Damariscotta officials are looking to residents to determine the town’s next move with regards to zoning, including a potential revision of the Damariscotta SmartCode for a November vote.
Damariscotta voters rejected the SmartCode, a proposed amendment to the town’s land use ordinance, by a roughly 70/30 margin in a June 14 referendum.
Damariscotta Town Manager Greg Zinser outlined his thoughts on the matter at a joint meeting of the Damariscotta Board of Selectmen and the Damariscotta Planning and Advisory Committee (DPAC) July 6.
The meeting, at the Damariscotta Municipal Building, was standing-room only, with many current and former town officials and representatives of the local business community in attendance.
Zinser wants to compose a “revisions committee” made up of himself, Town Planner Tony Dater and representatives from the Board of Selectmen, DPAC and the Damariscotta Planning Board.
The town would hold a series of public hearings to gather input on the changes, Zinser said. “If again it fails in the month of November, so be it,” he said. “I do think we would be remiss if we didn’t bring it back up.”
Damariscotta Planning Board member Wilder Hunt immediately objected to the proposal. “I think you need to divorce yourself from the SmartCode,” he said.
“Somebody decided to bring a template, a boilerplate, in and set it on top of Damariscotta,” Hunt said. “Do it again, and expect to shoot yourself in the foot again. You shoot yourself in the foot too much, it’s hard to walk.”
“The only way to answer” questions about the code vote “is to do something controversial,” Zinser said. If, at the first public hearing, “people turn around and say, ‘No, no, no, just rezone,’ maybe we need to rethink everything that we’re doing.”
Selectman and DPAC member Dave Wilbur objected to “putting a time frame” on the revision process, arguing that the deadline for last month’s vote contributed to the code’s failure. “We just weren’t able to meet those time commitments,” he said.
DPAC, after discussing the rejection of the code at a meeting last month, listed factors “most DPAC members believe contributed” to the outcome.
The list includes a “rushed” process, “fear of growth” and specifically of the Piper Commons development, participation of non-residents in the code development process, a lack of “validation” for the Damariscotta Heart & Soul Planning Charrette Report and not adopting a related comprehensive plan amendment first (identified as a “a serious mistake”).
DPAC suggested three options for moving forward: a survey “to determine the root issues for the negative vote,” the designation of a committee, potentially consisting “solely” of residents, and the determination of a timetable to allow “discussions and decisions to happen in less frenetic fashion.”
DPAC distributed a draft survey at the meeting, although DPAC member Jenny Mayer, of Newcastle, favored a binding vote instead.
“In the end, a vote is our best survey,” Mayer said. “That’s a high stakes survey right there.”
DPAC member and local business owner Buzz Pinkham suggested that the town narrow its focus. “You’re not necessarily trying to convince 300-400 voters,” he said. “There’s maybe two dozen advocates for and against the code that you need to reach.”
“How many people read the ordinance that was voted on?” Pinkham asked. “I think very few, probably less than 10 percent.”
Instead, the vast majority of voters were swayed by advertisements, letters to the editor, and conversations with people more familiar with the code, Pinkham said.
DPAC member and local attorney Peter Drum criticized the “long, arduous” public code development process, calling it “a disaster” resulting in a code not reflective of the charrette.
“I think all the town really has to do is put the changes back into the code that reflect the charrette and let the town vote on it,” Drum said. He expressed support for Zinser’s plan to hold a series of public hearings “where you explain what the code is” followed by a special town meeting.
Selectman and former DPAC Chairman David Atwater objected to the resurrection of the SmartCode in any form.
“We’ve spent a lot of money, we’ve spent a lot of time [on the SmartCode],” Atwater said. “A 3-1 vote, to me, is a pretty substantial vote. It’s saying, maybe we ought to put this on the shelf, do our comp plan, make a few changes with our ordinances and move on.”
Rob Nelson, a member of the Newcastle Land Use Ordinance Review Committee, suggested that a DPAC subcommittee previously charged with fixing perceived issues with the code be allowed to begin work.
Nelson referred to a memo from SmartCode authors Robert Orr & Associates that raised questions about changes to the code as a result of the public process.
“I think there’s a lot to start from in terms of making changes that could happen quickly,” Nelson said.
Selectman Vicki Pinkham placed some of the blame for the SmartCode vote with the Piper Commons developers. “People need to know what’s coming,” she said. “They wouldn’t tell us.”
Pinkham said residents won’t vote for the code unless the town holds five separate votes for each district. She also suggested mailing the DPAC survey, or some revision thereof, with tax bills later this month.
The selectmen ultimately refrained from scheduling a vote, instead setting the first public meeting for Tues., July 26 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lincoln Theater. Barnaby Porter, a co-owner of the building, volunteered to publicize the meeting on the theater marquee.
Chairman Dick McLean stressed the importance of turnout. “We’re going to run a series of meetings and really need you to be consistent about coming,” he said. “It’s a lot of work, but this is important.”
