OTISFIELD – A set of proposed changes to town ordinances scheduled to go before residents at the annual town meeting this summer were reviewed Wednesday night.

The changes affect two areas of the building ordinance and create a new site plan review ordinance and emergency management ordinance.

In the building ordinances, the proposed new changes would require new structures to have the front set back 50 feet from property lines or 75 feet from the center of a traveled way. The sides and rear would be set back 10 feet for properties of two acres or less and 25 feet for properties of two acres or more.

The sections exempt structures not fastened to the ground or entryways, provided either is 50 square feet or less.

Planning Board member Herb Olsen expressed concern that the section does not have limits on how close a structure can be to a road, increasing the possibility of damage done by town equipment.

“It’s a very easy one to play games with,” Olsen said.

Code Enforcement Officer Rich St. John said the question of whether a clause stipulating limits on how close new structures could be to the road would be left to residents at the town meeting.

Rick Micklon, chairman of the Planning Board, said a section of the building ordinance related to oil tanks is unchanged except for a clarification of language. The ordinance requires interior tanks to be self-contained, while exterior tanks must be structurally encompassed.

Micklon said he has received “a lot of negative feedback” on requirements regarding dual wall oil tanks due to their expense and inconvenience to some structures. Selectman Mark Cyr suggested that the issue be tabled until next year, and the section was sent back to the ordinance committee for review.

The town is also proposing an emergency management ordinance, which outlines the responsibilities of a local emergency management director and establishes the National Incident Management System as the municipal standard for incident management in the town.

Beth Damon, chairwoman of the ordinance committee, said the new site plan ordinance is based on a side-by-side comparison with Waterford’s ordinance. Damon said discussion of the new changes will require a review of the ordinance by residents.

“This is a major redo,” Damon said.

She said the town has also updated its list of definitions for the ordinances using the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments list, but that the definitions are not subject to public approval.

Copies of the ordinances are available at the Otisfield town office.