Topsham Select Board tables major zoning "recode" after hours of public comment; manager to convene CPIC and Planning Board

The Topsham Select Board on March 19 deferred action on a multi-year, comprehensive rewrite of the town’s land-use code — commonly called “Project Recode” — after more than two hours of presentations and public comment that highlighted deep disagreements over the draft code’s scope, costs and likely effect on existing businesses.

Select Board member Anne Callahan moved to table the recode item until a May meeting and asked the town manager to reach out to the Planning Board and the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee (CPIC) to determine whether the groups will engage in a joint process to reconcile differences. The motion, seconded by Mike Glady, passed unanimously.

Why the board tabled the issue: Speakers at the meeting presented sharply different accounts of where the draft code stands and what it would do. A planning/CPIC representative described a long history of workshops and said that some zoning tools (such as planned commercial districts) had been removed or reclassified in the draft, leaving many properties — particularly on Park Drive and parts of Main Street — potentially nonconforming under the proposed code. That presenter recommended an assessor-led impact analysis before any adoption and asked for clearer, more frequent communications and red-line comparisons between the current and proposed code.

CPIC chair Susan Ray Reeves urged the board to continue and finish the recode, saying it implements the 2019 comprehensive plan’s goals for a walkable town center, mixed uses and design standards. She disputed assertions that the draft eliminates uses or imposes mandatory density townwide and said CPIC and staff had worked to avoid creating nonconforming circumstances for existing businesses.

Developers and property owners raised practical objections. Dion Catlin, who identified himself as a local developer and owner of property in the Thompson Fair Mall area, and other speakers described case studies in which the draft code could reduce residential unit counts or limit expansion of long-standing commercial uses, complicating financing and permitting. Several speakers urged a red-line comparison, clearer examples showing how projects would be treated, and a phased approach (focusing first on a few high-priority chapters) rather than an immediate wholesale rewrite.

Select board discussion focused on communication gaps and the lack of alignment between volunteer committees and staff. Multiple board members said the debate was too large to resolve in a single meeting and urged additional workshops and better coordination. The motion to table directs the town manager to inquire whether Planning Board and CPIC leaders are willing to meet and work on a “win‑win” approach to merge or reconcile their priorities ahead of the May meeting.

What happens next: The recode item is scheduled to return in May; the town manager will report back on whether Planning Board and CPIC leadership are willing to engage in the convening requested by the board. The board also asked for materials cited during public comment to be provided to members in advance of future sessions.

Representative quotes:

"With the elimination of village center and the creation of transition zones, many properties across town would become nonconforming," said a planning/CPIC representative presenting the staff slides and case studies.

"Recode does not eliminate any uses currently allowed in the town center zones," Susan Ray Reeves, chair of CPIC, said in rebuttal, urging the board to finish the process.

"If the form‑based code is all in that downtown area and it costs more to build there, the development is either pushed to a different town or to the outskirts," a developer said, arguing some provisions could make projects unworkable.

The board’s action: Motion to table recode until a May meeting; direct town manager to convene Planning Board and CPIC leadership to explore a reconciled path forward. The motion carried unanimously.

Sources and provenance: This article is based entirely on testimony, presentations and motions recorded during the March 19, 2026 Topsham Select Board meeting (public comment and presentation segments).