KINGFIELD — A subcommittee of the Planning Board made up of Chairman Richard Hawkes, board member Rob Woodhouse, Town Manager Leanna Targett, Code Enforcement Officer Ben Hitchcock, and Kristine LeBlanc met for the first time Wednesday to discuss ordinance changes prompted by an application from Bowdoin College to site a camping area on land it purchased last year.
Erica Bufkins of the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments was also present for guidance.
Members discussed how the town could make its rules and definitions clearer, more specific, and easier to enforce. The subcommittee also discussed current enforcement problems stemming from the loose language in current land use definitions and district boundaries, as well as the effects of recent changes to Maine’s housing laws governing developments and accessory dwelling units.
Hitchcock said Kingfield’s current ordinance leaves too much room for subjective interpretation, specifically when it comes to multiple dwellings on a single lot.
“It’s not cut and dried,” Hitchcock said, describing multiple dwellings on one lot as the “number one issue.” Depending on how the ordinance is interpreted, the same proposal could be viewed as requiring no planning board approval or as not being allowed at all.
Targett and Bufkins agreed that the ordinance’s use of the word “recommend” creates more problems.
This comes as many towns in Maine struggle to comply with new laws that allow property owners to build more than one dwelling on a single lot, and which further define accessory dwelling units when they are allowed in a growth district.
Committee members said recommending something is not the same as requiring it and that the ordinance should use clearer, prescriptive language such as “must” or “shall.”
The discussion also mentioned language for landscaping and buffers. For example, Hawkes cited how the “Bear Shed” had large pine trees that were cut down and replaced with 2.5-foot-tall trees that would take many years to mature, a fact that was not considered or addressed in the landscaping requirements.
Bufkins suggested using the state’s list of native plantings in order to “establish clear metrics for landscaping” requirements. Hawkes pointed to Rangeley’s ordinance as a potential model because of its prescriptive requirements for buffers and clearcutting.
The committee members were assigned the task of reviewing the zoning ordinances of four towns each in order to find good examples of how to rewrite Kingfield’s ordinances.
Hitchcock started off with Bethel, Newry, Oxford, and Sweden. He found Oxford to be the strongest example, with an ordinance that he found was comprehensive, legible, and well developed, including a helpful land use table. Butkins helped write the Oxford ordinance and noted that they had a very strong CEO for over 10 years.
Newry’s ordinance was useful because it clearly distinguishes between projects requiring planning board subdivision review and those requiring site plan reviews.
LeBlanc reviewed Rangeley, Wilton, Blue Hill, and Castine. Rangeley’s ordinance is nearly 200 pages and divides the town into six different distinct zones [not including overlay zones]. It includes a helpful yes-or-no matrix showing which land uses are permitted in each district. She noted they also have a well-established Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee, something that could be useful to Kingfield during this process.
Castine’s ordinance was noted for its focus on maintaining the “historic village” character. It has a historic district, three rural village districts, and an education district.
Woodhouse reviewed Boothbay, Wiscasset, Edgecomb, and Damariscotta. Boothbay’s ordinance has eight districts and a land-use table.
Wiscasset uses multiple standalone ordinances covering subjects including signs, telecommunications, cannabis, and solar. The committee noted that this method could make it easier to update individual regulations without revising an entire zoning ordinance.
Edgecomb has nine districts and a very detailed land-use chart that addresses specific types of businesses, for example, a barbershop. Woodhouse highlighted a five-page section that specifically governs large-scale development, addresses traffic, and seeks to protect small-town character, similar to Castine. The pros and cons of allowing drive-through restaurants, like Dunkin Donuts, include bringing more traffic and business into the town while possibly hurting small shops.
Hawkes reviewed ordinances from Naples, Pownal, and Sepago. Naples has six districts, including solar, drive-throughs, and “cluster developments.”
Members further discussed how the Kingfield zoning map and district designations and definitions could be affected by recent state housing legislation. Bufkins explained that, under laws passed last year and earlier this year, areas designated as “growth areas” in a municipality’s comprehensive plan can be subject to a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet when served by public water and sewer.
She recommended that Kingfield be cautious using the word “growth” and consider designating some areas currently identified as growth areas as “transition areas,” an intermediate category between rural and growth. This would give the town greater control over lot sizes. She also noted Rangeley is currently making similar changes to its growth areas.
The committee circled back to the importance of clearly defining each district and the purpose of each zone. Bufkins highlighted Readfield’s ordinance as an example, saying that by clearly stating the purpose of each district, the planning board has a basis to evaluate proposed land use that is not specifically listed in the ordinance. Bowdoin’s campsite could be an example of this, as a “transient overnight recreational development” has never been used or defined in the state of Maine other than in the recent citizen-initiated moratorium.
Members agreed it would be easiest to look at the town’s actual geography and asked Bufkins to print two 36-by-48-inch parcel maps of Kingfield showing existing zoning boundaries and parceled lots, along with several 11-by-17-inch maps for individual subcommittee members to mark up.
The Sept. 9 comprehensive plan committee meeting will be an open house intended to bring residents up to date on completed written chapters and survey results. Later, a public session will focus on the future land use plan and proposed map designation updates.
The next subcommittee meeting is slated for Wednesday, Sept. 16 at 5 p.m. with a hard stop at 6:30 p.m.
