Summary
April 15, 2008
Waterford Selectmen
366 Valley Road
Waterford, ME 04088
Dear John, Norm and Randy,
At the February 11 Comprehensive Planning and Implementation Committee meeting, I announced that I intended to step down as chairman and leave the committee for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is no one interested in taking over chairmanship. Because of this unique situation, our group discussed the viability of the committee and what our next steps should be. We discussed the possibility of disbanding the committee (after our current work on road discontinuance is complete) and then re-forming a new committee in two to three years to work on updating our comprehensive plan (which will be 10 years old in 2011). This could help rejuvenate the planning process by bringing in new people and also serve to address some of the issues that have come up regarding our current comprehensive plan. However, I believe it is ultimately up to selectmen to disband our committee as well as form and appoint members to a new comprehensive planning committee.
In any case, we thought it would be helpful for the selectmen and any future planning committees to have a summary of the issues we have worked on. The following information is intended to serve this purpose.
After passing the comprehensive plan in 2001, the committee worked, with the help of AVCOG, on updating the existing sub-division, site plan and shoreland zoning ordinances to incorporate ideas that were put forth in the comprehensive plan. Overall, this was fairly successful, and in my opinion our ordinances were greatly improved. We also struggled for several years to create a town-wide land use ordinance based on concepts that were outlined in the plan. This ordinance, entitled “Land Management Standards Ordinance” proposed dividing the town into different districts based on the “Future Land Use Map” that is part of the comprehensive plan. There was a Historic Village Architectural District, Village District, General Development District and Rural District as well as an Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Minimum lot size and set back requirements for new lots were the main component of this ordinance. Minimum lot sizes of 1 acre were proposed in the two village districts and 2 acres in the general development and rural districts. It also proposed a 5-acre minimum lot size of subdivisions in the rural district. In the aquifer overlay district, certain commercial and industrial uses that could negatively impact groundwater were also prohibited. Provisions for backlots, ROWs, accessory apartments, elderly cottage housing units, and erosion and phosphorus control were also included. However, this ordinance failed to pass at the 2005 town meeting.
The committee then proposed a new ordinance which was passed at town meeting in March of 2006. This ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre (for new lots) everywhere in town as well as some basic setback standards. Provisions for backlots, ROWs, accessory apartments, elderly cottage housing units, and erosion and phosphorus control were again included.
After passing the Land Use Planning Ordinance the committee refocused and prioritized issues that were brought up in the comprehensive plan but had not yet been addressed.
The remaining issues and a brief summary of our progress are included below:
Road discontinuance – We are currently working on a proposal to discontinue (with a retained public easement and continued periodic maintenance) the portion of the Blackguard Road which is not maintained in the winter. The outcome of this proposal will largely determine whether other low use roads in Waterford should be discontinued with retained public easements.
Timber harvesting standards – Residential or commercial developers side stepping road construction and development standards through timber harvesting as well as concerns over liquidation harvesting spurred the committee to invite the Maine Forest Service to help explain existing forestry laws. Three representatives from the MFS including Paul Larrivee, Southern Regional Enforcement Coordinator and Merle Ring, a District Forester, gave a thorough overview of timber harvesting regulations and brought copies of current standards. To summarize, they encouraged the community to contact with MFS with questions or issues but discouraged individual towns from having additional forestry standards beyond what the state has in place.
Open-space development – There is wording currently in our sub-division ordinance (which was put in after passage of the comprehensive plan) that requires developers to submit an open space concept plan when applying for sub-division. Reduced lot size standards can also be achieved though an open-space subdivision in our ordinance. However, it is ultimately up to the developer to choose an open-space or traditional type build-out and currently most developers still choose traditionally designed sub-divisions. Therefore this issue still would benefit from further study. However, because of the overall rural character of Waterford, this type of development outside of a waterfront setting may still prove to be difficult to achieve without fairly strong regulation.
Expanding town forests is another avenue that could be considered under open space preservation. In the past, management of Waterford’s town forest has provided land for passive recreation and wildlife as well as income for the town.
The relationship between Waterford and existing land trusts or the idea of the town as its own land trust has also come up in past meetings. Land in conservation provides recreational opportunities, water filtration and storage and wildlife habitat for the town. Studies have also shown that undeveloped land in conservation reduces the municipal tax burden compared to developed land. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile to pursue future conservation effort in the town.
Historic and archeological preservation – The committee looked into the issue of historic buildings including reviewing ordinance wording from other towns. The best advice seem to come from John Maloney – which was to begin a dialog with property owners in the designated historic district (and perhaps target specific properties outside of this area that also have historical value) and see what values, concerns or regulation these owners find most acceptable. One of the outcomes could be educational programs for these owners on techniques to maintain these historical structures. This task is probably most appropriate for the historical society or a new group made up of members from both the historical society as well as the comprehensive planning committee.
The issue of archeological preservation has not yet been addressed by the committee. The town did recently receive a copy of potential archeologically significant sites in Waterford from the state. A reference to this map as well as some specific standards for archeologically sensitive sites may be an appropriate addition to our current site plan and sub-division ordinances.
Scenic views – After attempts to better describe the scenic views currently listed in the comprehensive plan were met with strong criticism from some landowners, the committee decided to table work on this issue. Work on a new comprehensive plan should try to address this issue by re-examining the list, adding or removing properties based on public input from the entire town and including adequate descriptions of each area.
Conversion of dwellings from seasonal to year round – John Maloney had developed some standards which were originally included in the Land Use Management ordinance, but this wording was eventually removed by the committee. There are current plumbing requirements in the Shoreland Zone for this type of change.
Riparian areas and additional stream protection – Additional protection for larger streams which are mapped but not protected under Shoreland Zoning was discussed but the committee has not yet addressed this issue. Research in the past decade has shown that tributary streams within the watershed are much more important in determining water quality then previously thought. Additional protection in this area may be needed to ensure that Waterford’s lakes and ponds continue to be healthy and a vital part of our economy. I personally looked at many of these streams during summer low flows and I would be happy to work with the town on this task in the future. It may be helpful to involve the conservation commission as well.
Vernal Pools – The state recently adopted vernal pool regulation but without mapping, proper identification or a fiscal note attached to these new regulations, it seems unlikely that there will be much protection of this resource. Preliminary roadside mapping or voluntary property surveys by individuals familiar with the state’s vernal pool identification criteria could be a good place to start. This task would also benefit from the help of the conservation commission.
Flood Plains – New digital versions of the older FEMA maps (with any letter of map amendment corrections that have been submitted since the last version of the maps) are now being compiled and will soon be distributed to the town. Other than looking over the maps and making municipal infrastructure or place name changes (non-flood plain related corrections), the committee has not addressed this issue. When the new maps are available, the town should acquire digital copies for the town mapping system as well as hard copies for the map room. Because development in the flood plain can lead to property loss and soil and other pollutants entering sensitive waterbodies such as the Crooked River, it may be useful to re-examine Waterford’s existing flood plain management ordinance or increase educational efforts to those people with properties that fall within floodplains. FEMA and the state have a variety of informative brochures that many property owners along the floodplain may find very useful.
What structures need a permit – This was addressed by the selectmen in a 2006 resolution - however, it still needs to be incorporated into our existing land use ordinance and/or building permit application.
Groundwater extraction – Other nearby towns have recently created groundwater ordinances to deal with large-scale water extraction. Waterford may be interested in looking into similar regulations. The committee has not yet addressed this issue.
Land trusts and having the town function as a land trust – Many towns now function as land trusts, holding property as well as conservation easements on property. There are many different ways of approaching this issue. The town of Casco has developed an “Open Space Plan” and has been successful in raising funds and protecting land. This is an option that could be explored by Waterford to help preserve its rural character. I would be interested in working on this concept in the future. At present, our committee has not addressed this issue. The Conservation Commission or new group made up of selectmen, members from comprehensive planning and conservation committee might be best suited for this task.
Encouraging low impact business – The committee did amend our current site plan ordinance to expand the definition of home occupation to include a broader range of small scale businesses. Setback requirements were also reduced for small, low impact business. Some other ideas that may be worth looking into include tax incentives and additional streamlining of site plan review.
Building code ordinance – This was initially brought up by previous code officer, Al Holden, who felt that some safety standards need to be incorporated into new construction in Waterford. Current state standards mandate that if a town adopts a building code, it should the International Residential Code-2003. This issue should probably be discussed further with the current CEO, fire department and selectmen.
Ridgeline development – Waterford’s ridgelines form the backdrop of some of the more spectacular views in the area. Other surrounding towns have begun addressing ridgeline development and it may be beneficial for Waterford to look into this concept as well. At this point, the committee has only had preliminary discussions in the matter.
I hope this summary is helpful for you or future planning committees. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Colin Holme
583-2817 |
