Ordinance Review Committee advances draft edits to Chapter 2 covering permits, appeals and shoreland documentation

The Ordinance Review Committee met on May 6 to continue a detailed review of Chapter 2 of the town’s land‑use ordinance, focusing on administrative procedures for permits, appeals and enforcement.

Meredith, the committee’s presenter, led a section‑by‑section walk‑through of proposed language changes and said most edits were for clarity and consistency rather than new policy. The draft would replace traditional meeting minutes with concise follow‑up notes and a single “working documents” repository to reduce duplication and improve transparency.

Why it matters: the chapter defines who administers permits, how long the town has to act on an application, the process for suspending or revoking permits, and the route for appeals. Those rules affect property owners’ timelines and the town’s ability to enforce violations.

Key changes discussed - Calendar days for application deadlines: Meredith recommended changing 30 business‑day deadlines to 30 calendar days to make deadline calculations simpler; the committee agreed and Meredith said she will make the change. - Suspension then revocation: committee members favored clarifying that a CEO‑ordered suspension would precede revocation and that the CEO should retain discretion over timelines; revocation would follow if corrective measures were not completed and referral to the select board for legal escalation would follow normal notice‑of‑violation steps. - Recordkeeping: the draft explicitly calls for keeping records of denied or revoked permits alongside issued permits and for timestamping applications upon receipt. - Shoreland photo requirement: for shoreland‑district activity the ordinance would require photographs taken prior to work, when a permit is issued, and at completion; the committee accepted language requiring digital timestamps “where possible” for those photos. - Notice to abutters: the radius for required mailed notice to abutting property owners would change from 500 feet to 250 feet; for new‑lot or subdivision applications the 250‑foot measurement will be taken from the proposed lot lines shown on submitted plans. - Thresholds and minor technical edits: references to small accessory structures and additions were updated in the draft from 80 to 100 square feet in several places; the presenter proposed tightening lists and changing several instances of “or” to “and/or” to make it clear the planning board may request multiple technical items (soil reports, drainage plans, etc.).

Appeals and the board of appeals: capacity and path to court A sustained portion of the meeting addressed whether appeals of CEO notices of violation should be heard by the town’s board of appeals (BOA) or go directly to superior court. Meredith said past language routed notices to superior court but she will research statutory practice and return with recommendations. Committee members noted the practical problem that the town frequently lacks a full BOA and discussed documenting recruitment efforts, borrowing BOA panels from neighboring towns, or adding mediation steps before escalating to court.

Next steps and schedule Meredith will accept noncontroversial track changes and return a cleaner draft where outstanding points (BOA jurisdiction, revocation language detail, and the exact shoreland cure period) are preserved for further discussion. The committee plans to present a progress update to the select board and reconvene on June 3 to continue Chapter 2 review and address the non‑conforming‑uses chapter.

No binding ordinance votes were taken at the May 6 meeting; the committee directed staff to revise the draft for the next meeting.