RURAL ZONING WORKING COMMITTEE

MEETING SUMMARIES

 

Meeting no. 13, March 17, 2008

 

Committee members present: Gail White, Mark Haggerty, Chris Dorion, Geoff Gordon, Sandy Cyrus, Mark Kittridge, Sally Jacobs, Frederick Jamison. Staff: Evan Richert. Public: George Bagley

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Comments on meeting summary of February 18, 2008: There was one concern noted with the summary of the February 18, 2008, meeting. Mark Kittridge noted that the descriptions reported for the committee reviews of the east and west sides of Route 2 were reversed. They have been corrected in the summary notes shown below.

 

  1. Proposed Overlay district review:
    1. Natural Communities Overlay – Evan summarized the proposal outlined in Background Paper #7. There are 2 primary outcomes that can be realized with this overlay. The first is to limit the allowed uses that would normally be allowed in the underlying zone. The second would be to add further restrictions on setbacks from what already exists in state and local regulations. The committee discussed these points and came to a consensus that this overlay is not necessary.
    2. Stillwater Avenue Overlay – Evan also summarized this proposal outlined in Background Paper #7. The committee discussed the scope and the details of the proposed standards proposed. While there was general agreement that the Low Impact commercial allowance proposed with the overlay was desirable there was no clear agreement on all the specifics proposed so it was decided to direct several open points to the community at the upcoming public workshop. One open point was concerning the general appearance of commercial buildings. Does the community want to require a residential appearance? Another item would be the required process of review and approval. Should new commercial proposals require site plan review unless it is in an existing residential structure that would not be altered externally? What kind of lighting requirements should be required? How should the traffic impact standards be established?
    3. Route 2 Scenic Overlay – east side of Route 2 – Evan also summarized this proposal outlined in Background Paper #7. The committee discussed the overlay proposal and decided to not move forward with the overlay proposal. Instead within the MDR requirements for the east side of Route 2 the committee decided to require a 200 foot setback for the mandatory clustered subdivisions and single family homes would have a 50 foot setback requirement. These requirements would be for the east side of Route 2 from the northern end of the golf course to the C2 district.

 

  1. Schedule for next Public Workshop: The committee decided to hold the final public workshop on May 5 from 7-9 p.m.
  2. Update Town Council on status of F&A zoning amendments: Evan and Mark Kittridge are tentatively scheduled to present the status of the committee’s work to the Town Council on April 7 at 4:30 p.m.

 

Next Meeting:  May 20, 2008

 

            Meeting Adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

 

Meeting no. 12, February 18, 2008

 

Committee members present: Gail While, Mark Haggerty, Chris Dorion, Geoff Gordon, Sandy Cyrus, Milos Blagojevic, Sally Jacobs. Staff: Evan Richert. Public: Dan Lapointe

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Comments on meeting summary of January 21, 2008: There were no concerns with the summary of the January 21, 2008, meeting. Evan noted that Jim McConnon would like to understand the rationale for the preliminary decision to go to 4-ac minimum and 55% open space (in subdivisions) for the F&A district.

 

  1. Zoning designations east of I-95:
    1. Penobscot North area – Sally summarized the status of discussions between landowners in this area, and it appears that agreement has been reached on an arrangement that would keep a major land parcel currently in F&A as open space while enabling development of two adjacent areas zoned C-2. If this materializes, the general sense is that what is now F&A should remain F&A.
    2. Route 2 Gateway – west side of Route 2 – The committee reviewed two options. The first would rezone this area to the new proposed Low Density Residential district but require any subdivisions to be clustered, creating a combination of neighborhood-type development and contiguous open space. The second was to keep this area as F&A, as that district will be re-defined (1 unit per 4 acres; subdivisions must be clustered with 55% open space). The majority sense of the committee was that this area should be F&A, as that district will be re-defined.
    3. Route 2 Gateway – east side of Route 2 – The committee also considered two options on this side of Route 2. The first would rezone this area to the new proposed Low Density Residential district but require any subdivisions to be clustered, with sufficient density for sewer line extensions.  The second would rezone the area to Medium Density Residential, as currently defined in the Land Use Ordinance, but requiring that subdivisions be clustered.  It also is anticipated that there may be a scenic overlay area along Route 2. The majority sense of the committee was that the area should be MDR, with clustered subdivisions.

 

  1. Low Density Residential District: The committee reviewed and modified a draft schedule of uses for this proposed new district.

 

  1. Next Meeting:  March 17, 2008

 

  1. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

 

Meeting no. 11, January 15, 2008

 

Committee members present: Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Mark Haggerty, Chris Dorion, Geoff Gordon, Sandy Cyrus, Andy Perkins, Milos Blagojevic, Sally Jacobs, James McConnon.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Meeting 10 Summary Review: There were no concerns with the summary of the November 2007 meeting.

 

 

  1. Overview of the tasks ahead of the committee: Evan outlined the next steps ahead of the committee for the January, February, and March meetings as follows:

·        Review and come to a decision on the density allowance and open space requirements for the new F&A district. This will be done at the January meeting.

·        Finalize the details for the Low Density Residential District.

·        Finalize details of the three proposed overlay districts – Natural Areas, Stillwater Ave, and Route 2 Scenic overlay.

·        Finalize the zoning designations for the areas east of I95.

 

  1. New F&A density and open space discussion: The committee discussed the proposals and comparison maps presented by Evan in Background paper #6A. All agreed that the proposed requirement for Conservation subdivisions was appropriate. Evan showed the committee examples of cluster/conservation subdivisions from other areas of the state. Much of the discussion focused on the pros and cons for a 1 unit/3acre requirement vs a 1 unit/4 acre requirement. Ultimately the majority of the committee agreed that we should propose a 1 unit/4 acre requirement. However the committee also agreed that the final decision should follow the discussion on the details of the Low Density Residential district at the February meeting.
  2. Initial review of proposals for the Low Density Residential District: Evan handed out copies of a proposal for the details of the Low Density Residential District and asked the committee to review the information prior to the February meeting.        
  3. Future Schedule: The committee decided to the next meeting would be scheduled for February 18th at 7PM.

  

Note: Sally Jacobs notified the committee that an Orono Land Trust meeting was scheduled for February 6 at 7PM in the Birch Street Senior Center to review and vote on a proposal to swap/purchase land with Mr. Schneider in the Penobscot North section of the F&A zone. Committee members were welcome to attend but only Land Trust members could participate in the vote.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05.

 

 

Meeting no. 10, November 26, 2007

 

Committee members present: Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Mark Haggerty, Warren Hedstrom, Geoff Gordon, Sandy Cyrus, Andy Perkins, Milos Blagojevic, Sally Jacobs, James McConnon, Frederick Jamison.  Staff: Evan Richert, Rick Sands

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Meeting 9 Summary Review: There were no concerns with the summary of the October meeting.

 

 

 

  1. Debriefing of Public Meetings of Oct 22&29: The committee held an informal discussion of the major points taken from the 2 Public Meetings held in October. Some of the highlights included:

·        There seemed to be general agreement among the public that the change from 4 acre minimum lot size requirement to 2 acre minimum in the F&A zone was a mistake.

·        There seemed to be some confusion as to the mission of the RZWC.

·        We heard that we should just leave things alone west of I95

·        The general opinion on the “Schneider lot” situation was to not recommend rezoning.

 

  1. Attempt to reach a conclusion on the Penobscot North area: The committee discussed the Penobscot North area but could not reach a consensus on the final recommendation for zoning in this area.
  2. Discussion of ramifications of different zoning densities: Rick Sands provided feedback to the committee regarding the potential impacts of establishing different density allowance in the F&A zone.
  3. Future Schedule: The committee decided to continue the work in progress into 2008 and tentatively agreed to spend as much time completing the work as necessary rather than trying to quickly wrap things up. The next meeting was scheduled for January 15, 2008.

  

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00.

 

 

Meeting no. 9, October 15, 2007

 

Committee members present: Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Mark Haggerty, Chris Dorion, Sandy Cyrus, Andy Perkins, Milos Blagojevic, Sally Jacobs, James McConnon, Frederick Jamison.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Meeting 8 Summary Review: There were no concerns with the summary of the September meeting.

 

 

 

  1. Complete review of Background paper #5: The committee continued to review the proposals outlined in Background paper #5. The following items were reviewed and agreed upon:

·        The committee reviewed the options proposed for the LDR areas. The only modification agreed to was the addition of a proposal to consider an “average” lot size condition for subdivisons. This would allow smaller lots and larger lots to be mixed together with limits on minimum lot size and a requirement to achieve a minimum average lot size. This would possibly allow subdivisions to be designed to fit the landscape better than a one size fits all approach. There was also discussion regarding the minimum lot size requirement for single lots. Should the committee consider lot sizes other than the standard 40,000 or 80,000 square feet? This will be discussed with the public.

·        The committee also reviewed the options proposed for the new F&A zones. There was general agreement among the committee to present the proposals to the public.

·        Similarly there was general agreement among the committee to propose the “Natural Communities Overlay” proposal presented in background paper #5.

·        Also the committee agreed that the proposed Stillwater overlay was acceptable as proposed.

·        And finally the committee agreed that the draft working map would provide a good forum for the public meetings

 

The committee discussed the basic format for the 2 public meetings scheduled for October 22 and 29.

  

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45.

 

 

Meeting no. 8, September 17, 2007

 

Committee members present: Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoffrey Wingard, Chris Dorion, Sandy Cyrus, Andy Perkins, Milos Blagojevic, Sally Jacobs.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

  1. Meeting 7 Summary Review: There were no concerns with the summary of the July meeting.

 

 

 

  1. Continued discussion of  potential approaches for each Sector: The committee continued to review the Penobscot North and Route 2 Gateway sectors as to the appropriate zoning approach as shown below:

 

  • Low-Density Suburban
  • True Forestry and Agriculture
  • Mixed Use Residential/Commercial
  • Resource Protection or Conservation

 

Mark read comments provided by Geoff Wingard who was at the Town Council meeting. Evan also relayed the opinions provided by Geoff Gordon and Mark Haggerty who were also at the Town Council meeting.

 

The committee could not come to a consensus regarding the approach to the Penobscot North sector. The following potential options will be presented to the public for their input and comment:

1.      Re-zone the sector as MDR

2.      Encourage a land swap between potential developers and the Orono Land Trust which would allow the front area to be developed with a secondary egress to Park Street.

3.      Leave the sector zoned as F&A

 

The committee also continued to try and reach a consensus on the Route 2 Gateway sector. There was general consensus that the area within the “Basin” should be re-zoned as MDR. Also the area east of Route 2 from the golf course south should be zoned to allow for residential development with MDR like densities but with an overlay zone along Route 2 that provided for a significant set-back. However for the area west of Route 2 there was not a consensus. The committee also decided to present the question to the public.

 

There was some quick discussion of the proposals made by Evan in Background paper #5. This discussion will continue into the next meeting.

 

The committee discussed and agreed to the following schedule for meeting #9 and 2 public workshops:

·        Meeting No 9                                                               10/15/07

·        Public Workshop for the F&A zone east of I-95           10/22/07

·        Public Workshop for the F&A zone west of I-95          10/29/07

  

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15.

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting no. 7, August 20, 2007

 

Committee members present: Chris Dorion, Warren Hedstrom, Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoffrey Gordon, Frederick Jamison, James McConnon, Mark Haggerty, Sandy Cyrus, Sally Jacobs.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

1.      Meeting 6 Summary Review: There were no concerns with the summary of the July meeting.

 

 

 

 

2.      Warm-up discussion regarding options for land use patterns: Evan presented 2 concepts for ways to look at how zoning ordinances could affect development. The first was based on the current dead-end road length restriction of 2500 feet. This showed that if nothing was changed from the current ordinances there are significant portions of the F&A zones that could not currently be developed. The second concept was based on the idea of localized community centers which would permit approximately quarter mile and half mile radius sized areas for development. The committee discussed these concepts and decided not to consider either.

 

3.      Continued discussion of  potential approaches for each Sector: Evan reviewed Background paper no. 4 – Framework for Thinking about Future of F&A District. This paper included some possible new/revised zoning concepts which included:

 

·        Low Density Suburban

·        True Forestry and Agriculture

·        Mixed Use Residential/Commercial

·        Resource Protection or Conservation

 

The committee then completed the spreadsheet that included the 8 Sectors and the “zones” shown above. Each Sector was categorized as to the most appropriate zone as a first step to developing solutions to the F&A issues presented at the Workshop. All 8 Sectors except Penobscot River North were completed.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00.

 

 

Meeting no. 6, July 16, 2007

 

Committee members present: Chris Dorion, Andy Perkins, Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoffrey Gordon, Frederick Jamison, James McConnon, Mark Haggerty, Sandy Cyrus.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

4.      Public Workshop Meeting Review: Everyone felt the workshop was well attended and that there was good interaction between the public and the committee. It was noted and agreed to by most of the committee that there was limited feedback on the specific Sector goals and/or issues presented by the committee. Evan reviewed a summary of the workshop that he had prepared from Chris Dorion’s notes. Mark read an e-mail from Geoffrey Wingard who was not able to attend the meeting and also a letter from David Clement of Winterhaven Drive who had attended the workshop and wanted to provide his post-workshop thoughts.

 

 

5.      Zoning 101 presentation and discussion: Evan presented a review of how zoning law was fashioned and interpreted by the courts. Then he gave some insight as to how zoning might be used to achieve desired development outcomes.

 

6.      Initial discussion of  potential approaches for each Sector: Evan presented Background paper no. 4 – Framework for Thinking about Future of F&A District. This paper included some possible new/revised zoning concepts which included:

 

  • Low-Density Suburban
  • True Forestry and Agriculture
  • Mixed Use Residential/Commercial
  • Resource Protection or Conservation

 

Evan also showed the committee a spreadsheet that included the 8 Sectors and the “zones” shown above and suggested that the committee complete the exercise of assigning all or portions of each Sector to the most appropriate zone as a first step to developing solutions to the F&A issues presented at the Workshop. The committee agreed that each member should complete the exercise on their own and bring the results to the next meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00.

 

 

 

Meeting no. 5, June 13, 2007

 

Committee members present: Chris Dorion, Warren Hedstrom, Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoffrey Wingard, Frederick Jamison, James McConnon, Mark Haggerty.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

7.      Meeting Summary for Meeting 4: No issues or concerns were noted by those present. Evan noted that Sandy Cyrus wanted the meeting 4 summary to note that the group had decided to rename the sector Stillwater/EDZ to be simply Stillwater. That change has been made in this summary.

 

8.      F&A Sectors Maps Review: The group continued to review the remaining 4 sectors from the previous meeting. The sectors reviewed, and the key goals drafted to date, are::

 

  • Newman & Bangor Hills
  • Penobscot River North

• 

            Note: several representatives of a development team interested in the former Peregrine parcel of property located primarily in this F&A zone were present and allowed to give input to the RZWC group. They noted their interest in pursuing a college student style housing project on this property that would require in their opinion a change in zone from F&A to C2. The group discussed this and developed a list of reasons to keep the parcel as F&A and a list of reasons to change it to C2 that will be presented to the public at the June 18 meeting.

  • Kelley Hill/Forest Ave.

 

• 

 

  •  
  • Route 2 Gateway

• 

 

9.      Continued discussion of the plan for Public Input - June 18: The committee discussed the public notice opportunities beyond the BDN article that Evan had pursued. Several new opportunities were mentioned and Evan agreed to investigate them. The group then discussed the basic format for the meeting and agreed on the following basic format:

 

  • Welcome and general background (Mark K).
  • Group member introductions.
  • Review of process steps to date (Evan R).
  • Sectors Review of Issues and Goals discussion with Public Input (Mark K).

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15.

 

Meeting no. 4, May 21, 2007

 

Committee members present: Milos Blagojevic, Chris Dorion, Sandy Cyrus, Warren Hedstrom, Sally Jacobs, Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoff Gordon, Geoffrey Wingard, Frederick Jamison, James McConnon, Mark Haggerty, Andrew Perkins.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

10.  Meeting Summary for Meeting 3: No issues or concerns were noted.

 

11.  F&A Sectors Maps Review: Evan distributed a package containing the 8 Sectors maps based on the discussions from previous meetings. He also included initial bullet points for Key Characteristics, Key Issues, and Land use Goals for each of the 8 Sectors. The group discussed and updated goals and issues for 4 of the 8 sectors.  These sectors, and the key goals drafted to date, are::

 

  • Stillwater (formerly Stillwater/EDZ)

•Allow/preserve small-scale, cottage-industry, low-impact types of business uses

•  Zone by size more than by use; a step up from home occupation; recognize the hybrid residential use and customer-oriented commercial use

• Extend public utilities in order to promote development of the EDZ, but keep the Stillwater corridor separate for small-scale and mixed use

  •  
  • Rare Natural Communities

•  Permanently protect as much of this sector as possible

•  Continue to establish low-impact, nature-based recreational uses (trails, hunting, etc.)

•  Coordinate with the corridor recreational and conservation projects that extend beyond Orono

•  Limit residential densities

  •  
  • Outer Essex Street/Forest Ave.

 

•  Accommodate limited amount of suburban scale development on suitable high ground

•  Conserve to the greatest degree possible in tact woodland, deer yard, wetlands, and wading bird habitat

•  Expand the mapping of wildlife habitat and related resources to identify what should be protected

 

  •  
  • Pushaw Community

•  Maintain Pushaw community as a unique housing and recreational resource

•  Minimize impact of new development and land disturbance on water quality, especially flows of phosphorus

•  Manage the lake on a watershed basis in cooperation with surrounding towns

•  Realize potential as a recreation-conservation corridor

 

12.  Initial discussion of the plan for Public Input in June: The committee will review the remaining 4 Sectors at the June 13th meeting and also discuss the format for the Public Workshop planned for June 18, 2007.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15.

 

Meeting no. 3, Apr. 16, 2007

 

Committee members present: Milos Blagojevic, Chris Dorion, Sandy Cyrus, Warren Hedstrom, Sally Jacobs, Mark Kittridge (chair), Gail White, Geoff Gordon.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

13.  Meeting Summary for Meeting 2: No issues or concerns were noted.

 

14.  Composite Natural Resource Constraints & Opportunities Map: Evan reviewed the results of the Constraints and Opportunities to development ratings provided by the committee. 10 members had provided ratings feedback which Evan averaged to come to an overall committee score for each item. Evan also presented a series of overlay maps which highlighted the severe and significant constraints based on the scores. Once all of the resource constraints were laid over each other a broad based picture of development constraints was reviewed and discussed.

 

15.  F&A Areas of Significance Map: Evan also presented a map that he had prepared showing the results of the meeting 2 free-form exercise noting areas within the F&A zone of significance. This map was reviewed and discussed and several borders were moved but all agreed that the basic blocks was an accurate representation of the areas within the current F&A that are somewhat distinct from the others.

 

16.  Initial discussion of the plan for Public Input in June: The committee discussed the need for a meeting in June where the results of the groups work to that point could be presented and public comments could be solicited. It was agreed that the date would be determined at the May 21st meeting with the possibility of doing it during the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on June 20, 2007.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05.

 

Meeting no. 2, Mar. 19, 2007

 

Committee members present: Milos Blagojevic, Chris Dorion, Sandy Cyrus, Mark Haggerty, Warren Hedstrom, Sally Jacobs, Mark Kittridge (chair), James McConnon, Andrew Perkins, Gail White, Geoffrey Wingard.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

17.  Meeting Summary format: All were in agreement that the meeting summary format prepared after the first meeting by Evan was suitable and that formal meeting minutes were not necessary.

 

18.  Relationship of Committee’s work to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan: Evan reviewed the state history of the Maine Growth Management Act and the requirement of Comprehensive plans. The Orono Comp Plan was last updated in 1998. Per the MGMA Comprehensive plans MUST designate areas that are targeted for growth and also rural areas where growth is to be discouraged. Evan also noted that per state law a towns zoning and land use ordinances cannot be in direct contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

19.  Review Natural Resource Inventory maps provided by EMDC: Evan showed the group 9 maps that had been developed and provided by the Eastern Maine Development Corp. Those maps were:

 

    1. Topographic
    2. Floodplains and Wetlands
    3. Hydric and Farmland Soils
    4. Suitability of Soils for Woodlands
    5. Trails
    6. Soil Suitability for Development with Septic systems
    7. Existing land cover
    8. Wildlife habitat
    9. Sand and Gravel Aquifers

 

The group was then divided into 2 and each took a blank map and marked areas primarily in the F&A zone for items of significance. This was a free-form exercise with no real constraints to what information was to be identified.  Several identifiable sub-areas came from the exercise:

 

·        The broad, north-south swath across the center of the district that contains the Orono and Caribou Bogs;

·        The Pushaw Lake community;

·        The Outer Forest Ave. – Essex St. corridor south to Bangor that includes a number of important rural resources but also is in transition as a result of heavy suburban development in Bangor;

·        The Newman Hill – Bangor Hill – DeMerritt Forest area between Stillwater Ave. and the Veazie RR;

·        The Stillwater Ave corridor

·        The Route 2 south area, which is both semi-industrial and agricultural/open space

·        The Piney Knoll area to the north along the Penobscot River

 

20.  Rating of Resources for development constraints and opportunities: Evan provided everyone with a spreadsheet that listed most of the items shown on the various maps and then showed sub-items that were to be rated as either Severe, Significant, Moderate, or Slight as a constraint to development in the F&A zone. The idea is that each committee member was to rate the items and then with Evan’s assistance the group would come to a consensus on the ratings as a whole. It was decided that Evan would provide the maps and rating sheet by e-mail and they would be filled in and returned to Evan.

 

There was a reminder by Mark that the group still needed to think about their goal for the outcome of the project.  Mark also reminded the committee that the next meeting is Monday, April 16, 7 p.m.  The meeting was then adjourned.

 

 

 

Meeting no. 1, Feb. 8, 2007

 

Committee members present: Milos Blagojevic, Chris Dorion, Geoff Gordon, Mark Haggerty, Warren Hedstrom, Sally Jacobs, Frederick Jamison, Mark Kittridge (chair), James McConnon, Andrew Perkins, Gail White.  Staff: Evan Richert

 

Note: this meeting summary is not intended as formal minutes of the meeting, but rather as highlights of the discussion.

 

1.      Town Council’s Charge to the Committee:  To prepare an update to the Town Comprehensive Plan on rural zoning, and to prepare implementing amendments to Chapter 18, Land Use, of the Ordinances of the Town.  The update and implementing amendments are to address the Town’s vision and goals for its rural areas; the need to provide for both rural lands and open space and some degree of residential development in these rural areas, and whether certain parts of the F&A District would be more appropriately zoned in other classifications; and the terms and provisions of the resulting zoning district(s).

 

2.      Definition of “Rural”:  The question is not so much whether Orono is a rural town or a suburb of Bangor, but rather what the community wants this part of Town to look like in 10-20 years.  We can influence whether and how land will be developed; and what the character of the land will be in the future with respect to working lands, habitat, the pattern of housing development, etc. There remains within the town core areas of rural lands, including tree growth lands, small farming operations, lands underlain by groundwater, and extensive wetlands and habitats. 

 

Even though Orono can’t control how the region will grow and whether, in the context of the larger region, Orono will be seen as a small service center, a rural town, or a suburb, it can make decisions about the remaining rural lands in town.  Here, a definition is helpful.  “Rural” land is land that is organized for production –  of food, wood, natural production of wildlife, and provision of environmental and recreational services.  The relationship of the rural landowner to the land often is active, involving livelihood.  “Suburban” land, even low-density suburban land, is different.  Suburban land is organized for consumption – the buying and selling of lots, but perhaps more importantly the consumption of a lifestyle (privacy, scenery, personal open space, etc.).  The relationship of the suburban landowner to the land typically is passive, for the purpose of enjoyment, privacy and buffer from the outside world.  Understanding the difference between “rural” and “suburban” is important, because as suburban land moves into rural territory, it replaces the rural lands.  Due to land values, taxes, and desires of suburban neighbors, the rural usually gives way to the suburban. 

 

 

3.      Brainstorming of Rural Issues:

·        Need for an inventory of existing “productive” lands and uses; need also to take advantage of Beginning with Habitat information

·        Juxtaposition of “consumptive” vs. “productive” land uses – how can we configure the land use pattern in the F&A district so conflict is minimized?

·        Lot size – pattern of land use and the character of the area began to change when the minimum lot size in the F&A district was reduced from 4 acres to 2 acres

·        Consider need for rural clustering – the uncompleted part of the Town’s adoption of revised residential cluster development provisions last year

·        Regional pressures – e.g., development spreading northward from Bangor out Essex Street

·        Changes to wildlife, stream and groundwater regimes as development replaces open space

·        Traffic (much of it coming from Glenburn and Bangor) and the condition of roads in the western part of Town

·        Fire protection and insurance (when Gould’s Land fire station disappeared, insurance rates rose)

·        Potential and need for a continuously connected system of open space and trails, especially if the trail system in the MDR area is reduced as development there occurs

·        Need to provide opportunities for single-family homes that can accommodate persons with families

·        Diagnosis of why single-family development is occurring faster in F&A rather than the MDR, where the Comprehensive Plan would like to direct it – is there something going on in the MDR district that pushes the development outward?

·        The economics of housing development: the costs of serving it vs. the revenue generated by it to pay for the services

·        Role of property rights vs. regulation and buying of land/easements

·        Question of whether portions of existing F&A are appropriately zoned – e.g., in the Stillwater Avenue corridor

 

Evan will review the Comprehensive Plan and Land use ordinance as they relate to the F&A zone and also the Maine Growth Management act at the beginning of the next meeting.

 

Mark would like everyone to start thinking about what their goals are for the outcome of this process. As a group we need to start defining our overall goals as soon as possible. Last night was a good start but we have a big challenge ahead of us to create the language for the changes we want to propose for the Comprehensive plan and or Land use ordinances.