7.1 A REVIEW OF STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PLANS AND REPORTS
7.1.1 A Summary of Findings and Recommendations
7.1.2 A Review of the Reports
7.2 LOCAL LAND USE CONTROLS
7.2.1 Town Zoning Ordinances
7.2.2 Shoreland Zoning
7.3 STATE CONTROLS
7.3.1 Land Acquisition and Easements
7.3.2 Police Power Regulation
7.3.3 Educational and Service Programs
7.3.4 Fiscal Incentives or Controls
7.3.5 Planning and Research
7.4 FEDERAL CONTROLS
7.4.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
7.4.2 The Clean Air Act of 1970
7.4.3 The National Flood Insurance Program
7.4.4 Fish and Wildlife Service-Department of the Interior
7.4.5 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation-Department of the Interior
7.5 PRIVATE ACTION
7.5.1 Acquisition and Easements
7.5.2 Donations
7.5.3 Conservation Covenants
7.5.4 Land Trusts
7.6 REFERENCES
Before new plans and policy recommendations can be made for the
Bay and its surrounds, past studies need to be reviewed both as a of
data and as a basis for future work. Three relevant statewide reports
were, therefore, studied along with two Bath/Brunswick source
regional reports and three town "comprehensive" plans. These reports
include:
Statewide Reports
--Economic Development and Resources Conservation: A Strategy for
Maine (Rodwin, et al, 1974).
--Tourism in Maine: Analysis and Recommendations (Northeast Markets,
Inc., 1974).
--Maine Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Maine Department of
Parks and Recreation, 1972).
Regional Reports
--Land Use & Soil Capability (Community Planning Services
1970).
--Open Space Plan (Community Planning Services 1973).
Local Comprehensive Plans
--Comprehensive Plan, Brunswick, Maine (1974)
--Richmond's Comprehensive Plan (1974)
--Bowdoinham's Comprehensive Plan (1975)
All these are reviewed in this chapter with the exception of
Outdoor Recreation Plan which is referred to in Chapter 5.0, Outdoor
Recreation.
Because of the wide range of topics covered in the above mentioned reports, it is impossible to abstract their recommendations without generalizing to a large degree. The comments that follow should, therefore, be seen as such. They seek to synthesize, in broad terms, and only deal with some of the more important issues that have relevance to Merrymeeting Bay.
The "A Strategy for Maine" report (Rodwin et al, 1974) calls for greater coordination between local and state levels by suggesting a Regional Planning Agency with power to plan and approve development. Such an agency in the Bay area would have jurisdiction over all land within one-half mile of the shoreline. They would initiate model developments, seek stricter development controls, increase public access to the Bay, and concentrate much of their planning on the following problem areas: Cooks Corner, the Topsham & Woolwich shorelines, and I-95 intersections in Richmond and Bowdoinham. The report further suggests state loans be provided for easements and/or the acquisition of key shoreland.
The "Tourism in Maine" report (Northeast Markets, Inc., 1974), like "A Strategy for Maine," also advises the establishment of a regional development authority in areas subject to future intense recreational and tourist activity. The report does not say Merrymeeting Bay will be or even might be such an area.
In terms of tourism and the Bay itself, the report infers that sight-seeing be encouraged as a desirable activity and that recreational vehicle camping be discouraged. It also points out that half the state's expenditures on resident tourists goes to provide services to hunters and fishermen. Since the Bay is a prime hunting area, it could be construed that much of this money does support these activities.
Tourism has a negative impact on low-income residents in that they suffer increased taxes through rising shoreline property values. The report suggests tax legislation to relieve this situation.
The Bath/Brunswick "Land Use and Soil Capability" report (Community Planning Services 1970) reiterates the concerns expressed in "A Strategy for Maine" by warning that "house-at-a-time" construction is eroding the rural countryside character of the towns. It calls for more effective plans and land use controls.
The regional "Open Space Plan" (Community Planning Services 1973)
emphasizes the preservation of "landscape quality" and suggests doing
this by zoning and/or outright purchase. Land trades or scenic
easements are also suggested. A regional agency for open space
acquisition and conservation purposes is proposed.
A regional pollution control district has also been recommended for
the Bath/Brunswick area (see abstract). It is evident that the idea
of a more powerful regional authority is advocated by a number of
independent consultants for differing reasons. It is an idea that
should be pursued.
The three comprehensive plans for Brunswick, Richmond, and Bowdoinham
all refer to similar concerns about the future and suggest a range of
means to deal with them. Common to all the plans is the threat of
rapid, uncontrolled growth; especially that generated by the
completion of I-95. These growth pressures have spurred strip
commercial and residential developments as well as uncontrolled
development at Cooks Comer. All three plans advocate strict
development standards to hold uncoordinated development in check.
More industry is desired by the towns, too, as long as it is non-polluting and located outside the village areas in designated zones.
Public access to the water is another priority as is the protection of wetlands, floodplains, and significant natural areas.
In sum, the towns of Brunswick, Richmond, and Bowdoinham fear
uncontrolled growth yet desire slow progress and the preservation of
rural, small town values.
A. Economic Development and Resource Conservation: A Strategy for Maine (a proposal and report by a group of M.I.T. land specialists headed by Lloyd Rodwin and prepared for the Bureau of Public Lands, Department of Conservation, State of Maine, in September 1974).
Merrymeeting Bay is identified as a case study area that could be one of the foci of the "Office of Resource Conservation and Development" (ORCD), a new Executive Office proposed by the report authors. As a case study, the authors develop a "scenario of action" for the Bay. The purpose of this short summary is not to critique the report but rather to extract pertinent statements from it that can be useful to this study. The notes that follow are, therefore, somewhat random.
1. Issue is taken with the Shoreland Zoning Act on two counts; first, it is limited to a 250-foot band and does not ensure land beyond that fits within sound conservation principles; second, its interpretation varies from town to town making it inconsistent.
2. Uncoordinated commercial development can be expected around Cooks Corner.
3. The Topsham and Woolwich zoning ordinances lack provisions to adequately protect the shoreline of the Bay.
4. I-95 will make both Richmond and Bowdoinham particularly
vulnerable to development; careful control of highway spin-off
development is suggested.
5. Ad hoc piecemeal growth will characterize the West Bay as I-95
brings more tourists into the area; advance planning is needed.
6. East Bay is least affected by the above-mentioned pressures.
The report suggests an ORCD could coordinate state programs with
local programs, initiate "model developments," and aid conservation
through loans for fee or easement purchase.`
In the scenario developed by the authors, the following thoughts are offered concerning ORCD:
1. That an overall plan of action for the Bay be undertaken by a project team within the Southern Mid Coast Regional Planning Commission.
2. That this team evolve "specific developmental" standards for shoreline areas, standards more stringent than those in the local zoning ordinances.
3. That a first and second home housing market analysis be done along with an analysis of commercial, industrial, and recreational growth.
4. That the regional team be given authority over all development within 1/2 mile of the Bay.
5. That the Department of Fish and Game establish a wildlife preserve west of the Bay.
6. That private recreation and conservation organizations play a role in managing marshlands and that certain key shoreline be acquired to prevent their development.
7. That all private shoreline areas be subject to strict development controls and that they permit public access to the Bay.
8. That commercial recreation be concentrated at certain public landings.
9. That the Bureau of Public Lands acquire first option on all Bay front land over 10 acres for planned development under strict standards.
10. That Town Conservation Commissions purchase conservation easements on certain properties of high scenic value.
11. That an overall ceiling to development be set along with provisions to ensure development timing fit with regional plans.
Implementation is suggested through an intergovernmental compact between the SMCRPC team, the local towns, and the state (letters of cooperation are solicited from private groups). The authors suggest the Department of Environmental Protection approve the Bay plan in toto so as to give the agency sole development approval status.
B. Tourism in Maine: Analysis and Recommendations (a report to the Maine Vacation Travel Analysis Committee by Northeast Markets, Inc., Arthur D. Little, Inc., and William R. Fothergill, May 1974).
This recent study attempts to measure the magnitude and impact of tourism on the state's economy. It is an exhaustive in-depth report accompanied by a number of appendices. Unfortunately, because it deals with the state as a whole, little of the specific data in the numerous tables can be effectively abstracted and applied to the Bay area. Even tables that breakdown statistics by county cannot be extrapolated to determine facts and figures on tourism in the study area as there is no way of determining what proportion of an activity occurred there versus on the coast. The study does, nevertheless, contain some findings and make some recommendations that are pertinent to Merrymeeting Bay, especially as the Bay itself could become a more important tourist attraction. Much of the following is taken directly from the summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.
Findings:
1. The 22.5 million tourist days spent in Maine during the four
seasons in 1972/73 generated nearly $260 million in direct sales.
This, in turn, generated another $200 million in indirect and induced
sales for a total of nearly $460 million in total sales attributable
in one way or another to tourism.
2. Tourism accounts for approximately 4% of wage and salary income in the State, 14% of the State tax revenues and 6.5% of the entire State's employment.
3. Hunters and fishermen are the most expensive tourists for the State to service. They cost the State about $2.30 per day. Since 75% of all hunters and fishermen are residents, half of all State expenditures for resident tourists are made to provide services to this group.
4. Between September 1972 and September 1973, Maine hosted an estimated 3.1 million non-resident tourists. Residents took an average of seven trips in Maine per person, accounting for 7.1 million tourists.
5. Massachusetts residents account for almost 30% of the tourists. Adding New Hampshire and New York residents, these three states account for over half of Maine's non-resident tourists.
6. Sightseeing is the most popular activity in the State. Almost 20% of all tourist days are spent in this activity.
7. The average resident tourist spends $4.70 per person per day and the average non-resident $18.35 per person per day.
8. Congestion is the primary cause of serious social and environmental impact. Crowding of beaches, roads, and parks by non-residents creates social resentment among residents.
9. Mechanical equipment used by tourists adds to environmental impact. Motor boats, snowmobiles, ski lifts, recreational vehicles--all intrude sharply into a natural scene. They create pollution of all types--air, water, noise, and visual.
10. Accommodations have certain inherent characteristics that affect the environment and social status quo...
11. A motel, for example, obtrudes because by economic necessity,
it must be highly visible with a large sign, lights, etc.
12. Other measures of the impact of accommodations are related to the
efficiency of functions. Facilities located far from urban services
with inefficient water, sewage, and solid waste disposal systems in
most cases have greater social and environmental impact than those
tied into urban systems.
13. Sightseeing is a desirable tourist activity by all standards. Sightseers spend at high levels; social/environmental impact is moderate; seasonality is not extreme.
14. Tourists participating in other activities fall generally into a mid-range on both social/environmental and economic scales. These activities--beaching, boating, hunting, fishing, etc.--represent the heart of traditional Maine tourism and any tourism policy must be sensitive to their needs.
15. In regard to accommodations, motels are extremely important in Maine by economic standards.
The main recommendation of this entire report is that the State of Maine adopt a policy that actively encourages tourism growth. The policy should have two major thrusts according to the authors. First support for the existing industry should be increased; and second, the state should embark on a new development program oriented to inland lakes and second homes. Furthermore, the "Tourism in Maine" report recommends that:
1. encouragement and support be provided to projects designed to increase sightseeing as a tourist activity in Maine and that existing attractions be more heavily promoted.
2. camping in recreational vehicles be discouraged in Maine as a matter of state policy.
3. a disproportionate share of public expenditures be allocated to road improvement, parking areas, new beaches, new parks and other similar projects in areas that bear the brunt of tourism.
4. the State establish or work with communities to establish fair and equal sign control policies as a means to limit visual pollution.
5. new tax legislation be considered to provide relief to low income residents who suffer from increased property taxes related to rising land values.
6. a new State development agency be established to promote investment in second home communities oriented to inland lakes.
7. a regional development authority be established in the Rangeley-Flagstaff area to promote and control private and public investments in that region with the long range objective of establishing other authorities for similar purposes in other prime development areas.
All the above points need to be taken into consideration before recommendations concerning the way growth and change in the Merrymeeting Bay area should occur can be drawn up. Tourism is not usually seen as an "industry" and source of economic livelihood for a community. Its positive and negative effects need to be weighed in this light especially as I-95 will make some of the Bay area towns highly accessible to tourists.
C. Land Use and Soil Capability. (A report prepared for the
Bath/Brunswick Regional Planning Commission, published in January
1970, authored by the Community Planning Services, Boston).
The first portion of this report deals with land use. The intent of
the second portion of the report, however, is unclear.
Nevertheless, some statements help clarify how the consultants view
growth surrounding Merrymeeting Bay and some of the conclusions act
to point out future problem areas. The planners foresee a
continuation of "house-at-a-time" construction along the main old
town roads--particularly in the Brunswick area on the roads leading
to Portland and Lewiston. Furthermore, they anticipate a change in
the traditional function of the Bath and Brunswick downtown areas as
automobile-oriented shopping areas outside of town (on Route 1 and at
Cooks Corner) develop.
Other points raised in the text on land use that bear reiteration
include:
1. there is a need for more effective land use controls to protect
swamp and marsh areas.
2. the towns should look to alternative means of accommodating
residential growth that at present occurs endlessly along old town
roads.
3. a "positive rural lands policy" is needed.
4. reuse plans for the Brunswick Naval Air Station should be kept in
mind.
In the soils section of the report, suitability of septic sewage is
mapped. Very generally this mapping shows that the soils most
suitable for residential sewage occur in the Bath/Brunswick and
Topsham urban areas, and in scattered areas along the future I-95.
Other areas of general suitability occur near public roads on the
west of Merrymeeting Bay. Few good areas occur to the east of the
Bay. A sewer utility map in the report shows that only the built-up
sections of Bath/Brunswick and Topsham have sewer service or have
proposals in line for sewer service.
D. Open Space Plan. (A report prepared for the Bath/Brunswick
Regional Planning Commission by Community Planning Services, Boston,
March 1973).
The purpose of this report was to develop a comprehensive Open Space
Plan for this region. It does this, in part, by mapping where
additional land should be acquired (or protected) in each town and by
listing how this should be achieved (through zoning or acquisition).
It is not clear how land acquisition areas were determined, however,
it seems there is a visual/scenic bias to the selections.
The thrust of the recommendations is not toward day-use area parks
but toward conservation of wildlife habitat and the heightening of
"visual identity" of urban areas. The development of trails for
snowmobiles is considered important as is the preservation of the
landscape quality. (This refers to undeveloped highland, marshes,
craggy ledges, and prominent views.)
Two immediate means of implementing the plan recommendations are
suggested; first, through zoning and subdivision ordinances, and
second, through outright purchase. Land trades, scenic easements, and
land gifts are also suggested.
A further implementation tool suggested involves the creation of
regional agency to "acquire, hold, and develop land for open space
purposes." A one dollar/capita tax to fund this agency's programs is
recommended; this would amount to $80-$100,000 for the twelve towns
in the Bath/Brunswick region.
The most significant recommendations relative to Merrymeeting Bay on
a town-by-town basis are:
Bath:
1. the acquisition of West Chops Point as a regional park.
2. the acquisition of Lines Island and other adjacent small
islands.
3. the acquisition of riverfront park land and of Thorne Head.
4. the use of large lot zoning for the steep slope area around Butler
Head.
Bowdoinham:
1. acquire recreation land at Beach Point.
2. zone lowland east of Beach Point as flood plain.
Brunswick:
1. acquire the islands in the lower Androscoggin.
Dresden:
1. flood plain zoning along the Kennebec.
2. large lot subdivision zoning on the east bank of the Eastern River
to the north of South Dresden.
Topsham:
1. acquire development easements on islands in the lower Androscoggin
(e.g., Mustard Island, Driscoll Island).
2. acquire Cathance Gorge for recreation site.
3. define the Cathance and Muddy River flood plains.
In addition, the study recommends the acquisition of development
rights (or easements) along the banks of the Cathance, West Branch,
and Abagadasset in Bowdoinham; the acquisition of the river banks on
the lower Androscoggin; the acquisition of riverbank development
rights on the Kennebec north of Swan Island in Dresden; acquisition
of the river banks (or easements on the river banks) of the Cathance
in Topsham; and finally, the acquisition of development rights for
all the Bay shoreline in Bowdoinham.
E. Comprehensive Plan, Brunswick, Maine, 1974 (written by the
Brunswick Planning Board).
This recent plan document was written by the Brunswick Planning Board
in anticipation of the drafting of a revised Zoning Ordinance. It is
essentially a policy statement intended to act as a guide to growth,
growth which is considered imminent.
The new extension of I-95 to Augusta as well as the existing improved
access between the towns of Bath and Brunswick are expected to put
Brunswick under considerable development pressure. In view of this,
the plan suggests a number of changes to be introduced. Among the
suggestions are the following:
1. relate soil types and capability to zoning districts and
performance criteria.
2. encourage greater building densities in the "cove" (village)
area.
3. adopt more stringent standards to preserve vulnerable wetlands and
flood plain areas.
4. adopt ordinances that prevent "poor development;" long term
performance bonds are suggested as a possible means to achieve this
as are more stringent development standards.
5. develop zoning policies that encourage a greater spectrum of
housing types.
6. zone to protect the town from a proliferation of shopping
areas.
7. encourage new industry to locate in the corridor between Route 1
and the Bath Road.
8. improve access to the shoreline and develop recreation space near
the water.
The town anticipates that private septic tank sewage systems will
continue to be the main sewage disposal method, although the sewer
district is upgrading the municipal sewer system.
Evidently the town of Brunswick has a land acquisition program and
has already acquired certain islands in the Androscoggin.
The Brunswick Planning Board notes that the town presently enjoys a
pleasant character with a fairly well defined urban area and open
rural lands surrounding it. They express a desire to maintain this
growth pattern yet acknowledge the fact that ribbon (strip)
development is occurring. They see, too, that the existence of basic
utilities and services and good access in the vicinity of Cooks
Corner and the Brunswick Naval Air Station represents an opportunity
for encouraging growth to occur there.
F. Richmond Comprehensive Plan (prepared by the Richmond Planning
Board).
Richmond's Comprehensive Plan is a 46-page document with a number of
illustrative maps. It is a thorough study done by the Planning Board
with assistance from students at the University of Maine at
Portland-Gorham. The Plan reports on the town's history, its present
status, its resources, citizen opinions, and the future.
The following is not meant to be a complete summary of the Plan but
rather a point by point summary of those items most pertinent to the
Merrymeeting Bay Study.
Richmond Today:
1. Two sources of pollution in the Kennebec originate in Richmond.
First, the present treatment plant cannot handle all the waste
discharged into it; some bypasses directly into the Kennebec. Second,
a stream runs through the town dump carrying pollution with it.
2. Richmond has three schools, Buker School (K-5), a new Junior High
(6-8), and an old Senior High (9-12).
3. There are two industries in the town, Eaton Shoe Company with
about 320 employees and Clarostat, an electronics firm that employs
about 110 persons.
4. The report recognizes the impact I-95 will have on the town in
terms of new development which will, in turn, put pressure on schools
and the police and fire departments among others.
5. The town has seen a marked increase in the number of new home
starts since 1969 when two homes were built and 1973, when over 26
new homes were constructed. In addition, sixteen mobile home permits
were issued in 1972.
6. Richmond is seen as being an area in the state that will
experience dramatic population growth lying as it does within a
circle of 20-mile radius that already contains a fifth of the state's
population.
7. The plan recommends "careful and restrained" development that
respects rural open space and the town's natural resources, many of
which are mapped on resource maps published in the report.
8. In a "Citizens' Opinion" survey that polled some 20% of the town's
families, a variety of opinions were elicited. Generally, the
respondents opted for a small town type atmosphere yet the majority
expected the town to grow. Half hoped growth would occur slowly. Over
two-thirds of those answering the questionnaire felt that new
industry and new housing should be located outside the village.
Richmond's Future:
1. The plan suggests the creation of a Richmond Development
Corporation to buy or build buildings for industry and to work for
the betterment of the town's economic future.
2. A summer open-air farm, craft, and antique market as an annual
event is suggested.
3. A need for a hotel or motel with restaurant, in harmony with the
character of the town, is seen as well as a need to encourage craft
stores.
4. The Kennebec, when clean, is seen as a recreational resource and a
commercial marina would be considered an asset. The protection of
wildlife habitat for sportsmen is also considered important.
5. The Comprehensive Plan describes strip development as the greatest
potential threat the town faces in its rural areas. Grouping such
development is seen as an alternative.
6. The growth rate of about 25 dwelling units per annum is viewed as
ideal; this reflects the present rate and would mean a doubling of
the town's present population to 5,000 people over a 20-year
period.
G. Bowdoinham's Comprehensive Plan (prepared by the Bowdoinham
Planning Board 1975).
In February 1975,Bowdoinham adopted a Comprehensive Plan. That plan
was written by the planning board with assistance from the SCOGIS
(footnote 1) group. The main points of the plan are summarized
here.
Footnote 1. School of General and Interdisciplinary Studies,
University of Maine, Portland-Gorham.
Bowdoinham is characterized as a residential community with its work
force being employed mainly in the Bath/Brunswick area. However, it
is suspected that the town will be subject to development pressures
in the next 20 years--primarily because of I-95. As this is contrary
to the wishes of the majority of residents who wish to maintain the
village/rural character of the town, the report stresses the need to
adopt comprehensive land use regulations.
The report points out that among its natural resources the town can
count flood plains and farmlands, forests and wetlands, the last
being particularly important as wildlife habitat. The town people
evidently wish to maintain the shoreland areas as natural areas and
the plan calls for this through the adoption of shoreland zoning.
Mention is made of the 500-acre State Game Management Area on Reed's
Point and of the town's desire to keep this area as such.
Among those measures suggested to control growth are a larger minimum
lot size (one acre in the village, two acres in the outlying areas),
expansion of the building code, a sign ordinance, strict enforcement
of the State Plumbing Code, and a requirement that developers provide
proof of their financial capability to complete a project. The plan
calls for the use of measures to encourage cluster developments and
for the drafting of a well-written subdivision ordinance that
encourages a mix of housing types.
Bowdoinham has only two small industries employing less than fifty
people. The majority of town people, however, favor more industry
preferably--light non-polluting ones. The best location for this
would be west of the village where proximity to water and future
sewage lines--as well as I-95--is considered an advantage.
Property is taxed at 75% of market value and assessed at 30 mills
($30 per $1000 of valuation). As tax revenues are based almost
entirely on property, any increases in the town operating budget is
passed on directly to property owners.
The plan expressly calls for the careful control of highway-related
development near the I-95 intersection through land use
regulation.
Those sections of the plan dealing with Government, Community
Services, and Recreation add little of general interest to regional
planning and make few recommendations other than the need for a
regional dump.
A questionnaire in the Appendix to the Comprehensive Plan provides
valuable information on resident attitudes. The main results of that
survey, to which 25% of the town's population responded, are listed
below.
1. 74% felt Bowdoinham should grow slowly.
2. 59% wanted one-acre lots in the village.
3. 38% wanted one-acre lots outside the village, 54% preferred
two-acre lots there.
4. 43% of the residents feel more stores are needed, the rest feel
there are enough now.
5. 72% wanted more industry.
6. 61% felt more housing was needed.
7. 76% saw a need for more recreational area.
8. 60% wanted industry outside village.
9. 61% wanted new housing to be located outside the village.
Of those responding to the questionnaire 70% worked out of town. The
following is a breakdown of the types of employment of the
respondents:
Government service 8%
Skilled & Semi-skilled 33%
Business people 11%
Agriculture 1%
Professional 10
Housewife 14%
Retired 23%
100%
Local land use controls can be broad and powerful tools capable of
protecting natural and cultural values in a community. Towns around
Merrymeeting Bay can utilize both educational and regulatory
mechanisms to ensure that development occurs at a pace and manner
compatible with local desires. Among the existing mechanisms are Town
Zoning Ordinances (Title 30 M.R.S.A.), Shoreland Zoning (Title 12,
M.R.S.A.), Subdivision Ordinances (Title 30 M.R.S.A.), Comprehensive
Planning (Title 30 M.R.S.A.), and building and housing codes.
Institutions involved in the utilization of these mechanisms include
Regional Planning Commissions, Planning Boards, and Conservation
Commissions. The extent to which these mechanisms and institutions
are employed is displayed in Table 7-1. In addition, the following
paragraphs discuss the status and effectiveness of the principal
control mechanism, zoning. The discussion is broken down into two
parts: Town Zoning and Shoreland Zoning.
Table 7-1 MUNCIPAL PLANNING SURVEY Merrymeeting Bay Area Towns SZ RPC PB CP CC ZO SO HC BC MH CIP Bath x x x x x x x x x x Brunswick x x x x x x x x x x x Topsham x x x x x x x x x Bowdoinham * x x x x x x Bowdoin * Richmond x x x x x x x Dresden x x x x x x x x Woolwich x x x x x x x SZ - Shoreland Zoning RPC - Regional Planning Commission Member PB - Planning Board CP - Comprehensive Planning Process CC - Conservation Commission ZO - Zoning Ordinance SO - Subdivision Ordinance HC - Housing Code BC - Building Code MH - Mobile Home Ordinance CIP - Capital Improvement Program * State-imposed Shoreland Zoning. SOURCE: A survey of Municipal Planning Activity, State Planning Office, Augusta 1972 (updated by Reed & D'Andrea 1975).
Zoning represents a tried and trusted means of controlling and
guiding development. Most of the towns around the Bay have adopted
some form of zoning, be it that represented by Shoreland Zoning or
the more conventional Town Zoning Ordinance that defines districts or
zones and then stipulated uses permitted within them.
In order to determine how the zoning mechanism can be used and
perhaps improved to better the quality of life in the Merrymeeting
Bay area, the various ordinances for the towns have been studied,
their main points summarized and their collective shortcomings noted.
In a later section of this report the findings of these analyses are
interpreted into definitive recommendations (see Chapter 8).
Of the eight communities within the study area all but two, Bowdoin
and Bowdoinham, have enacted Shoreland Ordinances; in these two towns
a State Imposed Ordinance is in effect. Five of the towns have Zoning
Ordinances; they are Richmond, Topsham, Brunswick, Bath, and
Woolwich. The key points in the Zoning Ordinances for these five
towns are summarized below, analyses of the Shoreland Ordinances for
these same towns and Dresden follow.
A. Summary Descriptions
Richmond
Richmond's Zoning Ordinance was adopted June 20, 1974. It contains
six districts, most of which impinge on the study area. A Shoreland
Zone is made part of the Ordinance but is discussed separately in
this report. The remaining districts in the town are the Resource
Protection, Agricultural, Village, Residential, and the
Commercial-Industrial District.
Lot sizes in Richmond are related to their location. Shore lots can
be a minimum of 20,000 square feet (with a minimum shore frontage of
100 feet). Where lots are adjacent to the public sewer system, the
minimum size permitted is also 20,000 square feet. Areas not served
by a sewer system must have lots of not less than 60,000 square
feet.
Below is a summary of the main features of each of the five districts
previously listed.
Resource Protection District
The district is primarily designed to prevent pollution and protect
wildlife habitat. It has been utilized along the banks of the stream
feeding Pleasant Pond, on either side of I-95 and in the stream
valley to the northwest of the village. The zone permits open space
use. Agriculture, gardening, and timber harvesting are permitted upon
the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. All other uses are
prohibited.
Agricultural District
About 80% of Richmond falls into this zone which permits single and
two-family dwelling units including mobile homes within it. Small
commercial and industrial structures on lots of less than one acre
are also permitted yet food operations and service stations are not
allowed, Churches, schools and public buildings are allowed in the
district.
Village District
This is a small district centered around the village of Richmond. All
those uses permitted in the Agricultural District are permitted as
well as the following after successful Conditional Use Permit
application: multi-family units, cluster developments, mobile homes,
and larger commercial and industrial buildings.
Residential District
This district extends westward from the village to I-95 on either
side of Route 197. Uses permitted in the Agricultural District are
also allowed in this district. Multi-family units, cluster
development, mobile homes and mobile home parks are allowed upon
authorization of a Conditional Use Permit.
Commercial-Industria1 District
Any commercial or industrial use is permitted if approved through the
Conditional Use Permit procedure. No residential structures are
permitted. Richmond has three such zones, in the village, and at the
junctions of Route 197 with I-95, and Route 201. The largest of these
zones is in the northwest quadrant of the I-95 -Route 197
intersection; it appears isolated by resource protection areas.
Richmond has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) clause which provides
for new concepts in house siting. A minimum development area of ten
acres is required for a PUD and provisions for common land
maintenance are among the other set requirements.
Residential densities for PUDs and for multi-family units are limited
to the same densities as set for single family units whereas a
density of about ten mobile homes to the acres is allowed in mobile
home parks in the Residential District.
Topsham
Topsham has four zoning districts in addition to the recently adopted
Shoreland Zoning. They are: urban residential zone, commercial zone,
rural residential zone, and industrial zone.
Urban Residential Zone
This zone includes and surrounds the village of Topsham; it follows
the Androscoggin east to Lovers Lane Road and extends west almost to
I-95/Lewiston Road junction. Uses permitted in the Urban Residential
Zone include:
--single family units, churches, municipal buildings, rest homes,
etc.
--multi-family units, tourist homes, variety stores, funeral homes,
etc., require appeal before permission will be granted.
A minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is required. For
multi-family units the lot size is 10,000 square feet plus 2,000
square feet per unit beyond the first.
Commercial Zone
All uses permitted in the Urban Residential Zone are allowed in the
Commercial Zone plus the following:
--parking lots, banks, hotels, offices, restaurants, retail
businesses, etc.
--filling stations, theaters, garages, and industrial uses, etc., may
be permitted on appeal.
The zone is located along the Lewiston Road between Maine Street and
the I-95 intersection.
Rural Residential Zone
This zone which includes the majority of the town's land, including
much of the Cathance and Muddy River drainage area, permits all uses
allowed in the Urban Residential Zone as well as:
--agricultural uses, gravel operations, motels, multiple dwelling
units, saw mills, mobile homes, and mobile home parks.
--trailer parks, commercial/industrial uses, auto junk yards, etc.,
will be permitted on appeal provided they meet certain minimum
standards.
Minimum lot sizes in this zone are: single family units (one acre),
multi-family residential units (10,000 square feet plus 2,000 square
feet per unit beyond the first unit). The minimum lot size for
industrial lots is 40,000 square feet. The minimum size for mobile
homes in parks is only 2,500 square feet.
Industrial Zone
Any industrial use not injurious to health or noxious is permitted.
Three such zones exist; one on the Androscoggin at Pejepscot, another
south of the Commercial Zone, and west of the Urban Residential
Zone.
Brunswick
The town of Brunswick has ten zoning districts yet only one of these,
the Countryside Residential Zone, lies within this report's Study
Area. The minimum lot size permitted in this zone is one acre; a
larger minimum lot size (two acres) is required in the town's Forest
and Farm Zone, a zone lying west of the town.
Countryside Residential Zone
As the town is currently considering substantial revisions to its
ordinance, it is not worth dwelling on the details of the present
Countryside Residential District. However, a brief listing of
permitted uses and uses permitted after successful appeal is in
order.
The following are permitted as a matter of right:
--single-family dwellings on separate lots, travel trailers, places
of worship, parks, country clubs, agricultural uses, timber removal,
home occupations.
The following are the more important uses permitted on appeal:
--mobile homes and mobile home parks, campgrounds, clustered
residential development, schools, governmental buildings, hospitals,
summer camps, boat launching facility, craft studios, marinas,
veterinary establishments, stables, outdoor recreation facilities
conducted for profit, private airport.
Two other provisions in the Countryside District are of general
interest. First, clustered residential development that will allow
net densities up to 12 dwelling units to the acre are permitted on
appeal. This provision thus allows a developer who is innovative and
who is prepared to meet quite strict "performance standards" to
"receive" a "bonus" of a higher density (the district minimum being
one dwelling unit per acre). The standards in this case require that
the development be connected to town water and sewage systems, that
adequate open space areas be provided and, among others, that a
performance guarantee or bond be made out to the town.
Second, Brunswick allows mobile homes and mobile home parks through
an appeal and permit procedure. Thus residential densities in the
Countryside District in mobile home parks are about 7 or 8 units to
the acre. Like Bath, Brunswick requires detailed plot plans along
with a sanitation certificate and municipal engineer's report. The
minimum park size permitted is eight acres. Paved roadways, street
lights, landscaping and on-site or municipal sewage systems are also
required. The minimum mobile home parking space or lot specified is
5,000 square feet.
Brunswick has a special section in the Zoning Ordinance dealing with
flood plain areas along the Androscoggin River. No building permits
for structures for human occupancy will be issued in these areas
where only woodland, grassland, agricultural, civic, governmental, or
outdoor recreation uses are permitted.
Bath
The current city of Bath Zoning Ordinance creates nine zones. (The
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance is a separate document and is reviewed
later in this report.) Of the nine zones, three are particularly
important relative to the Bay's shoreline; they are the Country
Residence District and the Urban and Suburban Residence Districts. In
addition, in the city's Central Area, a Marine Business District
exists between the shoreline of the Kennebec and Commercial and Front
Streets.
Single family, duplex, and apartment buildings are permitted in all
three residential districts, the minimum lot size for the Country
Residential Zone being one acre for single family dwellings and
60,000 square feet for apartments. Farms are permitted in the
Suburban and Country districts, although swine raising is not allowed
in the former. A variety of uses are permitted on appeal in each of
these zones, the more notable ones being:
In the Country Residential Zone: mobile homes and mobile home parks,
camp grounds, places of worship, schools, governmental buildings,
playgrounds, non-profit or education center buildings, hospitals, and
nursing homes, country clubs, marinas, lumber and building supply
yards, drive-in theaters, bottling plants, repair shops,
manufacturing plants, trucking terminals, saw mills, and petroleum
product storage.
In the Suburban Residential Zone: places of worship, schools,
governmental buildings, playgrounds, non-profit or education center
buildings, hospitals and nursing homes, country clubs, manufacturing
plants.
In the Urban Residential Zone, the same uses as listed in the
Suburban Zone are permitted on appeal with the exception of research
facilities which are not allowed in this zone.
Other items of interest in the Ordinance relating to the Residential
Zones concern minimum lot sizes for mobile home parks (3 acres) and
industrial, wholesale, and transportation uses (2 acres).
Bath has quite specific regulations governing mobile homes and mobile
home parks. These regulations state that a permit for operating a
park will be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer if plot plans, a
sanitation certificate, and a City Engineer's Report are submitted.
Standards for the park include a requirement that the roadways be
paved, that parking areas be of gravel and that the park be suitably
landscaped. Street lights are required and all homes are to be
connected to the Bath Sewer System or an on-site system.
Individual mobile homes must meet stated requirements as well before
a permit is issued. These requirements call for proper landscaping,
year-round walkways, off-street parking, and underskirts of long-
lasting materials.
The issuance of building permits in the City of Bath is subject to
evidence of satisfactory subsurface soil conditions. Soil suitability
must be based on on-site inspection.
Woolwich
The Woolwich Development Planning Ordinance seeks to achieve a number
of objectives. Chief among them are those seeking to: encourage
industrial and business growth, maintain a single family character to
the town, allow growth that does not destroy the unique environment
or property values, conserve natural resources, allow access to
waterways and provide open space for recreation.
The Shoreland Zoning Provisions are made part of each of the
Districts described below: Residential District, General Purpose
District, Rural District, Resource Protection District.
The majority of Woolwich is designated as a Rural District. Within
the Merrymeeting Bay Study Area; however, all four districts are
represented. The Day's Ferry area falls into the Residential
District; much of the shoreline of the Kennebec south of Day's Ferry
is designated General Purpose. The remainder of the study area is
Rural with the exception of specific Resource Protection Districts;
these include the Tristam Coffin Wildflower Preserve, Chops Creek,
and an inlet east of Lines Island. Apparently Lines and Thorne
Islands are both in the Rural District.
The uses permitted by right or by appeal to the Planning Board within
each district are described below, as are the shoreland provisions
that are incorporated in these same districts.
Residential District
The minimum lot size permitted in this district is one acre. This is
also applicable to shoreline lots where frontage is limited to a
minimum of 200 feet and the minimum depth is set at 250 feet; all
buildings on the shore are to be set back 100 feet from the high
water mark. Single family units (including mobile homes) are
permitted by right while churches, schools, hospitals, multiple
dwellings, and cluster developments will be permitted if approved by
the Planning Board. Hotels, mobile home parks, businesses and
industry are not allowed.
General Purpose District
All land uses permitted in the other districts are permitted in this
district (as are mobile home parks, non-noxious industry and
business). In shoreland areas only water-related business and
industry is allowed and then only as a special exception. The minimum
lot for all uses is one acre.
Rural District
This district is intended to be set aside mainly for farm and forest
land uses. The minimum residential lot size is 1 1/2 acres with a
minimum frontage of 200 feet. All uses accepted in the Residential
and Resource Protection Districts will be permitted in this
district.
Resource Protection District
The prime purpose of this district is to protect shoreland and
conserve natural beauty and wildlife habitat. Uses allowed include
harvesting wild crops, non-intensive recreation, foresting,
aquaculture, and agriculture. No clear cutting or the use of
pesticides is permitted. After review and provided they do no harm,
public facilities for education or nature study are permitted as are
single family dwellings. Business, industry, hotels, mobile home
parks, and clustered development is not permitted. Although it
remains unclear in the ordinance, Woolwich apparently prohibits
mobile home parks in all districts.
Woolwich has made provision for Clustered Residential Development in
its ordinance. The minimum acreage for a cluster development is 20
acres. The performance standards required are, however, formidable
considering that the net residential density permitted is only one
unit per 1 1/2 acres and that a performance bond is required of the
developer.
B. Town Zoning Ordinance Commentary
Whereas the preceding review of Town Ordinances in the Merrymeeting
Bay area summarizes their content this section considers their
effectiveness, in terms of the goals of the towns themselves, in
relation to each other, and in relation to the Bay itself (see
Map 23).
Perhaps the single most glaring deficiency is the flexibility of the
restrictions in the rural parts of the towns, especially through
appeal. None of the towns have any provision to set aside prime
agricultural land; all permit small lot (1 to 1 1/2 acres), single
family housing anywhere in their least restrictive, rural-type zones.
If growth over the next decade is substantial, much farmland will be
lost to development and the rural landscape that characterizes the
towns today (and that is a scenic resource valuable to the state's
tourist industry) will be diminished. The present zoning pattern does
nothing to inhibit this.
Of all the towns, Richmond has made the best progress in this regard.
Minimum lot sizes are 60,000 square feet and dense land uses such as
mobile home parks, multi-family housing, etc., are prohibited in
their Agricultural District. Topsham, in contrast, allows these uses
as well as industrial uses, saw mills, auto junk yards, motels, etc.
Brunswick permits mobile home parks and clustered residential
development with up to twelve dwelling units per acre, on appeal, in
a Countryside District that otherwise permits only one-acre lots.
Similarly, Bath permits apartment buildings and manufacturing plants
in its Country Residential Zone through the appeal procedure. To
allow such higher density type developments, at random, in these
districts is to compromise the rural or country character the
district presumably seeks to achieve.
The towns need to make decisions as to what they wish to preserve,
and where, and to then draw up strict ordinances to guide development
into this pattern. To do otherwise is to ask for an undifferentiated
sprawl of one-acre "country" lots--a super subdivision that devours
farmland in the name of growth and progress.
The only town to act to protect flood-prone areas is Brunswick; all
the towns of the Bay area should incorporate Flood Plain Area Zoning
into their ordinances where it is found to be needed.
The new I-95 highway passes through and has intersections in Topsham,
Bowdoinham, and Richmond; yet only Richmond has reacted to it through
its zoning mechanism. Richmond has zoned land on either side of the
highway Resource Protection in recognition of the need to preserve
the rural character of the "view from the road" and also in
recognition of the negative effects the highway has specifically in
terms of noise pollution, Both towns can learn from Richmond's
example.
Richmond has further recognized the potential I-95 creates for
development by creating a Commercial/Industria1 district at its
intersection with Route 197. Nevertheless the location of the
district northwest of the intersection and cradled by a Resource
Protection district is questionable. Better land for commercial uses
seems to be available to the southwest of the intersection.
Zoning related to mobile home parks varies in each of the towns.
Woolwich apparently prohibits such parks as does Dresden. Topsham,
Bath, and Brunswick permit them in their "rural" or countryside
residential zones and Richmond restricts their location to its
Residential Zone--an area to the west of the village. This last
approach seems most reasonable for it recognizes the legitimacy of
the mobile home park as a viable residential environment yet treats
it as a higher density type use most suited to a primarily
residential (as against rural) district. All the towns, however,
should look towards incorporating more "quality of life" type
improvements into their mobile home park requirements.
Some of the Bay area towns have incorporated special or "innovative"
provisions into their ordinances. The most notable being those
dealing with cluster and planned unit type development. The intent of
these is to encourage better subdivision and/or site planning through
the provision of less restrictive setbacks and yard size requirements
and the encouragement of so-called "common" open space. Unfortunate
the good intentions behind these provisions have been lost in a maze
of "requirements." The zoning as it now stands provides no incentive
to the developer--it's easier and less costly for the developer to
avoid innovation when the opposite should be the case. The concept of
providing the developer with a bonus (like a slightly higher
permitted density) would help rectify this situation.
Richmond has a Planned Unit Development Ordinance but requires that
they be a minimum of ten acres and have the same density as
conventional subdivisions. Brunswick, on the other hand, has a
Clustered Residential Development section that permits up to twelve
dwelling units per acre in any of the residential districts,
districts where the lot size is one acre. Woolwich's Cluster
Residential Development clause is very confused; as currently drafted
it allows net densities of only 1 1/2 acres per unit or parcels of 20
acres or more. This has the effect of punishing a developer rather
than rewarding the developer for being innovative.
C. Planning Implications
The preceding comments suggest that the following steps be taken by
the Bay towns to upgrade and make more effective their present
zoning:
1. Restrict development through large lot zoning (10 to 20
acres/unit), conservation zoning, and agricultural zoning in those
areas of prime scenic and/or agricultural value.
2. Limit higher density type development (2 or more units/acre) in
rural areas to areas of good access only.
3. Eliminate permitting drive-in theaters, industrial type uses,
large manufacturing plants, etc., in predominantly rural/countryside
areas and zone areas specifically for these uses, (This is
particularly applicable to Topsham, Brunswick, and Bath.)
4. Zone to take into account the possible future impact I-95 may have
on land uses adjacent to it (i.e., buffer zone alongside the highway
and commercial type zoning at intersections).
5. Restrict mobile home park development and multi-family and
apartment development to areas zoned predominantly for such uses.
6. Improve or incorporate Planned Unit and cluster Development
provisions that provide incentives for developers to build
innovatively.
7. Utilize the "bonus" concept as a means to encourage quality
development.
8. Incorporate Flood Plain Zoning measures into existing zoning
ordinances.
9. Revise and improve the existing cluster and Planned Unit
Development ordinances.
NOTE: A discussion of new types of zoning being utilized else-where
in the country that may have application to the Merrymeeting Bay area
is incorporated into this report in Chapter 6.0.
If any single, general critique can be leveled at all the towns, with
the possible exception of Richmond, it is the lack of firm direction
implied by their ordinances. No strong physical plan to guide
development is inherent in the present ordinances or district maps.
The results of this weak input on the official level are beginning to
show up as strip commercial and residential development along the
once rural town roads. Strong and forceful new zoning provisions such
as those listed above need to he adopted.
The Mandatory Shoreline Zoning Act requires municipalities to enact
zoning and subdivision controls for land within 250 feet of a water
body. The controls are established specifically to:
1. Further maintenance of safe and healthful conditions.
2. Prevent and control water pollution.
3. Protect spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other
wildlife.
4. Control building sites, placement of structures, and land
uses.
5. Conserve shore cover, visual as well as actual points of access to
inland and coastal waters and natural beauty.
Obviously this act has particular significance for Merrymeeting Bay
and the municipalities around the Bay have interpreted it in various
ways, basing their interpretation on a model ordinance drafted by the
State Planning Office. This section reviews that model ordinance
along with the main features of the individual ordinances drafted by
the towns. Neither Bowdoin or Bowdoinham have, as yet, developed
their own Shoreland Zoning and are subject to a state-imposed
ordinance which imposes a temporary moratorium on all development
within 250 feet of designated water bodies.
In late 1974 the Southern Mid Coast Regional Planning Commission
published an analysis of all the zoning ordinances in their region
with emphasis on shoreland zoning. This chapter draws much of its
material from that publication (Vinal 1974). The following is a brief
summation of the key features of the State Guidelines for Municipal
Shoreland Zoning Ordinances taken from the Southern Mid Coast
Regional Planning Commission report.
*Variously termed Shoreline Zoning or the Mandatory Shoreline Zoning
and Subdivision Law.
Districts
Three shoreland districts are suggested: Resource Protection, General
Development, and Residential. Areas that should be identified as
Resource Protection Districts include wetlands, floodplains, and
slopes of greater than 25% with unstable soil. General Development
Districts are those areas with intensive residential uses and
recreational, commercial, and industrial uses.
Uses
The most important guidelines in the state's model ordinance suggest
that:
--no building be permitted in the Resource Protection District
--Planning Board permits be required for all principal structures to
be placed in the Residential and General Development Districts
--Planning Board permits be required for "impact" development; i.e.
campgrounds, public utilities, uses projecting into water bodies,
etc.
--the following minimum requirements be enforced:
lot size - 20,000 square feet
shore frontage - 100 feet
setback from water - 75 feet
lot coverage - 20%
Land Use Standards
Detailed standards governing the following activities are included in
the state's guidelines--most of which have been incorporated into the
individual town shoreline ordinances:
1) Agricultural
2) Beach construction
3) Campgrounds
4) Shoreland clearing
5) Erosion & sedimentation
6) Mineral exploration
7) Uses projecting into water bodies
8) Road construction
9) Sanitary standards
10) Signs
11) Soils
12) Timber harvesting control
13) Water quality protection
Administration
The final section in the model ordinance deals with the
administration of the ordinance. Again the Bay area towns have
adopted similar provisions dealing with (1) code enforcement officer
and board of appeals, (2) permits, (3) appeals and variances, and (4)
enforcement. Further information concerning the manner in which each
town deals with code enforcement is found in Table 7-2. That same
table rates the overall effectiveness of the present shoreline
provisions in the Bay area towns. No one town is adjudged as "weak"
in this respect; Bath, Brunswick, and Topsham rate as "adequate" and
Dresden, Richmond, and Woolwich are rated as having "strong" and
effective provisions. Each of these municipal ordinances is reviewed
hereafter.
A. Summary Descriptions
Richmond
Richmond's Zoning Ordinance (which is reviewed previously)
incorporates specific shoreline provisions within it. A Resource
Protection District that prohibits all building is thus part of the
zoning ordinance. Another district, the Shoreland District, permits
structures as conditional uses on approval of the Planning Board. The
district covers a 250-foot wide strip alongside the west bank of the
Kennebec, on both sides of the Abagadasset River, and on the east
bank of Pleasant Pond. The following uses are permitted: open space,
agriculture, and gardening, timber harvesting, accessory uses, boat
houses, and piers and docks. In addition, Conditional Use Permits for
the following may be approved: parks and private recreation,
campgrounds, commercial uses that require shoreline locations,
single- family, two-family, and multi-family residential
development.
Although Richmond sets a minimum of 20,000 square feet for shoreland
lots and limits shore frontage to 100 feet and setbacks to 100 feet,
provision 4.2.4 (2.a.2) requires the aggregate shoreline frontage and
setback be not less than 500 feet; this apparently contradicts the
minimum lot size requirement.
Topsham
Topsham's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance creates three districts,
Resource Protection, Residential, and Commercial-Industrial. The
districts are
TABLE 7-2 SHORELAND ZONING RATINGS BY TOWN** MUNICIPALITY PROVISIONS RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERALL DISTRICTS RATING Scenic & Historic Impact of Development Code Enforcement (a) Permits for Residential Structures (a) Houses Allowed Size (b) Concept Understood BATH ) A . A CEO PB No M . A A Bowdoin State-Imposed Ordinance Bowdoinham " " " BRUNSWICK A A CEO CEO A Dresden* A A CEO PB No B S S RICHMOND BI BI No F S S TOPSHAM S A CEO CEO/PB Yes M W A WOOLWICH S S CEO BI Yes M S S Towns in capital letters have townwide zoning. *Indicates that the shoreland provisions have received final state approval. RATING SYSTEM S = more than adequate, strong (on overall rating, it means no changes recommended by SMCRPC staff) A = adequate ton overall rating indicates that a few changes might be recommended by SMCRPC staff) N = weak, insufficient, not adequate (as determined by SMCRPC staff) (a) Code Enforcement: CEO = Code Enforcement Officer, BI = Building Inspector, PB = Planning Board (b) Resource Protection District Size: F = few areas placed in RPD, M - many areas placed in RFD (or a sizable portion of the shoreland), B = a banding technique used. **Extracted from Table in "Zoning in the Southern Mid Coast Region," November 1974, Frances E. Vinal.
limited to a distance of 250 feet from the Androscoggin, Cathance,
and Muddy Rivers and an equal distance from the Bay itself and they
coincide with the present zoning districts. Hence the Resource
Protection District falls within the town's Rural Residential Zone,
the Residential (shoreland) district falls within the Urban
Residential Zone, and the last district within the respective
Commercial and Industrial Zones. The table below shows what land uses
are permitted with or without the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit.
TABLE 7-3 TOPSHAM SHORELAND LAND USE RESTRICTIONS* District Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Resource wild crop harvest single-family (1. a. min) Protection recreation without forestry structures agriculture wildlife management recreation with structures marinas Residential single-family two-family & multi-family seasonal single church, public buildings family recreational uses accessory structures marinas Commercial/ commercial single-family & two-family Industrial industrial multi- family utilities recreation uses accessory structures *Note that the uses listed are only the most important ones.
As can be seen from the table, Topsham's Resource Protection District
does allow single-family structures on minimum lots of one acre
through a Conditional Use Permit procedure. The effectiveness of the
protection is thus dependent on the interpretation the Planning Board
puts on the criteria it uses for granting the permit. This is not an
ideal situation.
Setbacks and minimum frontage requirements within Topsham are the
same as those set forth by the state in its model ordinance.
Brunswick
Chapter 13 of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance spells out Shoreland
Zoning Regulations. The zoning map for the town has not as yet been
changed to reflect different districts in the general shoreland
category; at present the regulations state that they apply to "all
land areas within 250 feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high
water mark" of any pond, river, or salt water body.
Any structure proposed to be built in the Shoreland area must get a
permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such a permit will only be
granted if it can be proven that the structure will meet quite strict
environmental criteria that are spelled out in the regulations.
The regulations in Brunswick's Shoreland Zone are basically those
that are suggested in the state guidelines.
Bath
The city of Bath has a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance comprised of three
districts, Resource Protection, General Development, and Limited
Residential-Recreational. The first includes all areas where
development would adversely affect water quality, productive habitat,
biotic systems, or scenic and natural values. The General Development
district is defined as an area with four or more structures per 1,000
linear feet or areas of two acres or more devoted to intensive uses.
Other measures are also used; all, however, related to the density of
development and use as the means to define the district. Areas not
within the first two districts fall into the third, the Limited
Residential-Recreational District. Most of the shoreline within the
city of Bath falls into this last category, including Lines, Woods,
Crawford, Ram, and Sturgeon Islands. That portion of the Androscoggin
River shoreline between the city boundary and Bay Road is designated
Resource Protection as is that part of the Kennebec shoreline between
North and Drummond Streets.
Generally, the following uses are permitted in all three districts:
recreational uses (without structures), forest management, wildlife
management, soil and water conservation, mineral exploration, and the
harvesting of wild crops. A permit is required in the Resource
Protection District for timber harvesting and agriculture as wel1 as
for road construction, facilities for educational, scientific, or
nature purposes, and piers and docks, etc.
No structures are permitted in the Resource Protection District and
only residential units are allowed in the Limited
Residential-Recreational District. Residential, commercial, and
industrial structures are permitted, after Planning Board approval,
in the General Development District.
Lot sizes in Bath's Shoreland Districts may be a minimum of 20,000
square feet or 10,000 square feet if served by a sanitary sewer
system. Maximum coverage is set at 20% and the minimum share frontage
is 100 feet; no setback minimum is recorded.
The Southern Mid Coast Regional Planning Commission report states
that they see the ordinance as a strong one although it is felt that
special standards for marine-oriented uses or industrial uses might
have been incorporated.
Dresden
Dresden's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance is very complete and goes beyond
the minimum standards set forth in the state's model ordinance. The
ordinance includes two districts only, a Resource Protection District
and a Limited Residential-Recreational District and applies to all
land within 250 feet of the Bay, the Kennebec and Eastern Rivers, and
Mill Brook (so-called) and Nequasset Brook (so-called) and the
latter's two feeder brooks.
Dresden has adopted a "banding" technique for its zoning whereby a
portion of the shoreline tin most cases the first 50 feet) is, for
example, designated Resource Protection and the remainder (200 feet)
Limited Residential/Recreational. The town has also designated some
marsh areas that are larger than the 250-foot band as broad Resource
Protection areas.
TABLE 7-4 DRESDEN SHORELAND DISTRICT - PERMITTED USES District Permitted Uses Permitted after Approval* Resource recreational uses timber harvesting Protection forest management agriculture wildlife management recreational buildings wild crop harvesting parks, piers, docks, etc. road construction Limited as above plus: dwelling units Residential- parks & recreation accessory buildings Recreational areas piers, docks, etc. District small education, private sewage disposal scientific, or systems nature buildings timber harvesting *Either by the Code Enforcement Officer or Town Planning Board.
As the table above shows, no principal structures are permitted in
the Resource Protection District and only residential structures and
small educational, scientific, or nature study buildings are allowed
in the other district. Minimum lot sizes are set at one acre, minimum
shore frontage is 200 feet, and the setback requirement is 75
feet.
B. Shoreland Zoning Commentary
The map on the following page shows the extent
of the various Shoreland Zoning ordinances around the Bay and
arranges the different districts into six categories. The categories
simply make it possible to view the implications of each town's
ordinance from the same base--an exercise which is difficult to
accomplish when "Resource Protection" takes on a different meaning in
each municipality.
It is immediately apparent from the map that each community has
interpreted the intent of Shoreland Zoning differently. Nowhere does
the same zone occur on both sides of a town line. Interpretations as
to what is best around the Bay shoreline also vary from town to town.
The extent to which further variances occur is not fully apparent
from the map because the permit procedure introduces more room for
variation. In other words, individual land use decisions that rely on
approval by a permit procedure are subject to different
interpretations by different officials (code enforcement officers,
building inspectors, or planning board members).
It is also apparent from a study of the map that Richmond and Dresden
have used the Resource Protection District (where it allows no
structures) creatively to conserve valued and fragile wetlands and
shoreland, whereas the other communities have been less specific.
Furthermore these two towns have recognized that a 250-foot strip is,
on occasion, inadequate to protect a large resource; in these cases
they have enlarged the Resource Protection District area to ensure
complete protection. The table below shows the variations that occur
from town to town concerning residential lot size or shoreland
sites.
Residential Lot Restrictions for Shoreland Zones Town Lot size Shore frontage Setback Bath 10-20,000-sq.ft. 100 -- Bowdoin & Bowdoinham - temporary moratorium in effect Brunswick 20,000 100 75 Dresden 43,560 200 75 Richmond 20,000 100 100 Topsham 20,000 100 75 Woolwich 43,560 200 100
This table shows that no structures can be closer than 75 feet to the
high water mark; it also shows, when seen in context with the
Shoreland Zoning Use Analyses map, that the Ray could, in theory, be
almost surrounded by houses at 100 to 200 feet on center. Of course,
what occurs in Bowdoinham is still a matter of conjecture and, again,
much will depend on the interpretations put on applications for
construction via permit procedure.
C. Planning Implications
From the preceding the following conclusions can be drawn:
--differences between permitted uses on either side of town lines
should be resolved.
--most of the towns need to remodel their ordinances to make them
more in tune with actual site conditions and shoreland
characteristics .
--the 250-foot strip is inadequate in some cases and should be
extended.
--the lot size restrictions are not strict enough, especially in
terms of the 100-foot minimum frontage requirement.
--the amount of shoreline devoted to Resource Protection (i.e. no
structures) could be revised upward, especially if more detailed
information on soil and slope conditions is utilized.
These statements simply serve to point out that, although the concept
of Shoreland Zoning is admirable and the law itself represent
environmentally progressive legislation, it is still in the teething
stage and requires much refinement. This sentiment is echoed in the
recent State Planning Office document "Shoreland Zoning in Maine,"
Jan. 1975.
That same document points to a number of other problems associated
with shoreland zoning; most important relative to some of the Bay
area towns are the problems of administering and enforcing the act.
The municipalities have neither the funding, the expertise, or the
staff to rigorously apply the principles of shoreland zoning and to
monitor and enforce its requirements. The results are thus less than
optional. This, however, should not cause the basic concepts to be
questioned but rather it should cause changes and improvements to be
made.
The status of shoreland zoning in Bowdoin and Bowdoinham will be
reexamined by the state on August 7, 1975, if they have not enacted
their own ordinances by that time. As Bowdoinham is presently putting
together a comprehensive plan, it is probable that they will have an
ordinance by then. Bowdoin, however, is not actively planning and the
State Planning Office will probably have to make up a comprehensive
shoreland ordinance for them. (It should be noted that this will have
no impact on the Merrymeeting Bay Study area as no shoreland in the
area qualifies for inclusion as shoreland.)
Any commentary on Shoreland Zoning would be remiss not to point out
that the concept could be construed as exclusionary (see Coastal Zone
Management in Maine: A Legal Perspective, Harriet P. Henry, Dec.
1973, p. 14). Evidently it has not as yet been challenged along these
lines; but the effect is to make access to the shoreline for the
pubic awkward if not impossible. This thinking gives weight to the
idea of making subdivision ordinances require access to the
shorefront common to all dwellers in the subdivision. It further
suggests that subdividers could be required to provide public access
points to the Bay or its tributaries, especially if that point is
important to users of the Bay.
Harriet Henry's work suggests some possible means for controlling the
problem of too much shoreline development referred to earlier. First,
the 106th Legislature repealed a criterion in the act that stated a
subdivision must be shown to "not place an unreasonable burden on the
ability of local governments to provide municipal or governmental
services." Although adoption of this clause now would introduce more
red tape at the local administrative level, it could help control
development pressures. Second, performance standards could be used as
guidelines for development rather than specific lot sizes and
frontage restrictions. This would give more flexibility to the
present ordinances and provide opportunities for grouping buildings
rather than stringing them out ad infinitum. Performance standards
could use number of buildings per linear mile or square mile for
example.
It is worth noting that Richmond has provided some flexibility in its
ordinance by permitting Planned Unit or Cluster Development. The town
has also effectively' increased the amount of frontage required by
tying its frontage and setback minimum to an aggregate figure of 500
feet. The illustration below clarifies this
point. Unlike Richmond, Woolwich has unwisely disallowed cluster
housing in its shoreland district.
One final measure that might be used to increase the amount of
protection afforded the Bay area shoreline is to have property'
owners volunteer to have their land designated Resource Protection
(no structures permitted). There could be tax advantages to this move
for the property owner and the effect would be the same as a
restrictive easement.
This entire commentary has shown that despite its good points
Shoreland Zoning does present problems. The enforcement and
administrative aspects have been mentioned; shoreland zoning also
increases the number of hurdles any developer must overcome prior to
project approval, especially if the Site Location Law is involved.
All this suggests more expertise is required to handle the act and
brings up questions of how this can be provided at the local town
level.
State level land use controls consist of, generally, the power to
acquire fee simple or easements to property, to regulate via the
police power, and to encourage wise land use through fiscal
incentives and education. A list of state agencies and their powers
is presented in Table 7-5. A following discussion summarizes state
programs applicable to Merrymeeting Bay by type of involvement.
Several state agencies have the authority to acquire land, in part
or in total, through purchase, gift, or eminent domain. Those with
power of eminent domain include the Bureau of Parks (Department of
Conservation), Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, and the
Department of Transportation. Power companies, quasi-public agencies,
also have eminent domain powers. The Bureau of Forestry (Department
of Conservation) can acquire land holdings or easements through
purchase or gift only. The Department of Marine Resources can set
aside flats and waters for research purposes for up to ten years.
Most existing state-owned property in the Merrymeeting Bay area was
acquired through purchase or gift. Powers of eminent domain were used
by the Department of Transportation in the process of planning and
building Interstate 95. In addition, Central Maine Power Company has
exercised its eminent domain powers to acquire rights of way for
several power lines (see Section 6.2.3, Electric Power).
With the exception of highway and transmission line rights of way,
all other state property in the Bay has been acquired by purchase or
gift.
These include:
1. Swan Island and Little Swan Island which include 1,235 acres,
purchased by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Game in the early
40s. An additional 325 acres of adjacent tidal flats were acquired in
1952.
2. The Beatrice Baxter Memorial State Forest in Topsham given to the
state of Maine in 1969. This 125-acre tract is presently managed by
the Bureau of Public Lands, Department of Conservation.
TABLE 7-5 STATE LAND USE PLANNING/CONTROLS IN MERRYMEETING BAY Acquisition Public Service/ Fiscal incentives Planning/ capability Regulatory Education or controls research gen. public/ towns landowners towns landowners DEPT, CONSERVATION Bur. Parks & Recreation X* X Bur. Forestry X X X X X Bur. Geology X X STATE PLANNING OFFICE X1 X DEPT. AGRICULTURE X3 X X STATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE X X X DEPT. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION Bur. Taxation X X DEFT INLAND FISH & GAME X* X X X DEPT. MARINE RESOURCES X2 X X X DEPT. ENV'L PROTECTION X X X X DEPT. TRANSPORTATION X* X X DEPT. HUMAN SERVICES X X PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION X X Central Maine Power X* X * Include eminent domain powers. 1 Through Coastal Zone Management monies, some monetary assistance may be available to towns through Regional Planning Commissions for Code Enforcement, Legal Assistance, and other land use planning/control programs. 2 The DMR has the right to set aside land for research for a period of 10 years. It does not acquire full rights. 3 Disseminates information through Districts composed of towns.
Vinal, Frances E. 1974, Zoning in the Southern Mid Coast Region. Southern Mid Coast Regional Planning Commission, Bath, Me.