PARIS — Selectmen intend to discuss a town zoning ordinance later this month, after a revised draft of the ordinance is submitted to the town office.

According to Board of Selectmen Chairman Robert Kirchherr, selectmen don’t intend to dig into the ordinance’s details right away and likely will consider how to communicate its potential impact to residents prior to a vote next year.

“We’re talking about letting people know what the proposal is so there is clear understanding of what the land use committee is proposing,” Kirchherr said. 

Paris, like some other Oxford County towns, doesn’t have rules to regulate or prohibit development in different areas. The town’s comprehensive plan, adopted in 2007, establishes a guide for growth and development in distinct zones in town in anticipation of zoning restrictions.

Two years ago, a Land Use Advisory Committee began working on an ordinance for the town. In April, it submitted its draft to the Board of Selectmen for their consideration. 

The proposed ordinance outlines five districts in town — general growth, Route 26 corridor, South Paris Main Street, rural, and Paris Hill Historic — with varying restrictions in each district.

In general, the restrictions on development the ordinance would impose if passed by voters are very light, committee Chairman Dennis Creaser said. Many committee members were “small government” folks like himself who didn’t want to stand in the way of growth.

At the same time, he said, he found it a little disconcerting that Paris currently has no formal regulation on growth and development. 

When the proposal was submitted, selectmen voiced concern about conflicts with existing town ordinances.

Board members voted to have John Maloney, a senior planner from the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments who worked closely with the advisory committee, compare the proposed ordinance with existing ones and make recommendations. 

The ordinance was also reviewed by town attorney Geoff Hole from the Bernstein Shur Law Firm to make sure the language confirmed to town ordinances and state law.

Reached at the AVCOG offices, Malone said his review found relatively minor conflicts between the ordinance and other town regulations. Particular issues arose in the town’s building code and well-head protection ordinance, Maloney said. 

Generally,discrepancies were found in language and definitions, Maloney said, noting it wasn’t uncommon to find conflicts between proposed and existing regulations when dealing with zoning ordinances.

An updated draft that addresses the problems in the proposed ordinance will be submitted for selectmen’s review in the next two weeks and Maloney is expected to brief selectmen at their Oct. 28 meeting. 

Many of Hole’s recommendations, as outlined in an Aug. 15 letter to the town, address wording issues. The letter also asks for clarification on some of the ordinance’s articles. Maloney said he had included some of the suggestions and noted others. 

Creaser said he wasn’t surprised the proposed zoning ordinance conflicted with existing town rules.

Committee members had put what they thought was appropriate into the ordinance but weren’t legal experts and didn’t expect it would be the final proposal passed to voters, he said. 

“It was a wish list, and if we get 80 percent of it passed, it would be fine,” Creaser said. “Honestly, if we could get 50 percent it would be fine.”

The land use management ordinance is not on the November ballot. Town officials hope to put it up for a vote in June. 

[email protected]