Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reopens discussion of subdivision ordinance; considers adding archaeological review to site-plan rules
Summary
Board members reviewed previously proposed subdivision ordinance amendments that voters recently rejected and discussed whether to add a requirement to the site plan review process to screen for archaeological or historic sites; presenters said such a change would likely require voter approval and noted existing protections in Shoreland zoning.
The planning board spent the bulk of its meeting discussing proposed amendments to the town's subdivision ordinance, amendments the board originally put forward and that were narrowly voted down at recent town meetings. A presenter who had provided marked-up materials said the changes were intended to align local rules with changing state standards and asked members whether they wanted to study the amendments further or decide on a path forward.
Members debated why voters rejected the proposed amendments. One member said many voters "probably ... voted it down not without taking the time to really learn what the changes were," while the presenter emphasized the amendments were designed to bring the ordinance into conformity with state standards and that the town must meet those standards regardless of local adoption.
The board discussed a specific gap identified by the comprehensive planning committee: the town's site plan review process does not currently require applicants to investigate or disclose archaeological or historic-site risks, while that requirement exists in Shoreland zoning and the subdivision ordinance. The presenter asked whether the board would want to add that single requirement to the site plan rules; members were told such a change would still go to voters rather than be added administratively.
Practicalities were raised: several speakers noted many potentially sensitive sites are already in agricultural use and may have been disturbed, and members said that if something is discovered during work, projects typically halt and state officials are contacted. The presenter recommended that board members review the current ordinance language in the subdivision and Shoreland zoning ordinances to determine whether a targeted amendment or broader rewrite is appropriate. No formal motion to amend the ordinances was recorded in this meeting, and the board did not vote on the substantive ordinance changes during the session.
Next steps recorded in the discussion included study and potential tabling of the amendments to a future meeting so members could review the markups and the relevant state standards.
