Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warrant Advisory Committee reviews shoreland commercial zoning and whether homes should be allowed
Summary
The Warrant Advisory Committee examined shoreline commercial parcels and debated whether primary residential uses (including accessory dwelling units) should be allowed on those lots, noting conflicts where parcels abut SR3 and SR5 zones, the 250-foot shoreland overlay, and limitations created by state shoreland rules. No votes were taken; staff will refine maps and ordinance options.
Chair opened a shortened meeting and led the Warrant Advisory Committee through zoning maps and packet materials the committee had requested, focusing on several shoreline commercial parcels where residential uses and dimensional standards conflict. The committee reviewed tax-map extracts and satellite images for map 8 and discussed three parcels labeled 2, 3 and 4 that sit in or next to the shoreland commercial overlay.
A staff member walked the committee through the packet and clarified that some shoreline commercial parcels are surrounded by residential lots, which raises a question when a property owner seeks to place a primary residence on a commercially zoned lot. "If somebody wants to develop a house on Abel's lot," a committee member asked, "would they use the SR3 or the SR5 standards?" The staff response was that the town must decide whether to apply the less restrictive adjacent residential zone, the more restrictive one, or a context-sensitive approach.
Members flagged practical constraints: a 250-foot shoreland overlay effectively reduces developable area and can make it impossible to site wells, septic systems or ADUs under current rules. The committee noted that state shoreland guidance (cited by staff) uses different minimum-lot-size benchmarks in some guidance documents, and that Mount Desert’s local ordinance contains the "wholly or partially" language that can make shoreland lots more restrictive than similar base zones elsewhere.
On policy, members debated the purpose of shoreland commercial zoning. One member summarized the tension: "I think the purpose of shoreline commercial is to preserve working waterfront," and asked whether the town should prioritize preserving potential working-waterfront capacity over allowing residential conversion. Others pointed out parcels that are effectively residential now and questioned whether retaining commercial zoning forever is practicable.
Campgrounds and accessory uses also emerged as a recurring problem: the committee heard that some campgrounds and their accessory structures are nonconforming and cannot expand under current rules, and that converting or adding accessory retail or bathroom facilities is restricted. Mount Desert Campground was discussed specifically as an example of a commercial-use parcel constrained by shoreland dimensional rules.
The committee did not adopt changes at the meeting. Members asked staff to refine the packet: produce clearer, labeled tax-map extracts, a table contrasting where the town already complies with state requirements and where policy changes would be required, and a GIS map showing water and sewer service to target areas most affected by state housing bills. The committee agreed to continue the conversation at a future meeting and to consider both short-term ordinance clarifications and longer-term policy decisions for shoreline zoning.
