Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board forwards Sea Glass Village rezoning application to planning board after debate
Summary
The Select Board voted 3-1 to accept as complete an application to change zoning/lot-coverage rules for Sea Glass Village and forwarded the proposal to the planning board for full review. Opponents raised concerns about precedent, comprehensive-plan conformance and potential for future year‑round conversion.
The Wells Select Board on Dec. 17 voted to accept as complete and forward a rezoning application from the Sea Glass Village condominium association for review by the planning board, despite divided views on whether the requested increase in lot coverage is consistent with the town's comprehensive plan.
Michael Smolnick, speaking for the applicant, asked the board to find the application complete and to forward it to the planning board. He said the association seeks either an extension of the nearby RA (residential) district into a single parcel or a new district tailored to allow a modest increase in lot coverage (roughly five percentage points) to permit ‘drip edges,’ formal parking areas and small patios. The applicant framed the change as a maintenance and safety measure to prevent vehicles from parking on grass and to protect building edges that currently rot when runoff cannot be controlled.
Planning staff (identified in the record as Mike) reviewed the town’s six criteria for zoning amendments. He said the application includes required materials and a cover letter addressing the standards; his memo raised questions about whether the 2005 comprehensive plan’s language—which limits lot coverage to 20% except for a 5% allowance for pedestrian uses—could be read as inconsistent with the proposed change. Staff noted, however, that the property is in a designated growth area with sewer and water service, and that site-plan review and state permitting would address stormwater and other technical concerns if the change proceeds.
Several board members and public speakers pushed back. Concerns included the precedent of allowing increased lot coverage for an already-developed seasonal cottage community, the potential that revised coverage could make a long-term conversion to year‑round occupancy easier, and whether earlier site plans limited density intentionally. The applicant’s supporters— including a Seaglass board member who described maintenance difficulties with grass-parking systems—said the request is limited to maintenance and safety rather than a change in character.
Speaker 3 moved to acknowledge receipt of the application and forward it to the planning board for full review; the motion passed on an oral vote recorded in the meeting as 3 in favor and 1 opposed. The planning board will hold the public hearing on the merits, evaluate conformance with the comprehensive plan, and return a recommendation to the Select Board.
