Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board begins overhaul of shoreland and building ordinances, schedules work session
Summary
April presented a color‑coded consolidated draft that merges the town's building code, shoreland zoning and the D model shoreland guidance; the board agreed to a work study to resolve inconsistencies, mapping updates and CFMA rules before bringing proposals to town meeting.
April, a planning board member, laid out a staff‑draft consolidation of the town's building code, shoreland zoning ordinance and the model D shoreland guidance and asked members to treat it as a working document. "I took the building code ordinance, the shoreland ordinance and the model D shoreland ordinance and I compared them," she said, describing a color‑coded draft that highlights overlapping text and gaps.
The draft, April said, aims to eliminate redundancy, reconcile differing definitions, and identify optional versus mandatory sections — including a discussion about timber harvesting provisions the D guidance suggests removing if the town no longer regulates timber harvesting locally. She told the board she had integrated digital‑map language and proposed a single official zoning map to match the town's ordinance set.
Board members pressed for clarity on several fronts: how resource‑protection and limited development districts should be defined, whether CFMA (commercial fisheries/management areas) standards should include annual review or transfer restrictions, and how enforcement roles (select board, CEO, plumbing inspector) should be reconciled. April said many differences stem from historical drafting and recommended either (a) one unified ordinance with separate shoreland sections, (b) two separate but synchronized ordinances, or (c) the current pair made consistent on every amendment. "Colin's preference," she noted, "is two separate ordinances because it's easier to review shoreland that way," and recommended the board seek planner input on that point.
The board agreed to hold a public work study to review the draft in detail and to advertise the session so interested residents can attend. They settled on Wednesday, the 4th, as a working meeting date and directed staff and subcommittees to prepare printed copies and annotated sections for the session. April flagged several concepts for focused review at the workshop, including an updated official map, minimum‑lot standards consolidated into tables, CFMA review mechanisms, and proposed language addressing driveways, setbacks and buffer strips to protect groundwater recharge. She also circulated conceptual water‑protection proposals tied to ADU and subdivision provisions.
What happens next: the board will circulate April's draft to the full membership and the town planner, print copies for review at the April 4 work study, and return with proposed language and recommended paths (unified ordinance vs. synchronized pair) for further legal review before placing items on the town meeting warrant.
