Here’s the skinny from last night’s Town Council Meeting:
All Councilors were present.
Unfinished Business
1. Discuss/take action on Back Acres Lane.There was back and forth discussion on the merits of accepting the road at this time since only two houses are built and the road has seven lots. There was a motion to postpone acceptance until 100% of the lots are built out. There was discussion with Councilor Demetracopoulos questioning whether this would preclude it being accepted if a homeowner bought two lots and only build on one. Councilor Burke questioned whether this would be a hardship on lot owners who are paying taxes. Councilor Roberge feels that it would set a bad precedent to accept a road to a subdivision that is not fully built out. A motion to postpone acceptance until 100% of the lots are built out failed by a two to three margin with Councilors Kareckas, Burke and Demetracopoulos voting against. Councilor Burke then made a motion to accept the road as of October 30, 2008. There was further discussion that there are some road condition issues that the Interim Town Manager would like to have the Public Works Director look at. The motion to accept the road as of October 20, 2008 failed on a four to one margin with Councilor Burke voting for the motion. Further discussion ensued and the Council referred back to minutes from the last meeting where this was discussed. At that time the consensus had been to postpone the decision on this road and have the Planning Board develop guidelines for road acceptance along with its other recommendations regarding subdivisions. Town Planner Jim Fisk indicated that the Planning Board is waiting for some final information and will have the subdivision ordinance on its agenda as soon as possible. A motion was made to refer this matter to a workshop between the Town Council and the Planning Board. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Discuss/take action on rezoning request. There was a motion to request the Planning Board to hold a public hearing on expanding the B1 zone on Main St. from Dunkin Donuts to Sewall Road. There was discussion with Councilor Roberge questioning the procedure with which the Planning Board had moved on this matter, Council Chair Demetracopoulos questioning whether moving ahead on rezoning would undermine the deliberative process the Economic Development Committee has undertaken to develop consensus and a plan for economic development, and with Councilor Kareckas questioning whether design review should also be part of the discussion. Town Manager Orsini clarified that this is just a request for a public hearing that will result in community input and that it does not mean that the Council has to act on it right away. The motion to request the Planning Board to hold a public hearing on rezoning passed unanimously.
3. Discuss/take action on public hearing for ordinance updates. A motion was made to hold a public hearing on ordinance updates on August 25, 2008. The motion passed unanimously.
New Business
1. Discuss Vine Street parking. Town Manager Orsini explained that since the closure of the Vine Street bridge, the Police Chief asked if the Council was still in favor of the parking ban on the street by the pond. Citizen Richard Clough asked the Council to reconsider the street parking prohibition and allow parking in front of the Jersey barriers to allow citizens to have access to the pond for recreation. Councilors were in agreeement that the present parking ban seems to be working and lifting the ban might open the town to liability issues and create access and safety issues near the bridge. They also indicated that nearby residents are happy with the current level of use at the area. There was consensus to let the parking ban stand as is.
2. Take action on election of MMA officers & executive committee. There was a unanimous vote to vote on a slate of officers for the MMA.
Correct me if I’m wrong on this. Isn’t the main reason we don’t have a traffic light in the center of town because of the proximity to Sarah Orne Jewett house?
Driving through town is a nightmare, even with a patrolman directing traffic. Terrible.
If that is the case, then I wouldn’t mind seeing some town money going into moving it as Nick suggested. Seriously. Why not? If they can tear down mansions in Europe and rebuild them here, I don’t see why this shouldn’t be thought about.
Bill, are you moderating this forum? If you are, OK. If you are just appointing youself some kind of advisor on what others post, then you are out of line. This is a forum for discussion. There are going to be people who disagree with you. There are going be plenty of snarky comments and jabs. It goes with the territory whenever you have a public forum.
Let people submit their comments, whether they meet your definition of what is relevant. I have taken a few hits myself. As long as it’s not profane or threatening, people are going to have reactions that they want to express. Also, most of us who you listed have submitted good posts.
One of the things that is fun about a forum like this, is that there are going to be some posts that are opinions or reactions or just something to joke about.
LadyJane is not the only person who I have heard say that they don’t like to be talked down to on this thread. So, take the good with the bad.
I’ll shut up now. Have a good day people, maybe it won’t rain today!!!
Prescot Park hasn’t had too many shows yet this summer.
If you have a free night or afternoon, come see “Little Shop of Horrors” at Seacoast Rep. We close on August 24th.
Peace,
Ed
Edward,
It was just a suggestion. Thought it might be useful. Guess you don’t think so. So far, I have not heard any ideas from you, just complaints.
When a traffic light was brought up a number years ago it was opposed because it took parking space near the corner (for the turning lane) from the local businesses. As it is a state road, they had to be involved in the decision for a placement of a light on this corner. The entire idea was eventually dropped. It has nothing to do with the Jewett House.
JCH,
The residential zoning has a lot of drawbacks, I think most of us would agree. But it was not done “illegally” in the “dead of night” because I remember attending a public hearing on it. At the time, many of us were wondering why they used residential zoning to accomplish what could be done better with performance standards (design review). But R1 zoning is the tool the town council of those days chose. Now maybe we can do what should have been done then, namely set up some kind of business zoning but also implement the performance standards. But blanket B1 is not what we should have.
Nick and Edward,
Are you serious when you suggest moving the Jewett House? If so please reconsider. The writings and therefore the reputation and literary importance of Sarah Orne Jewett are totally intertwined with that location. Her viewpoint, quite literally from those windows, is at the heart of her work. To remove the house to another location would be like, say, moving the Statue of Liberty and then just tell people that she used to be in New York harbor.
Now, the Jewett House is no Statue of Liberty, of course, yet it is the most important landmark in the town. You don’t have to be interested in literature to you realize that it’s one of the most important assets we have. It makes South Berwick a Destination. We should be capitalizing on it’s presence more than we do.
Max,
I would only assume that you are a lawyer well versed in town government or the fact that you attended the only public hearing on the zoning change that got railroaded through some 8 years ago makes you an authority on the matter.
My information runs deep as this zoning change affects one of my businesses and properties that I’ve owned for 15 years. I believe from the information that I have gathered over the years from 2 very good sources both legal and from a former town government official that proper procedure was not followed when this zoning change was done. If taken to court to challenge this zoning change the town would probably lose I was told. When approached by another property owner within this area to join lawsuit againest the town I respectively declined (that owner had done more homework then I had on the matter and had come to the same conclusion). I did not want to spend the money to fight the town and also the 6 year statute of limitations was in question when I first approached with this matter.
We can disagree on whether it was “legal” or “illegal” but it is irrelevant now. My feelings have always been that with proper restrictions placed on business development within this area ( such as building designs, footprint restrictions and etc.) the town could protect itself from the “big box” stores or development that everyone is afraid of. There are other ways to preserve the character of this town without cutting out more areas for small businesses to thrive, and especially an area that has had businesses operate for hundreds of years.
JHC,
You sound like someone who wants business in that area but also would be okay with restrictions that would not encourage “big box” stores. That is what I think everyone is trying to get across. Yes, to the business owners but with a few restrictions that would discourage demolition and big box stores. Am I correct in thinking you feel this way or am I off base here?
Paul,
Yes you are correct.
SueG,
I didn’t propose moving the Jewett House…. That’s a pretty impractical solution don’t you think?
Big box stores, Big box stores that’s all we from you scared people that don’t think clearly and will not look at the big picture. Big Box Store What big box store would come to down town S.B. There’s a reason they call them BIG. There’s no room here for one. You need parking we have none. You need lots of room for the store. We have none of that either and you need lost of shoppers that want to spend money on things that don’t have 5% sales tax added on well I hate to tell you we don’t have that either.
Big box coming to South Berwick give me a brake
And they sky is falling too.
This just gets better and better!!! The Jewett House is never going to be moved!! Enough said . Not the reason for no lights. LIGHTS WOULD CHANGE THE FABRIC. That was and is the reason for no lights. Parking was a conderation as we would loose 9 parking spaces in the lighted intersection. It was thought the downtown could not handle the losse of these spots. The state of main does not want to fight local politics and will not just install lights. However thay can and may in time. The town along with manager Brown to a strong stance toward creating parking to adress the losse of spots should we ever put in lights. Paul street lot was created when the town bought a old run down property and created approx 10 spots. The town bought another rundown home, the grant house at the now ocean bank lot and removed the historic fire house also . built that fine bank and created many parking spots. Then moved on to repair the back lot of our downtown business center to again create more off street parking . Norton street next ,More parking created to the tune of 20 pluss. We have over the years created many more then the 9 once everyone said we can not afford to loose. I forgot the 25 additional at town hall that state park and ride money was used. now if the downtown business owners would use thes lots insted of parking in the ristrected spots in front of there stores we will have ampel space for all that want to stop and shop. The town now spends approx 25,000 per year for the traffic control officer. this has been budgeted for the past 11 years . Add up that tax bill. The lights will cost between 20 and 30 thousand. NO we do not need to move that white hose but if we want to save tax dollars what needs to be done. If you look back to all those buildings that are no longer there you must agree the downtown looks much better. Lets not be so reluctent to let the people we elect to work for all of us let move forward. Many things can be managed like footprints of buildings, footage, hight restrictions ect. MY point is to many of you are banking on the method of stalling progress. Why I ask . The down town Looks today much better then it did when I moved here 27 years ago. Who remembers the gun play in town. Those clowns were run out and moved back to the woods. Remember the town manager lugging a gun along with chief Planche. Wow the good old days. Progress has occured and I hope many of you help it continue. Remember That there are many types living here. Our creative combat on this sight is not blind Bill. Your direction and mine may differ however we are both correct in expressing our thoughts It time some off you open your eyes and realize we cannot control what change So Berwick Needs or wants. WE CAN HOWEVER MANAGE THE DIRECTION! Lets manage ouur change not have small ,loud factions wanting to contron.
I forgot to say the Town of South berwick Realized More positive change between the years 94 and 2000 then ever. We as a town have stalled any type of change . Why I ask. This blog or web site is clear example why SOBO will never move forward. Need I say More no. But I will continue too read the thoughts of all. Glad the water dist. and wastewater plant are not stuck behind the thoughts of the ones holding the community back.
Nick, sorry if I made a mistake attributing that suggestion to you — something in Edward’s post misled me. I do think the idea (moving the Jewett House) is absurd and didn’t think anyone was seriously proposing it. But it doesn’t hurt to remind everyone what a valuable asset it is.
Mark, I agree with your post that it’s unlikely a Big Box on the Walmart scale would want to build here. Sales tax is very effective in keeping huge businesses on the other side of the state line.
But there are a few lots along the main streets in the village that are larger than most people realize. A Rite Aid, or a gas station/convenience, or some other kind of franchise might very well build there. It would only take one development with a steel shell building and a lit up parking lot in front to change the character of town drastically. For those of us who find that kind of development ugly, even repulsive, there is something to fear– the domino effect. And it’s more than just looks. I think about all those franchises in Somersworth, and I wonder just where does all that money go? Nothing about Somersworth seems to have improved in the the 20+ years I’ve been here. Lots of franchise boxes big and small, but where is the benefit to the community? It’s not in their schools, their downtown, their infrastructure, or their public facilities as far as I can tell.
I’m not sure I’m up for the backlash on this thought — but this town has a lot of creative entrepreneurs in it, artists, writers, musicians. Arts draw people. How could we tap into our cultural assets to encourage an arts aspect of our local economy? The timing isn’t great given the economy overall, but the raw materials are already here.
SueG — You have nailed the issue– Thanks!
Everybody, please read this paragraph of SueG’s again– it says it all:
****”It would only take one development with a steel shell building and a lit up parking lot in front to change the character of town drastically. For those of us who find that kind of development ugly, even repulsive, there is something to fear– the domino effect. And it’s more than just looks. I think about all those franchises in Somersworth, and I wonder just where does all that money go? Nothing about Somersworth seems to have improved in the the 20+ years I’ve been here. Lots of franchise boxes big and small, but where is the benefit to the community? It’s not in their schools, their downtown, their infrastructure, or their public facilities as far as I can tell.”****
JCH–
As I remember, the hearing on R1 was packed (it was in the town council chambers). Don’t recall that there were any irregularities about the process. But also just that a lot of us were puzzled, because R1 didn’t really seem to be the appropriate solution, for exactly the reasons you express. By seeking to stop big boxes, the R1 remedy shut out all business expansion entirely, and that didn’t seem to be called for.
So I will join Paul in pointing out that many of us here seem to agree with you that a solution is at hand. The Planning Board and Town Council simply need to:
(1) Draft zoning performance standards (dimensions, setbacks, design review, etc. matching what we now have)
(2) Then (but only then) rezone for business– but NOT with a blanket B1 “anything goes” designation.
This kind of policy is seen in many successful towns, and answers pretty much everyone’s concerns here I think.
Well, as someone upthread mentioned, the Sarah Orne Jewett House is just a house. Sorry if I don’t have reverance for it.
Jess thank you for educating me on the street light thing. Too bad, I hope we can find a way of bypassing that downtown area someday.
Bill, sorry you don’t like my posts. I do my share of complaining, that’s for sure. I also ask questions, and share some of the experiences I have had. I was raised here. I have a lot of opinions. Some of them are probably pretty lame.
I enjoy coming to this forum because it’s one way of getting information, as well as entertainment. I wouldn’t be interested in checking it out if people only posted figures and proposals that needed everyone’s analysis on. I think it’s fun to get to hear voices that you might not hear at a town meeting (which, I think is a more serious venue).
Some people (including me) have said some strange stuff. It’s fun to read, and perhaps I am not taking it as seriously as I should.
I have been called cynical and ignorant on this blog. If I have offended anyone, please know that I am sorry. I am done posting.
For what it’s worth, even though we may not like what we read on this blog, It seems to me that everyone who has posted has had a lot of concern and respect for the town of SoBo. Cheers Molly, and thank you!
I will recap the facts of the proposed zoning change.
This change would affect about nine properties, at least seven of which are already businesses and as such are non-compliant with the current residential zoning that they are under. That is about 80% non-compliant.
Among that 80% there is a car dealership and Spray ME. Inc. The area is full of and surrounded by businesses. It also includes the major intersection of Rte 236 and Rte 4. It is currently inappropriately zoned.
The other business areas in the downtown are not residentially zoned. All dense business areas should be business zones. It seems so obvious. It doesn’t make sense to have gas stations, Dunkin Donuts, car dealerships and major thruway intersections in residential zones. What other residential zone has that density of business activity?
I am actually astonished at the controversy. It seems so unreasonable. But maybe some people don’t realize what is actually being discussed. This change would only affect a small area directly across from RTE 236 – a major intersection, not farmland, not side streets – but a downtown area that is already dense with existing businesses. With that being the case and once it is made clear, most thinking people will see the reasonableness of this change.
It makes sense to have zones with compliant properties. Why would anyone force residential zoning requirements on existing businesses? This causes unnecessary hardship for the people who live there and the small business owners. Ask any of them how they feel about it. How would you feel? How much do you think it would hurt you financially if it was your property? This is only for nine properties. You could easily speak with each home/business owner.
And in answer to the unrealistic fears that people will fill their properties with ugliness right up to the sidewalk, just for a buck… What kind of people do that? Why would anyone devalue their property and make it offensive like that? They would not benefit from that. Property owners are not out to destroy the town. They live there. They are just trying to make a living and have a good environment like anyone else.
I understand the hopes to keep South Berwick’s ‘look and feel’, and that the town administration may be looking for new ways to zone business areas. Be that as it may, when and if that has been completed and those plans are agreed upon – which we know can be a very lengthy process, then the entire downtown area can be rezoned as appropriate in accordance with whatever new ordinances are designed.
Until then, all business areas should have the same treatment and be appropriately zoned as business. This is why the public hearing is set to be scheduled on 8/19/08.
In response to a few of the bloggers.
1. Town council minutes are readily available – on-line and in the office. The Town is obligated by Maine Rules of Civil Procedure to keep this. This is public information. I have a big fat binder with minutes back to 1999 and a whole lot of other research so I can vouch for that. You can also ask for the recordings of the meetings. I have not done that though, so I can’t say how far back they have them or what the rule is on that.
2. I don’t think that the town council and planning board are bad folks. They don’t seem to be money hungry, thoughtless box store lovers. They seem to be reasonable, conscientous people that want to make improvements in the town without destroying it’s historic look. That is what everybody wants.
3. Everyone should be more polite during the public hearings. I went to one when they were discussing contract zoning and I was surprised at how disrespectful people were to one another. That is just not nice and it’s not necessary.
Thanks
Jean,
I beg to differ. B1 is not right. Once it’s reinstated, anything can happen. Compliant, non-compliant. In the future the risks are verty evident. Be smart. Slow down. Get it right. Find teh “hybrid ” that should apply.
What’s the rush? If R1 was wrong for years, a few more months won’t hurt. Have the sense to see that B1 is wrong. It’s short-sighted, it’s just too convenient. Look at B1— it allows so much more than what you describe. B-1 shows no responsiveness to the whole picture.
No one has said the PB or TC are bad people. We just expect more sense out of the two groups. B1 does NOT preserve anything, as it is right now. You can drive a big, big truck through the provisions in B1. Can’t you see that? Why not? Fix it, don’t conveniently apply B1 and “hope for the best”. That’s not responsible.
And this little area (which you dscribe as unremarkable), is actually quite remarkable, at the heart of our town. That you don’t see that is astonishing.
I have to agree with the gist of what Anon says. The Rite-Aid scare of a few years ago spawned the B1 to R1 designation. Why? because that was the only zone that preclused Rite-Aid. Is it overkill? Probably. But if we went back to B1 with no design review, or no form based zoning, guess what? History might repeat itself.
This is not about what current owners would do, it is about what the zoning would allow of a future owner (perhaps a corporate entity that would’t care squat about the Town’s sensibilities. ) That’s why this area begs for an intelligent solution — not B1.
Hi Anon2, Thank you for your opinion. Regarding that area, the big trucks drive through there now. As was mentioned by a previous blogger, it is the intersection of two state highways. Where else do you see major state highway intersections in an R1 zone? The fact is, R1 is wrong for that area.
What is the rest of the downtown area zoned as? It does not make sense to flip to R1 right after Dunkin Donuts. Think about it.
Property owners have been suffering and continue to do so because of the switch to residential of that very small area. The change to that specific area was voted on by the town council on 9/9/02 – see town council meeting minutes unfinished business item #1.
Research shows and many agree that it was arbitrary and capricious (a.k.a. spot zoned) and not in harmony with the comprehensive plan at the time. Many have spoken for and would welcome the undoing of that decision. But really, it seems fine not to re-hash old business. I prefer not to pursue that avenue. I do hope and expect that the majority of propery owners of S. Berwick see the sensibleness of allowing a dense business area to be under B1 zoning laws.
It would be very appropriate to extend the existing business zone back to where it was prior to 9/9/02.
Oh, I never said the area was unremarkable. I think it is very nice.
R1, no, B1 no. There’s a better way.
Jean,
“This change would affect about nine properties”-THAT ARE IN THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION (quite marketable).
“Why would anyone force residential zoning requirements on existing businesses?”…NOBODY IS DEMANDING RESIDENTIAL…PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING SOME CREATIVENESS TO ADD RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD DISCOURAGE DEMOLITION AND PRESERVE STREETSCAPE.
“Property owners are not out to destroy the town. They live here.” CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIVE HERE. PROPERTIES CHANGE HANDS.
“the town administration may be looking for new ways to zone business areas. Be that as it may, when and if that has been completed and those plans are agreed upon – which we know can be a very lengthy process,” – BE LEADERS…MAKE THE PROCESS OCCUR NOW….or disappoint all of us who had high hopes and take the easy way out, do the usual- table anything difficult and vote the immediate easy way out.
I believe you are unable to see the forest through the trees at this point.
To JHa2, Jean and all,
I am against B1 but I am FOR business zoning. It is a mistake to think that those of us opposed to rezoning B1 want it to stay R1. It is fine to make it a business zone. Just make it B2 or B3 with appropriate zoning to keep it in scale with the rest of the downtown.
The solution to this is not difficult. As somebody else said, the solutions have been under consideration by the planning board for years. The town council just needs to implement some of those good ideas. FIRST.
A recap to go with your morning coffee
Last night’s Planning Board meeting was sparsely attended, but interesting for those of us who did go. At the very least, it’s always informative to see small town politics at work. The intricacies of procedure were apparent as we watched members struggle through revisiting, then voting on a previous motion (Old Business) to not have a Public Hearing. Due to one member’s comment that it would be “improper and premature” for the board to hold a hearing on August 19th, as many of us were hoping for (because he felt the board itself had not yet carefully enough considered the proposal), and also because the chair had a scheduling conflict, the Public Hearing is now scheduled for Tuesday September 16th, at 7PM. Prior to that, on September 9th, the Planning Board will hold a workshop session to which the public is invited. No pulic comment can be made at that time – the idea is scrutinization of the members’ process, and more importantly, an opportunity to receive information about the B1 proposal (maps, etc.) which they will disseminate to all interested attendees at that time.
Also, if any residents have additional related information they would like the board to review (particularly if lengthy), it was requested that it be given to them enough ahead of time to allow ample opportunity for them to review it. Jack K. reminded the board members that they already have been given some comprehensive info about B1 which includes Design Review. So – any and all of us who are concerned about each step in this important process as it moves forward should plan to attend. Become better informed, share your thoughts; mark your calendars!
Linda–Thanks so much for the update about the meeting. I had a conflict and couldn’t attend. I’m glad the hearing is going to be put off. More people will be back from vacation and it gives more time for citizens to learn more about zoning. I will get some information about zoning to post here at the diner so readers have a chance to learn more about the issue.
Molly,
Great to hear that you will put some zoning information out on the blog.
What is B1? What is B2? What is “Design Review”? Is Design Review easily enforceable? I would love to get good clear answers on questions like that.
Having all that information in a digestible and concise format would be very helpful to so many people.
I hope you can get it out there quickly.
Town Council Chair Jean Demetracopoulos has asked me to clarify that the post by “Jean” is not by her. Since I can see the IP number of the poster, I can confirm that the post is by someone who is in fact named Jean, but is not Jean D. Perhaps next time Jean posts, he/she will use a last name initial to clarify, or another way of distinguishing posts from Jean D. (for example, like our friend “Dave Webster (not the ex-councilor)” has done).
blog confusion
I can confuse people enough with my posts, no need to add name confusion as well!