Officials are
trying “to keep the rural character
of the town.”
DURHAM – About 100 people braved subzero temperatures Thursday night to attend a public hearing on proposed land use ordinance changes.
Although a majority just listened, some builders and developers voiced concerns about a limitation on permits issued for family members who are involved in the building business. Another questioned why there was no provision for previously approved subdivision owners that would allow them to get more than one permit.
Comprehensive Plan Committee Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick chaired the meeting that was jointly hosted by his panel and the Ordinance Writing Committee. They have been working on revisions since an earlier proposal was turned down last August.
Among the ordinance changes turned down last year was a provision that would have “grandfathered” existing subdivisions. Taking that vote into consideration, the Ordinance Committee opted not to include it in the new ordinance, a committee spokesman said. However, one resident, who complained about the absence of that exception, said he thought it was turned down because it was grouped with another unrelated issue in one article.
Fitzpatrick said this was not the case; it was in an article dealing with only ordinances.
The goal of both committees has been “to keep the rural character of the town,” something residents indicated they want, and to ensure that it’s “not over-built,” Fitzpatrick noted.
The town adopted the new Comprehensive Plan two years ago, which replaced a 1972 version. State law mandates land use ordinances must be brought into conformity with the provisions in the plan within two years, committee member Gordon Grimes, an attorney, stressed.
If this isn’t done by the March town meeting, the next day all of the land use ordinances will be invalid, leaving the town wide open for just about any kind of development, residents were told.
Changes being proposed include eliminating smaller previously designated growth districts and having a single growth district called the Southwest Bend Growth District which would be about 35 percent larger than proposed for that area last year. It is located in the geographic center of town. It is also where the fire station, school and town office are, which is what the state wants.
The resource protection district would become the rural district, but still offer all the same protections to wet lands, shorelands and similar sensitive areas; and the current rural residential would become the transitional district. Permits for new residential dwellings units would still be limited to 45 per year, but not limited to certain districts.
Lot frontage for the growth district as proposed would be 250 feet, but remain at 300 feet for the rest of the town.
“The ordinance is designed to manage growth, you cannot stop it,” the committee said.
Tim Asselyn asked why the committee didn’t poll residents to find out why they voted down changes in August. He was told anyone can petition an article for changes.
Fitzpatrick said the committee will consider the comments and prepare a final version for town meeting. Another public hearing on that will be held in February.
Comments are no longer available on this story