Charges of government intrusion and error peppered the Whitefield planning board’s public hearing on proposed shoreland zoning revisions June 30. The state took most of the hits, but local authority didn’t escape unscathed.
With about 25 people attending, board chair Christi Mitchell presented an overview of the draft document. It is largely based on state minimum requirements but contains four rather than six districts (stream protection, resource protection, limited residential, and limited commercial).
In 1990, Whitefield rejected bringing its local ordinance into compliance with the state’s. Recently, the state extended its July 1, 2009 deadline to 2010 for towns to adopt updated rules.
The shoreland area stretches 250 feet from the normal high water mark of rivers and great ponds. Recently, an expanded 250-foot buffer around certain wetlands was added by the Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. It extends into dry upland areas, increasing the number and acreage of resource protection (RP) districts. Greater protection is now afforded “moderate to high value wetlands” identified as significant habitat where wading birds feed and/or nest.
Another significant factor for Whitefield is that its 1974 ordinance addressed rivers and ponds/lakes. It didn’t consider wetlands as shoreland, said planning board member Bob Bills.
At the June 30 hearing, landowners’ comments ranged from alleged mapping errors to puzzlement about who will enforce the rules.
The biggest jolt was to landowners such as Arthur Peterson, who complained that his piece of land, now labeled RP, “is bone dry, it’s not near water.”
Dave Symes, of Pittston, owns land in Whitefield that is mapped as resource protection, yet a parcel next to his isn’t included. He didn’t understand why.
Another man asked, “Does anybody enforce this?” He said he’d never seen anybody checking his land.
Bills said map information was gathered from aerial and Google Earth satellite photos, not actual visits by state biologists, which would be too costly. Landowners can, however, ask to have a biologist double check an area designated RP to make sure it was correctly identified.
Symes said beavers had left a wetland he was familiar with high and dry since pictures were taken.
All towns in Maine are going through the process of getting their maps updated and complying with state minimums, Bills said. “You want a biologist? Get in line.”
South Hunts Meadow Road landowner Joann Mooney was surprised to see her property, including a building lot that has been taxed as developable, now extensively mapped as RP. Dwellings in that zone are allowed only by special exception.
Bills suggested her situation requires digging for answers to prove the land is buildable. Sue McKeen, board of selectmen member, responded, “You’ve got a grandfathered lot for sure.”
Another big change for Whitefield is that its more restrictive 100-foot setback for new structures has been changed to conform with the state minimum of 200 feet.
David Chase, who failed in 2003 to get permission to build a seasonal home approximately 100 feet from the Sheepscot River, said he “didn’t feel good about the board saying we wouldn’t stand the test,” based on town attorney advice that Whitefield’s stricter standard took precedence.
Bills said that since Chase applied, “we’ve gained a lot more knowledge about how our ordinance stacks up.” The reference was to input from such sources as the Maine Municipal Association, which researched the subject during Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s suit against the town in 2009 concerning a denied shoreland zone development.
“We can revise (the setback) back to what it was, if that’s what people want,” Mitchell said.
Bills explained that without state approval of Whitefield’s comprehensive plan, passed by voters in 2005, “we can’t have something more restrictive.” The state’s finding that the town plan is inconsistent with Maine’s Planning and Land Use Regulation Act stemmed mostly from the document’s failure to clearly designate growth areas and rural areas and to offer strategies for directing growth to growth areas.
“We got hammered for not having zoning,” Bills said. “We sent the comp plan to the state, they didn’t accept it.”
Local resistance to requests or directives higher up has a price. “If we don’t do certain things, the state can stop funneling highway funds,” he said, or by not paying in to the federal floodplain insurance program, “we can’t expect to get help.”
Planning board member Steve Smith pointed out, “The fact we don’t have a (state approved) comprehensive plan denies us home rule. If we want home rule, we better do something about it.”
Several property owners asked if they could build on land which is not yet officially RP. One speaker’s land, previously designated limited residential, will be RP under the new ordinance. He wondered if he could plunge ahead, thereby beating either the November vote or state deadline when the new ordinance and map would take effect?
Bills cautioned that the effort could fail. The Natural Resources Protection Act “and other state rules you don’t know about might apply,” he said.
The entire draft plan is available for $10 hard copy at the town office or free on the town’s website, www.townofwhitefield.com. Mitchell said she would arrange for the map to be available online as well. The original is at the town office.
The comment period ends Aug. 11. Until then, the board will receive input from property owners. State review follows, and “if there are significant changes, there will be a second public hearing,” Mitchell said.
Voters go to the polls Nov. 9, to adopt or reject the ordinance while also voting on repealing the town’s 1974 ordinance.
