Planning board forwards prohibited-uses amendment to council, continues ADU and lighting edits for further refinement

The New Shoreham Planning Board voted to forward to the town council a draft zoning-ordinance amendment intended to clarify uses that the ordinance does not define or permit, and held extended discussion on separate proposed amendments covering accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and outdoor lighting.

Planning staff member Karen ran through the final edits to the prohibited-uses list, noting additions such as transport-related language for shellfish, insertion of bees into the livestock paragraph, a clarifying phrase about overly large umbrellas limited to "personal use," and a refinement to the definition of underground storage ("tank and/or container beneath the surface of the ground"). After questions from board members about houseboats and jurisdictional overlap with the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), the board’s motion to forward the draft to the town council carried. "I'll make a motion to forward to the town council the draft amendment … which will provide for increased clarity regarding prohibited uses within the town of New Shoreham," the Planning Board chair said; the board voted in favor and the motion carried.

The meeting also included an extended review of proposed changes to the town’s ADU rules (zoning Section 513). Staff and board members discussed compliance with recent state law changes, deadlines for owner affidavits, and several policy details that the board asked staff to return with clarifications on next month’s agenda. Specific issues raised included the definition of abandonment for an ADU (including whether removing kitchen plumbing should be required to trigger reconversion to a non-dwelling use), how the town treats ADUs in density calculations for "larger development proposals" (a phrase the board asked staff to interpret rather than define), and bonus provisions (e.g., a 600-square-foot bonus and a 15-year occupancy requirement mentioned in the draft). Planning staff said they would compare the draft language to existing town rules and the new state law and bring recommended edits back to the board.

On outdoor lighting, the board reviewed diagrams and regulatory language intended to limit upward light and to clarify acceptable illumination for flagpoles and flags. Board members debated whether flag lighting should be directed upward from the base or downward from above and requested a clearer statement in the ordinance about residential lighting controls and an example or numeric lumen threshold for lighting a flag from the ground. Staff agreed to add language, correct duplicate items in the draft, and include a versioning label and a clean copy for future packets so board members can more easily track changes.

The Planning Board’s action on the prohibited-uses amendment will send the draft, with the board’s finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan, to the town council for review. The ADU and lighting drafts were held for further editing and return to the board in a subsequent meeting.