Planning board members in Waldoboro once again faced opposition to shoreland zoning ordinance amendments during their regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday night.
The board recommended adopting state minimum requirements for building construction setbacks in wetland areas, but will conduct research and hold an informational meeting before submitting their final recommendation to the Board of Selectmen with regard to inland waterfowl and wading bird habitat.
The decision to hold off their recommendation followed an open comment portion of the meeting, during which several members of the public elaborated at length as to their objections to the proposed setback amendments.
The board cancelled a July 22 proposal to place all fresh water wetlands greater than 10 acres in Waldoboro into a “Resource Protection” designation after receiving significant opposition from some 250 residents at the time. The board decided to only adopt the state minimums at their Aug. 26 meeting.
The state is requiring wetland deemed high to moderate value for inland wading bird and waterfowl habitat be placed in the resource protection designation, according to Waldoboro Planning and Development director Patrick Wright.
The state minimum setback for high to moderate value wetland is 250 feet, the relevant areas in the town of Waldoboro were outlined in red on a map made available to the public.
Residents who had stood outside waiting for the meeting to start, filled all seats in the town office meeting room at 7 p.m. and dispersed roughly two hours later. Several members of the audience approached the microphone and others shouted their opposition from seats to shoreline construction setbacks, rules which they said took their land away.
The town has passed the date to put the shoreland zoning setbacks on the November ballot for the public to vote on, Wright said, adding that the only ordinance change ready for a public hearing is related to small wind energy systems.
Planning board members voted to hold a public meeting regarding the small wind power ordinance on Sept. 10 in order to put a question regarding this ordinance to voters on the November ballot. Wright said the only change to the town’s shoreland zoning ordinance the town has to comply with is the Dept. of Environmental Protection’s “Inland Waterfowl and Wading Bird Habitat” (IWWH) regulation.
Wetland criteria, as Wright explained in a memo and read aloud to members of the public during the initial part of the meeting, is determined by the DEP. The values are based on guidelines (so called by the DEP, “Chapter 1000”) outlined in DEP regulations.
Chapter 1000 contains the guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning ordinances. In a summary at the beginning of the document (available online at: www.maine.gov/dep) the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act requires towns adopt shoreland zoning ordinances that are consistent with, but no less stringent than, the minimum state guidelines.
Members of the meeting’s audience expressed their opposition; despite the planning board’s decision to follow what they said was required by state law. One resident, with support from others in the crowd, challenged the board’s decision and denied the claim the state setback requirements are mandatory.
Resident and local business owner Robert Morse confronted Wright regarding the Chapter 1000 mandate, saying that it must work its way through the legislative process first before it becomes law.
“Chapter 1000 has no power in it whatsoever,” Morse said, describing the point at which Chapter 1000 is in the process and stating that the mandate has not reached the legislature yet. “It’s not law, but an administrative procedure.”
Wright agreed with Morse in that the DEP regulation (Ch. 1000) was part of an administrative procedure, but was one that he was told had been reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Committee in the Maine State legislature.
Several residents, including Morse, asked board members what resource was being protected by enacting the ordinance change and how the Inland Waterfowl and Wading Bird Habitat was determined.
In response to questions about how values are placed on certain parcels of property and areas of land around Waldoboro, Wright said the Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife base their determinations on a variety of factors including current use, topography and how susceptible the land is to degradation.
Board member Chuck Campbell, referencing the town’s comprehensive plan, said the planning board believed it was their job to protect the Medomak River. The closer development is to a water source, the higher chance of pollution, he said as the reason for the 250-foot setback.
“I want to know what natural resources are in danger,” resident Kathy Schofield said, addressing the board.
Campbell said clam diggers would not agree with some people at the meeting who said there is no danger of pollution to the Medomak River. Many area clam diggers, who have been out of work due to flat closures, have been stymied by the problem of pollution and know it won’t go away without the support of residents.
Wright said in the past year there have been three shoreland zone violations.
“There’s no question there are more violations out there,” he added and mentioned some other possible shoreland zone issues that pose problems.
Wright said the town hears about these violations through complaints and as he and others encounter them in the process of their work with the town. As Code Enforcement Officer for Waldoboro, he said he tries to get voluntary compliance first and works with landowners to stay within the borders of ordinance rules.
“People who steward their land properly, that’s the best solution,” he said.
Wright said he wants to work with residents, having heard their concerns. Given the tremendous outcry that the board heard from the public and as evidenced from the crowd at the meeting, he said the best way to proceed is to be deliberate and careful and to notify the landowners who would potentially be affected by this change.
The question he posed to residents was, “what is reasonable to protect these resources?”
Residents put the same question to board members when they addressed pollution issues stemming from municipal sources.
“Maybe we should stop dumping so much chlorine (in town water),” resident Ron Miller said.
Recalling how he used to go fishing in his youth, Miller said there used to be eel grass in the river. He said he couldn’t find any today and wanted the board to know he was concerned about chlorine dumped into town water over the years.
Jeff McNelly, who said he is in the water supply business, asked board members about the snow that is plowed up from town roads and then dumped into the river. McNelly also asked the board to exempt his business from the setback in the shoreland protection zone.
Board members listened quietly to the comments made by residents at the meeting and responded to some of the questions, particularly when it related to a clarification of the rules. McNelly, mirroring other comments by residents, told board members the town ought to have an attorney examine the situation.
The board decided to adopt the state minimum requirements for high to moderate value wetlands on the town’s shoreland zoning map. Wright said he would conduct further research in relation to some of the questions posed to the planning board and would investigate whether it would be appropriate for the town to obtain legal council before submitting the planning board’s recommendation to selectmen.
Landowners whose property might be affected by the shoreland zoning change will be notified, Wright said. The planning board will also hold other informational meetings in the future.