Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ld1829 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Desert planning board: state housing bills force ordinance changes on density, ADUs and review processes
Summary
The Mount Desert Planning Board reviewed LD 1829 and LD 2173 and the town’s mapping of growth areas, concluding the state law will require changes to local lot-size, density and ADU rules and limit planning-board review of small multi-unit projects; the board split follow-up work to meet a July 27 implementation timeline.
The Mount Desert Planning Board on April 22 reviewed state housing laws LD 1829 and LD 2173 and discussed ordinance changes the town must adopt by the state’s implementation deadline.
Planning-board members and staff walked through a packet and maps focused on Northeast Harbor and Seal Harbor, which the presenter said are the areas most affected because they lie in the town’s current growth areas and are served in parts by public water and sewer. "The biggest impact is definitely to places that are in the growth area and have water and sewer," the presenter said, explaining that the statute treats lots inside growth areas with public utilities differently from lots without those services.
Why it matters: Under the laws the board reviewed, municipalities must allow three units by right (attached or detached) and must allow four units by right in growth areas served by public water and sewer; accessory dwelling units (ADUs) must also be allowed for two- and three-unit structures. The presenter summarized the statutory metric for density as "1,250 sq ft per unit for the first four units" and then 5,000 sq ft per unit thereafter, noting that other local rules (setbacks, height, site constraints) can still prevent certain projects from being buildable.
The board flagged multiple implementation issues. Members discussed how the town’s forthcoming comprehensive-plan map could change which parcels are in a growth area, affecting where the statutory minimums apply. They also noted gaps where water and sewer lines do not overlap and raised questions about whether the town or the water district controls some connection requirements.
The laws also altered subdivision and review thresholds. The presenter said the subdivision definition was changed so that municipalities cannot treat three- or four-unit structures in a single building as subdivisions subject to planning-board review; instead, those projects will generally be handled through administrative or code-office review. "Municipalities may not require planning-board approval solely because a project establishes four or fewer units within a single structure or for ADUs," the presenter said.
Board members expressed concern about how to preserve local oversight in some cases. Several suggested retaining triggers (such as impervious-area or site-footprint thresholds) that would still require planning-board site-plan review for large footprints even if unit counts alone are not a trigger.
Next steps: The board directed staff to continue drafting a table that compares the new state requirements to current town language and to identify where the town is already in compliance and where policy choices are required. Members agreed to split the workload so the planning board focuses on LD 1829–related policy and the LUZO advisory committee handles table-of-uses housekeeping and definitions. The board noted the state timeline and said ordinance updates should be ready for the town meeting process before the July 27 effective-date considerations.
The meeting ended with no formal votes on ordinance text; the board will return with draft language for deliberation and public review.
