying districts, which he is opposed to.

Paul Baines: he says take that map and put it on the current open space overlay that Nicole has. He says it will make more sense if you look at the terrain aspects, the open space aspects, and the forested aspects, there is a lot more to it than drawing property lines. He reiterates that Nicole’s absence -- she has the whole view -- makes it difficult.

Judy Gray: asks where changes have been made in the zoning, whether there is intention to reevaluate property for property taxes. If use to which your land can be put can be changed, that may impact the value.

Ellen Baum: No. We don’t do taxation or have any power to discuss it.

Brian Smith: Realistically, there isn’t much restriction, just about everything goes anyplace.

Albert Stehle: River Road and Bishop’s Corner, in yellow zone, questions it because of its nearness to Kennebec River and Swan Island. He believes the zoning there is more favorable for people in that area. He says there are 3 horse farms and 1 sheep farm there and it’s also the most likely place to have a deer accident. Unfair in relation to his land being zoned green. Is it legal?

Ellen Baum: if town votes for it, then it would hold up in court.

Dan Billings: The issue is policy choices. But generally towns can make a choice, good or bad, and they are legal.

Greg Foster, forest lands manager in Bowdoinham but not from Bowdoinham: wants to advocate for ordinances in terms of timber harvesting and shoreland zone. New ordinance will limit the limit on timber harvesting to just the shoreland zone and free up other areas. The proposed ordinance is much friendlier to managing forest than the current one. Releasing that internal land is a good thing so we can manage the the land better. Wildlife have been mapped by IFW; it’s an ongoing process. The Maine Natural Areas Program has a database and knows a lot about the land. They get a copy of all the timber harvesting reports. Wading bird habitat is one of the ways shoreland zoning gets defined now. He says the state is doing a good job in terms of such things as wading bird habitat and advises the town not to make ordinances that the state has already taken care of. His final advice is to avoid regulating landowners and let them be the good stewards that they can be. He’s an advocate for private ownership and let them do the right thing.

Brian Smith: Generally speaking if something was already being regulated, as by the state, we tried to avoid regulating it further.

Christopher Pinnock: Carding Machine Road, 1 year in town. This is another set of frustrating rules and wants to know who is responsible for this. He is also concerned that environmentalists are more concerned for wildlife than for people. Concerned about restrictions to prevent selling land to make money. Rule is being changed in the middle of the game and it’s inconveniencing everybody.

Brian Smith: Your point of view is represented on our committee, which has numerous points of view.

Ellen Baum: We currently have ordinances. It’s not like we’re starting with no rules and regulations. There have been many ordinances over the years, and part of what we are trying to do here is to have consistent and easy to use ordinances, so that if people come before the planning board, it will be easier with the redone ordinances. They are not made up from scratch.

Brian Smith: The way it is right now the code enforcement officer and the planning board have a difficult time when people come in to do something with their land. The intention of the new regulation is to make things clearer and more specific, so when somebody comes in and says “Can I do this and how do I do it?” the codes enforcement officer will have a clearer reference point to answer those questions.

Dick Morin: Agrees with Christopher Pinoc. Accumulating since 1973, we’ve had more and more stringent regulations that affects me more. If the state knew that all streams in the town had to conform, why did the state enforce stream protection zone on only 2 streams?

David Mann: I don’t know why we need 3 zones. Objects to letter that got send out for meeting, discriminates against people who don’t get internet, since information is online.

Tom Foote: Moved here because we have good forests and good forest ordinances. He knows state laws are useless and state law protects the gutting of forest and the foresters who gut. If you want to see your town gutted, then buy the state program. State agenda is to destroy town ordinances, in favor of state law. Bowdoinham currently has a good forestry ordinance. And not that stringent. Currently you don’t have to have a forester beside you to harvest if it’s within 40%. We have an excellent ordinance with variables built into it. Strongly urge us to stay with what we’ve got. Page 6 of ordinance says that this may be amended by majority vote of town meeting. Wanted to make sure of that. “Multi-municipal region comprehensive plan” (page 14): wants to know what that means and where that language is coming from? Page 59 and 60 and also lines out code for privies: he objects to that, since we don’t have the right for an outhouse any more.

Dick Morin: dictated by the state that you can’t have privies in the shoreland zone, in the 250 feet. But you can have them everywhere else

Tom Foote: doesn’t like the definition of road, since it implies that 4-wheelers can create a road. Afraid it means that by this definition, a 4-wheeler can create a road by repeated use.

Baines: Intent of these definitions is not to force the town to call something a road just because a 4-wheeler made a path

Tom Foote: concerned about page 62, that says a bond must be posted with road commissioner for any harvesting operation to cover possible damage. Road Commissioner gets to determine amount of bond.

Paul Baines: Since Road Commissioner gets to determine whether or not there’s a need for a bond, depending on whether he’s concerned about deterioration of town roads.

Kathleen Mcgee: Concerns that might be better submitted in writing: marina definition, stream definition. I have a right to clean water, clean air, forest, and don’t believe we are overregulating these things. Is concerned that town is taking step backwards in some areas, maybe forestry. Comment about approval criteria: added #16, will not adversely affect commercial fishing or maritime activities. Why are we adding this? It’s a non-sequitor.

Ed Friedman: Bad acoustics in this hall. Another voice for the natural resources. This ordinances lessens the timber cutting ordinance that we have in this town. Agrees with Mr. Foot on this. And would like us not to accept sludge from Brunswick. Having just completed a circulation study in Merrymeeting Bay, very slow flushing out of tributary strreams in the Bay, so anything that we put into the streams (for instance, sedimentation from timber cutting) is going to affect the streams and the bay for a long time. We are stewards and we have laws so that the next person doesn’t get stuck. While there are certainly foresters that do a great job, there are others that certainly don’t.

Kathleen Mcgee: definition for river is confusing.

Brian Smith: We copied the definition from the state. We tried not to come up with unique definitions. Nicole went to state and federal sources to find definitions that were standardized. We didn’t come up with definitions as a body ourselves. We didn’t want to do that.

Stuart Burrell: Problem with page 62 and the restriction about posting a bond with road commissioner. Not fair that it doesn’t apply to people carrying hay. Also, if there is damage to the road, how do you tell who is the cause of the damage? Wouldn’t be fair if the timber guy got the blame.

Albert Stehle: Clearing land by saying you’re re-establishing an old field. Does that allow us to clearcut? On route 24 this practice was just done, but they cut some places that weren’t field. For example, they cut at a gravel pit. The town allowed this operation to continue, even though the gravel pit was not part of an old field. Wants to know if this is being corrected or addressed in the new ordinances.

Ellen Baum: if this is happening in violation of the permit, we will be looking into it.

Brian: Nicole would be better answering that question.

Dick Morin: sounds like this is in violation of existing ordinances.

Ellen Baum: Yes, they did come before the planning board to get a permit to reestablish that field.

David Shiah: appreciate the addition of streams for stream protections, but would support a 100 foot buffer.  Thanks the group for volunteering and the town staff for the hard, difficult work. A good step forward for the town of Bowdoinham. Sounds like there are some concerns about forestry that might need to be addressed.

Ed Friedman: explains why the flow of rivers into the bay creates something that doesn’t flush out. Points out that without enforcement ordinances don’t do much good, re: the possible violation in above-mentioned clearcut. Notes an area where a wetland wasn’t mapped near his property. Makes him wonder what other wetlands haven’t been mapped.

Tom Foote: One more question: why is setback on every houselot 20 and 25 feet. That’s pretty close to a road.

Brian Smith: This was an attempt to be a little more specific and a change from center of the road to the edge of the right of way.

Meeting Closed 8:40pm