ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
7:00 P.M. – STIMSON HALL
Gray, Maine
Minutes: Thursday, April 3, 2008
Meeting was called to order at 7pm
Present: Wade Trudel, Gary Foster, Wayne Wood, Jack Goosetrey,
Richard Bibber, James Foster
Other: Margaret Hutchins, David Knudsen
Minutes: Gary Foster motioned and Wayne Wood seconded that the Feb 7th minutes be accepted with corrections noted.
Minutes accepted.
Wayne Wood commented on a couple errors in the second paragraph, and the words “their” instead of “the” and “once” instead of “one” should be corrected.
1. Ordinances
a. Review Chapter 401 Subdivision Ordinance re-write
Wade and Wayne reviewed the packet. Wayne indicated that he is unsure about the depth of the state requirements.
Margaret indicated if we do an update to bring it to current law, only one public hearing is necessary. George Thebarge is working on it.
Comments
Page 1:
Gary commented on page one- the term “comfort and convenience”
The group is unsure about the use of this term.
Jim indicated that ordinances are supposed to be created based on an accepted comprehensive plan.
The state has produced a model subdivision plan and Wayne indicated that the re-write incorporates what the town has and what the state has.
Jim indicated that it is difficult to find the changes and would like to see them in print. Wade said that the group has the old ordinance to work with, and it is possible to use it to compare this proposed re-write. Wayne indicated that it appears that there are many changes and they shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Wade suggested that the committee get a copy of the comparison of what suggestions are proposed in the re-write or a tracking of the changes. The group was in agreement.
In the meantime, Wade suggested that the group review the current document and make observations.
Page: 2
Section #401.2 The last sentence in this paragraph is something that the committee is concerned about. Gary believes that the last sentence should be stricken. Wayne is concerned about the term “factual evidence” Some clarification is needed. There was extensive discussion on this section.
Page 3:
“Sufficient water” There were questions on the use of this term. Wayne questioned how it is effectively met, and question what the criteria are. He did indicate that this topic is one of the criteria that has to be addressed. Jim indicated that it is hard for a developer to know if there is sufficient water. Wayne stated that in surrounding towns, the only requirement is verification from a well driller. He asked if this implies that hydrologic testing is being required. Wayne indicated that the group should get verification of what the state wants.
There were also comments on the term “reasonable” in the document found in sections D and E.
Section H is viewed as subjective
Section I: Wayne questioned who actually interprets this. He believes it should be the ceo.
Section J: There are questions on how it can be determined. There were questions on some of the wording.
Section K: Title 480B, sub section 9: It appears that a 250 foot buffer must be created. The group questioned this.
Section Q: The “spaghetti lots” on shore line was questioned.
Richard asked about the definition of a coastal wetland for the town.
Section R: phosforus studies use.
Commentary section: There were concerns about the liquidation law section. It doesn’t appear to be clear.
Definitions: -The definition of condominium is not listed and should be.
-Driveway: The definition may not be in line with the town’s definition. It should be double-checked.
-The last sentence in the definition section should not be there.
-Wetlands-forested wetlands should also be defined.
-High intensity soil survey- questioned why it is being defined. There are different types.
-Flood zone as found on a FEMA map.
-Subdivision: use of major and minor classification should be dwelling units and not lots. Minor subdivision as written implies that one can build on an existing road and a major one on a private road, but not a minor subdivision on a private road.
-Arterial streets: Questioned definition. It should not include a list of streets that meet the criteria. Perhaps the use of the term “example”
-Sketch maps: Questioned the necessity of 2 designs.
David Knudsen commented on the professional engineers registration in Maine.
Adminstrative process: There were question about the increase to 21 days. The commentary section outlines why. There are questions about this length of time. It appears to contradict 401.A.
David Knudsen state that the commentary section on page 5 at the end of definition section that the term “greatest extent possible” should be struck.
Article 5 is a change in the process that is not currently done. It can help to an extent by the pre-application process since it helps clarify the expectations.
D: “peer reviewers” There were questions as to who the peer reviewers are. It is unclear.
There was extensive discussion about the onsite inspection and the group also questioned the reasoning for not doing inspections in the winter.
“Rights not vested.” There were some questions about this. Wayne explained the current state law process.
Minor subdivision section: Fees/escrow, peer review section. These fees and process should be justified. It was suggested that a peer review should be on occasion and acting as the 3rd person if there are discrepencies between the initial person submitting and the peer who evaluates. This would be a good use of the peer review process.
Jim Foster indicated that the AOZ was eliminated. 6 criteria need to be met was struck out and he believes that it was done in error. Wayne Wood believes that it should be in wellhead protection section. Jim said he will email the documentation.
2. Other items:
Margaret Hutchins indicated that she received a letter from someone on Taylor lane indicating that their road was not accepted as a public road. This resident believes that the road status as it is should be accepted by the town. It is considered a super elevated road.
She indicated that the builder at the time indicated that he came before the planning board and did not request it to be a public road.
There was a discussion on the history of what the town considers to be an accepted town road.
Wade and Wayne indicated that there would be information on the deeds and along with Margaret Hutchins that the resident go back to the builder to see the information. She explained to the resident that she researched the information presented at the planning board and it was not proposed as a public road
Wade indicated that the only group who could propose a change would be the Town Council.
Wayne asked if the ceo participates in the meetings.
Wade asked the rest of the committee to have others consider chairing the committee, perhaps on a rotating basis.
3. Adjournment: Gary motioned and Wade seconded and he asked that the group continue the discussion at the next meeting on April 16th. He asked the group to complete its review.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10pm.
| 
