Planning codes director presents overhaul of Chapter 94 subdivision rules; board narrows purpose language and affirms hearing policy

The Planning Codes Director presented a proposed, comprehensive overhaul of Chapter 94 (Subdivision) at the Belfast Planning Board workshop on July 23, saying the rewrite moves many technical standards into Chapter 98 and aims to clarify major versus minor subdivision review.

The director said the draft represents a "complete overhaul of the subdivision ordinance," and walked the board through proposed changes to the purpose statement, definitions, review procedures and thresholds for sketch plans and site visits. "This whole chapter will be read for the bridal, you know, if that was the format that we used," the director said, describing the scope and noting staff will bring technical standards forward separately.

Board members debated how specific the ordinance's purpose should be. Some favored embedding explicit goals from the comprehensive plan (housing, health, equity, sustainability), while others argued the ordinance should remain high-level and point readers to the adopted plan so the ordinance will endure if plan goals change. After discussion the board coalesced around using a concise first-paragraph purpose that references the comprehensive plan and provides for a "consistent and efficient process for the review of proposed subdivisions." A member said, "shorter seems better," and the group accepted staff's recommendation to use the shorter formulation as the initial approach.

On definitions, staff flagged several state-model terms and local preferences. The draft clarifies that a dwelling unit requires sleeping, cooking and sanitation facilities and distinguishes dwelling units from sleeping units (hotel-like rooms without cooking). The director noted the need to reinsert language that excludes recreational vehicles when defining dwelling units to avoid informal long-term living in campers.

The board agreed to change the term "net buildable area" to "net developable area" and to explicitly exclude floodplain and wetlands of special significance from developable acreage. Staff explained that net developable area drives density calculations for multifamily and subdivision yield but does not replace lot-coverage or setback rules.

The draft also lists arterial streets and explains arterial designation affects technical standards for road width, parking and construction. Members questioned a few nominations for the arterial list (for example, whether a partly dirt East Waldo Road should be included) and asked staff to refine the list and clarify the consequences of arterial designation.

Regarding public hearings, staff reminded the board that current local code requires one noticed public hearing (published in the paper twice). After discussion the board favored retaining one required hearing and strongly recommending a second public hearing in cases that are large or controversial, with the applicant typically paying the publication cost (staff estimated around $250–$300 depending on paper and run length).

On process mechanics, the board discussed sketch-plan thresholds and site visits. Staff proposed making sketch plans optional except where projects exceed a threshold (roughly 30 acres or 15 lots). The board supported staff discretion to require sketch plans and to request site-flagging or staking on substantial projects to help visualize building placement.

The director said many of the technical construction standards (stormwater, street design, drainage) will be moved into Chapter 98, with Chapter 94 keeping the review criteria and nontechnical guidance. Staff flagged a 10-year storm design standard in the technical guidance for consistency across chapters.

Next steps: staff will refine technical language, reconcile cross-references (for example, the term used in net residential density calculations), and return the revised draft ahead of a duly noticed public hearing. The board thanked staff for the work and encouraged continued edits prior to formal adoption procedures.

The board did not take a formal ordinance vote at the workshop; staff will present a revised draft and public-hearing schedule at a future meeting.