Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Fundamentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates three‑foot foundation rule and 25% repair cap; asks legal counsel to clarify state conflict
Summary
Members discussed keeping a historic three‑foot foundation allowance and the ordinance's 25% maintenance/repair cap for nonconforming structures, raised concerns about enforceability and height limits in shoreland zones, and asked legal counsel Meredith to advise on state conflict and options.
At its Jan. 7 meeting the Denmark Ordinance Review Committee spent substantial time on two substantive policy questions: (1) whether to preserve a three‑foot allowance for placing foundations under existing nonconforming structures and (2) how to treat the ordinance’s 25% maintenance/repair threshold for nonconforming properties.
Several members argued the three‑foot allowance is important for practical building and safety reasons — for example, to allow a deteriorating camp to receive a foundation without forcing a full rebuild. Others warned that if the state removes or changes its prior floodplain‑linked allowance the town must follow the more restrictive standard until it updates its code. Members asked Meredith, the town’s legal reviewer, to clarify whether the town can preserve local exceptions or whether state law preempts that discretion.
The committee also examined the ordinance’s rule that cumulative maintenance and repair exceeding 25% of the assessed building value triggers reconstruction review. Members noted the state’s guidance uses a rolling 30‑year period and observed that the town currently does not require permits for many common repairs (roofs, windows, doors), which makes tracking the 25% threshold difficult to enforce. One member pointed to Bridton’s approach, which removes the 25% cap and allows maintenance and repairs so long as work remains within the existing footprint.
Committee members asked staff to obtain legal advice on three narrow points: whether the three‑foot foundation allowance may be retained or carved into exceptions, how to interpret ‘‘increase in nonconformity’’ when a foundation raises a structure relative to shoreline height limits, and whether the 25% cap should be retained or replaced with a footprint‑based allowance used elsewhere.
The committee did not adopt any ordinance language at the meeting; it set a follow‑up to consider Meredith’s legal guidance and revised draft language at its Feb. 4 meeting.
