TOWN OF SEBAGO
LAND USE ORDINANCE MEETING
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
I Call to Order
Rick Viles called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
Present: Steve Burgess, Jim Libby, Phil Lowe, Joe McMahon, Rick Viles, Paul White, Code Enforcement Officer, Jim Smith and Recorder, Maureen Scanlon. Guests present: Rick Bates, Abe Parker, Ann Farley and Jeff Harriman.
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
At the last meeting it was decided that this item would be discussed at this meeting in an effort to meet the July 1, 2009 deadline date for implementation as required by the State of Maine.
Phil Lowe updated us on the research he has done regarding the State of Maine’s Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances. He explained that he has recently spoken to the Head of the Planning Board in Denmark and the Code Enforcement Officer in Limington regarding this matter. Limington has already completed the task of accepting and/or revising the State’s guidelines.
Both individuals have highly recommended retaining an electronic data base so that it can be changed easily when needed.
Steve Burgess reviewed revisions that he was asked to make on the Zoning Map at the last meeting. Basically he has extended the Village District as requested. There are a total of three Village Districts delineated on the map.
Steve Burgess explained how the Protected Waterfowl Wildlife Habitat zones affect the different district zones that have been designated on the official zoning map. He explained that he had to extend the Village Districts in order to avoid having a Rural District zone (area) between the 250 ft. Shoreland zone and the previously designated Village District. There was quite a bit of discussion on this subject.
Previously, the Planning Board asked Phil Lowe to review the State’s version of the Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances, compare it to the Town of Sebago’s existing ordinance, and report his findings back to them. Phil stated that he has spoken to Code Enforcement Officer, Jim Smith regarding these items in order to give as much input to the Planning Board as possible on his findings. He reviewed, in detail, the list of items that he has identified as areas of concern as follows:
Item 1 – Applicability (Page 1 of State Guidelines) – Regarding structures on, over or abutting a dock – The town may choose not to regulate these structures itself and default to the State’s regulations. There was quite a bit of discussion on this matter in reference to the right of ownership.
Phil Lowe made a motion to default to the State’s Guidelines. It was seconded by Joe McMahon. Motion carried with all in favor.
Item 2 – Non-conformance (Page 5 of State Guidelines) – Regarding alternative to 30% Expansion Rule – The town may choose to incorporate Appendix A (Pages 64 through 67 of Guidelines) or retain the existing 30% Expansion Rule.
Steve Burgess made a motion to retain the 30% Expansion Rule as is currently in place. It was seconded by Phil Lowe. Motion carried with all in favor.
Item 3 – Land Use Standards (Page 16, section B of State Guidelines) – Regarding Accessory Structure Set Back on Non-conforming Lot – The town may choose to adopt the State’s guidelines or adopt a more restrictive provision. The State’s guideline is very similar to the town’s existing provision.
Phil Lowe made a motion to default to the State’s Guidelines. It was seconded by Rick Viles. Motion carried will all in favor.
Item 4 – Timber Harvesting Standards (Page 28 of State Guidelines) – The three options are:
1. A complete repeal of this provision which means that it will be enforced by the
Bureau of Forestry as soon as the State is ready to provide this service.
2. Adoption of Standards identical to the State’s which would be enforced locally with State assistance.
3. Retain the current Standards which would be enforced entirely locally and would be equally or more restrictive than the State’s provision.
Phil Lowe made a motion to adopt a complete repeal and adopt the State’s Guidelines as soon as the State is ready to provide the enforcement service. It was seconded by Steve Burgess. Motion carried with all in favor.
Item 5 – Clearing or Removal of Vegetation for Activities Other Than Timber Harvest (Page 41 of State Guidelines) – There was some discussion as to whether the existing plot guidelines are more or less restrictive than the State’s suggested guidelines.
Phil Lowe made a motion to retain the existing version. (This essentially means that the town would adopt the 1st State’s version with the 25’ x 25’ designation that is currently in use.) It was seconded by Rick Viles.
After further discussion on this item, it was decided to “Table” this item for further research. Phil Lowe withdrew his motion. Rick Viles withdrew his second.
Item 6 – Permit Application (Page 45 of State Guidelines) – The language in the existing ordinance states that permit applications can only be submitted by the Owner or Owner’s Agent. The State’s suggested language states that an individual who can show interest of right, title, or interest may be able to apply for a permit. There was quite of bit of discussion regarding the fact that it is not the Planning Board’s responsibility to determine the legal rights of an individual pertaining to a piece of property, this issue would be determined in a court of law if there were a discrepancy.
Phil Lowe made a motion to adopt the language suggested by the State Guidelines. It was seconded by Steve Burgess. Motion carried with all in favor.
The Planning Board plans to try and finish addressing the Shoreland Zoning issues at the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 14, 2009.
Land Use Ordinance
It was decided to hold a second Public Hearing on the Land Use Ordinance on April 14, 2009 before the regular Planning Board meeting.
There was some discussion on the status of the proposed Land Use Ordinance document in regards to what still needs to be completed before it is ready for submission for approval by the Sebago voters.
Jim Libby expressed concern regarding the issue of road setbacks if this new ordinance passes, specifically in regards to non-conforming structures. In the Rural Residential and Rural districts, this may mean that an existing structure may not be able to be added to (for an increase in size), because of the 75 ft. setback requirement. It was suggested that an additional note (#7) be added in Section 4 – G – 2 (Schedule of Uses / Dimensional Requirements / Minimum Lot Standards) to address “grandfathered” lots as of a specific date. Code Enforcement Officer, Jim Smith will look into the correct language to be added in order to address this issue, and report back to the Planning Board with his recommendation.
Jim Libby also expressed concern regarding the current “back lot” provisions that allows for the creation of up to two back lots with a 30 ft. wide easement. It was suggested that an additional note (#8) be added in Section 4 – G – 2 (Schedule of Uses / Dimensional Requirements / Minimum Lot Standards) with a change in language that allows for one back lot (instead of two) with the 30 ft. easement, a 15 ft. constructed driveway that has a 15” depth of gravel, and a turn-around at the end for rescue or delivery vehicles. Jim Smith will make a recommendation to the Planning Board on the specific language to be used.
No further items were brought up for discussion.
Adjournment: 9:05 p.m.
Maureen F. Scanlon
Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk