Changes in Whitefield’s shoreland zoning ordinance won’t be ready, as planned, when the annual March town meeting rolls around.
At a planning board workshop Jan. 6, chair Christi Mitchell said proper notification of landowners and a public hearing require a longer time frame leading up to a vote than the board anticipated. The goal is to present an ordinance for approval on the statewide election day, June 8.
The focus is on how to add in some of the state’s requirements, such as updating resource protection areas, namely wetlands; and how to incorporate preexisting limited commercial activity, located in sensitive areas, into the ordinance. The town gets to choose whether to regulate timber harvesting in the shoreland zone or let the state forestry bureau do it.
Rich Baker, of the Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP), said wetlands ratings in Whitefield have not been upgraded since 1973, when the local ordinance was enacted.
“Whitefield has a fair amount of wetlands,” Baker said. In the last 35 years, the Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has identified more freshwater wetlands that are rated moderate/high value.
The board is challenged with figuring out how to apply state standards for recognizing already existing commercial activity, such as at the Clary Mill dam site, sections of Coopers Mills, and Kings Mills.
It is necessary, Mitchell said, “to bring the old and new resource protection zones and the comprehensive plan into a document that’s cohesive.”
The state imposed guidelines in the early 1990s but Whitefield’s ordinance was never repealed. In the intervening years, when making decisions, the planning board routinely has referred to both documents.
In only one area are state regulations less restrictive than Whitefield’s: the town defines the shoreland zone as within 300 ft. of the normal high-water mark and the state sets a 250-ft. distance; also, Whitefield requires a 200-ft. setback for development while the state allows a 100-ft. setback.
Baker said, “It makes no sense to have two shoreland zoning ordinances. I strongly encourage you to adopt your own.”
Mitchell said, “The idea is to repeal the 1973 ordinance.”
Board members examined new draft maps showing various brightly marked districts: resource protection, limited residential, limited commercial, stream protection, and general development areas. Several expressed concern about the authority of the map in its delineation of districts vs. the authority of the ordinance.
Baker said that the Supreme Court has said “the map rules,” even though it may not be strictly correct in its designations. Mitchell wondered if language could be inserted saying that “an on-ground survey trumps the map” if such a survey proves that a line indicating a resource protection district or a steep slope is different from what the map says.
Baker said, “When you adopt the ordinance, you’re adopting the map,” and, he added, the planning board cannot be given the authority to amend the map.
Board member Beth Whitman asked, “What if the map is wrong?”
Baker replied, “You go to town meeting and amend it.”
The board burst into laughter.
Also debated was whether the ordinance should regulate piers, docks, wharves that are in place seven months out of the year, and structures on those piers.
George Hall, against further regulation because “we have a lot of laws on the books we don’t enforce now,” wanted to vote immediately on excluding the section.
Steve Smith countered that “the river is a public asset and we’re the only board that can get involved.” Because of the river’s low water and narrow sections, docks could restrict recreational use of the river, he said. During high water, furthermore, when the river is used by kayakers and canoeists, there could be a dock or catwalk that would pose a threat to health and safety, Smith pointed out.
Mitchell said the board will make its recommendations at public meetings sometime in late March and/or April.