A dispute over property classification in Bremen has a local landowner and an ordinance review committee leader butting heads.
Responding to a letter from the Dept. of Environmental Protection, Ordinance Review Committee chair Parker Renelt told the Bremen Board of Selectmen Jan. 8 the committee would not support a dual-use classification for the Bremen property owned by Dan Goldenson and family.
“We want to continue to support commercial fishing activity,” Renelt said, adding that if the classification of the Goldensons’ property changes it will close future commercial fishing use.
According to Renelt, the state revised the shoreland zoning guidelines in 2007. Following the change to shoreland zoning guidelines, new residential uses would not be permitted in commercial fishing districts, he said.
According to Goldenson, his land is not suitable for maritime use and he has asked the town to allow his property to be classified for both marine and residential purposes.
Goldenson said the zoning ordinance changes “left us in no-man’s land.”
“We have 1500 feet of frontage on the Medomak River and it is subject to extreme tidal conditions,” he said. “It makes the narrow passage (Keene Narrows) impassable for most of the day, except at high tide.”
According to Goldenson, his family farm was located in a Commercial Fisheries/Marine Activities District as well as a Residential District prior to 2007. He said his family purchased the property for its residential use.
The adjoining lobster pound had been part of the original property before Goldenson purchased it in 1995 from the estate of Loyall Sewall. Goldenson subsequently helped facilitate the separation of the properties so the lobstermen could form a cooperative and continue to fish from that location, he said.
Goldenson is upset over the change in classification, as it devalues his property. The town revised the ordinance in the maritime district, thereby preventing future building of residential structures within 250 feet from the shoreline. According to the town, Goldenson could further subdivide the property with a 150-foot setback if it weren’t in a maritime district.
The Dec. 29, 2008 letter from DEP Shoreland Zoning Coordinator Rich Baker does not define for the general public how Goldenson’s property ought to be classified. It also states that the DEP cannot overturn a town ordinance more restrictive than the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act.
The letter mentions depth of water as important criteria in consideration of water-dependant uses for shoreland properties. Goldenson said the shoreland around his farm is shallow and does not support marine activities such as putting in docks and mooring boats.
In his letter, Baker said Bremen could create a dual-use district.
“Although the Department’s Guidelines…indicate that residential uses are prohibited in the CFMA (Commercial Fishing/Marine Activities) district, the Department recognizes that numerous fishermen have working piers and docks at their residences,” Baker said.
Renelt said spot zoning is not encouraged and the weaker of the two property classifications will be defeated by a higher value. The residential classification of the property will eventually win over the marine use classification. Once it becomes a residential use it will never go back to commercial fishing use, he said.
“Do we want to preserve access to the water or don’t we?” he asked selectmen.
Goldenson said that by taking away the residential use classification, the value of his property dropped by $1 million. He said his family has the only property in the maritime district that has room for development. The town requires 300 feet of water frontage for a legal residential lot. Goldenson proposed the dual-use classification as a compromise to resolve this issue.
“Bremen should not devalue its most important waterfront assets in this way, since it effectively shifts the tax burden from the waterfront owner to other properties in the town,” Goldenson said, adding that the town should seek to maximize the value of waterfront property to gain the maximum contribution to tax revenues. “You want to retain the value of property, especially in this day and age.”
Renelt said the committee was following the recommendations of the town’s comprehensive plans.
“Its up to the town what they want to do,” Renelt said.