Following a lightly attended public hearing where one resident raised a number of concerns, the Somerville Planning Board voted to move ahead with proposed subdivision and site plan review ordinances as written and address any concerns at a later time.
Somerville currently has neither a subdivision ordinance nor a site plan review ordinance, and both proposals are due to come before the town for approval at a special town meeting on Saturday, Feb. 7.
A proposed subdivision ordinance was voted down at annual town meeting last year over the property numbering process and the definition of a subdivision; the ordinance has since been reworked, according to planning board Chair Jim Grenier.
“The proposed subdivision ordinance provides for safeguards relating to infrastructure that might be required for a particular subdivision and to insure that the developer will be financially responsible for … infrastructure or other improvements that may be required for the proposed development,” according to documentation Grenier provided.
In the 33-page ordinance, subdivisions are broken down into minor subdivisions (four or fewer lots or dwelling units, and no road is proposed to be constructed) and major subdivision (five or more lots or dwelling units, or any subdivision with a proposed road).
The application and approval process for major subdivisions and a variety of standards related to their review make up the majority of the proposed ordinance.
The standards would be in areas such as storm water management, ground water considerations, and provisions regarding open spaces. Over 25 percent of the ordinance pertains to traffic and road-related standards.
If the ordinance is approved, the planning board would be required to make findings of fact relative to the standards in the ordinance and state statute as part of their approval or denial of a complete application.
Minor subdivisions would also be subject to a review process, but require significantly less information compared to their major counterparts.
However, the proposed ordinance provides for the planning board, if it deems necessary for public health, safety, and welfare, to require a minor subdivision comply with any or all of the submission requirements for a major subdivision.
At the planning board’s public hearing Jan. 15, Somerville resident Frank Hample brought up a number of concerns, including what he described as the “most critical,” the distinction between major and minor subdivision resting on whether or not there is a road.
According to Hample, having a road automatically kick what would be a minor subdivision up into the major subdivision category would encourage “road-front development and sprawl in a community that holds rural character as an important value.”
Hample suggested the board change the definition so the road would not be the deciding factor, and establish separate standards for roads which would serve minor subdivisions.
Hample also brought up concerns about public hearings for major subdivisions being optional, the incorporation of traffic data from 1985 being used as a standard in vehicle trip calculations, the lack of a definition for “lake watershed districts” in the ordinance, among others.
Grenier was receptive to Hample’s concerns, and acknowledged how strenuous the road standards for major subdivisions are, but pushed for any modification to come after the proposed ordinance is approved.
“You know we could nitpick this to death,” Grenier said.
The intent of the planning board in proposing the ordinance is to have standards in place should someone want to have a subdivision in town, Grenier said. Otherwise, without the subdivision or site plan review ordinances, the town would not have a place to start with someone proposing a subdivision or a commercial venture, he said.
“The possibility of someone coming in for a major subdivision in Somerville, Maine, 04348, is nil to non-existent,” Grenier said.
“Zero,” said planning board alternate Forest Peaslee.
Code Enforcement Officer Bob Temple suggested he and the planning board look at the various concerns Hample raised, such as the road, and bring changes to the annual town meeting in June.
“It’s probably a doable thing,” he said.
As with the subdivision ordinance, under the proposed site plan review ordinance the planning board would review applications to make sure new (or alterations or substantial enlargements to) commercial, retail, industrial, institutional buildings, or buildings containing three or more dwelling units meet a variety of standards.
The just over two pages of standards included in the proposed ordinance touch on areas such as landscaping, advertising features, vehicular access and parking, and water and sewage.
The site plan review ordinance “would not apply to single family residential uses or a family farm, but is meant to bolster land use protections contained in the Land Use Ordinance as well as the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance by its application to commercial, industrial, and institutional uses,” according to town documents.
Resident Frank Hample brought up a concern over the use of a subjective term, “undue,” in relation to standards on water and air pollution, such as “The proposed development will not result in undue air pollution.”
“How does the planning board review ‘undue’?” Hample asked.
“Beats me,” Grenier said.
Other standards in the proposed ordinance also use such subjective language, such as requiring a development for “adequate disposal of solid wastes” and not to have “an unreasonable adverse impact” on municipal services, and outline no empirical way to measure compliance.
According to Bob Temple, the planning board has to make sure the best management practices in relation to the standards are followed. “That’s what it’s geared at,” he said.
A special town meeting to vote on the two proposed ordinances and several financial articles is scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 7 at 10 a.m. in the former Somerville School gymnasium, 665 Patricktown Rd.
