Zoning 101: Land Uses and Dimensional Requirements
The Planning Board is considering rezoning Main Street between Dunkin Donuts and Sewall Road from its current designation as R1 (Residential) to B1 (Business). There will be a public hearing on the issue on September 16. In preparation for the hearing the 236diner is offering information about zoning so citizens can learn more about the issue.
This is the second installment in the series. The first installment covered the general purpose of zoning and and a list of South Berwick’s zoning districts.
South Berwick’s zoning ordinance outlines which land uses are permitted or excluded in each zoning districts. These land uses are spelled out in Table A - Land Use Index of the zoning ordinances.
For ease of understanding here, Table A is broken into two tables and only lists zones R1 and B1 and B2 since those are the zones currently under discussion. The first table shows only those land uses which are permitted in all three zones.
Similar land uses permitted in zones R1, B1, and B2 (key to designations are below):
KEY
Y Permitted
Y* Permitted with special use permit obtained from Code Enforcement Officer
SP Minor site plan review required
MSP Major site plan review required
N Not permitted
The second table lists the land uses that are treated differently in R1 than in the Business zones (B1 and B2) and shows those uses that would be allowed if a zone is changed from R1 to a business zone.
The zoning ordinance also specifies dimensional requirements within each zone that specify lot size, set backs, height and building sizes. These requirements are set forth in section 140-19:
Lots in all districts must meet or exceed the minimum requirements outlined in Table B, which will be considered an integral part of this chapter. (Additional area may be required by other provisions of this chapter.)
Again Table B has been modified for presentation. The complete Table B is available at this link. The table presented here only includes the dimensional requirement for R1 and B2. In the original table B1 is not included in the table but is referenced in the following footnote:
(3) There are no dimensional requirements in the B1 Zone except for height which shall be the same as the B2 Zone.
Table B - Dimensional Requirements (adapted for simplicity)
In addition to dimensional requirements, all land uses must conform to the performance standards set forth in the zoning ordinances that include provisions regarding parking, signage, buffering, noise, emissions, and other considerations. (Articles V and Va of Chapter 140) All land uses requiring site plan review or major site plan review are reviewed by the planning board for potential impact and can then be the subject to modification to lessen negative impact or performance standards can be waived.
Coming next: Site plan review and design review.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Molly, thanks for your latest round of technical information about zoning. It all gives me respect for the Town Council, Planning Board and staff who have to master so many of the complexities of South Berwick planning. It also reminds us that municipalities have a wide range of tools they can utilize, and that successful towns are those who are wise enough to choose the right ones.
Most of us wish for businesses to flourish in downtown South Berwick, especially local independent ones. If we expand the business zoning so that new stores and restaurants can come in, we don’t want to inadvertently knock out the ones we have. South Berwick’s current B1 area (running from Dunkin Donuts to Fogarty’s) ALREADY contains about 100 properties and buildings. They are all small compared to the typical “miracle mile” landscape found in other towns, but are perfect for the “walkable” atmosphere that experts say will drive successful towns’ economies in the coming years. So far, South Berwick is well positioned to attract the kinds of businesses that will thrive in Maine and that our residents will enjoy patronizing. How can we hang on to this advantage and build on it?
A key element in planning is thus the Table B showing dimensional requirements. As we see from the diagram Molly has posted, B1 zoning does not limit the scale of new buildings except in terms of height. B2 is also business zoning, but offers control over what kind of new buildings come in, by regulating lot size and setbacks. The chart demonstrates why, if we are to drop the R1 zoning on part of Main Street, we should avoid B1 zoning. B1 means just about “anything goes,” and that includes as much asphalt, national chains, parking lots, drive-thrus and traffic as the market will bear.
For the town to adopt the current proposal to expand B1 zoning would be like a carpenter to use a sledge hammer to saw a piece of wood. It is simply the wrong tool. If our Planning Board and Town Council expand B1 this year, ignoring all the better alternatives such as form-based zoning and design review that successful towns employ, it would be irresponsible.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wendy makes a very articulate case for NOT replacing the R1 designation between Dunkin’ and Sewall St. with B1. B1 is a mistake. There are alternatives that must be considered that incorporate the real issues asociate with this unique area. To land on B1, because it’s expedienet, would be a very bad mistake. We need to insist that the Planning Board and Town Council make the correct decisions here.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
What I see is a vocal minority opposing a reasonable change with fear and ‘box store’ propaganda. The area under consideration is a business area. It is too small to be a ‘miracle mile’, ’strip mall’, or ‘chain store’ location. If you are afraid of what property owners might do, why don’t you go look aat what the golf course and associated building look like. You should be happy that people like that are willing to invest and improve the town instead of making it difficult for them with unreasonable zoning restrictions.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
But that’s the point exactly. Towns don’t get to pick their property owners. Well managed towns make rules that don’t make things “difficult” or “easy” for particular owners, but for the good of the overall community over time.
“Reasonable change” is fine. Business zoning is fine. But B1 isn’t “reasonable change” — it’s unrestricted zoning, and nobody knows what will happen or who will own the property. South Berwick can make rules for a business zone that won’t allow exploitation in case we get property owners who are of that bent.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am
B2 has nearly the same restrictions that R1 does. There is not sufficient difference to allow reasonable use of property under B2. B1 is currently the only option that removes the current 71.4% non-conforming use problem among the 7 parcels under discussion. To wait for other zoning ordinances to be designed and approved before returning property owners to their rightful values is ludicrous and some would argue - unconstitutional.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Additionally, the overall community suffers by restricting businesses from growing according to their ability by imposing ordinances that disallow current use. This restriction reduces revenue generating capacity, which in turn lowers availabe services in the town and for town residents and subsequently results in increased taxes for residential property owners.
Returning this area to it’s rightful status of a B1 zone is not only good for the property owners it is good for the entire town. Unfounded ‘property line to property line’ development fears should be laid to rest.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I think it’s been shown pretty clearly on this blog and elsewhere that linking “business expansion” to property tax relief for us is bogus. Business expansion is business expansion, with benefits to the business owner. It doesn’t translate directly into tax relief for citizens.
So a compromise, not unrestricted B1, is what is called for here. Other towns regulate development, and business prospers there. South Berwick should too.
Towns that don’t regulate it (B1) get exploited by developers.
This isn’t the same as saying the current property owners are awful people. It just means that with B1, South Berwick would be vulnerable, either now or in the future. Why risk it? Put something in place that is business friendly, but not B1.
Lots of businesses in South Berwick and elsewhere now prosper in traditional buildings. Experts say that downtowns like ours are the wave of the future. Why ruin this great asset that we have?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
There is no proof that improving business activity in the town would not translate into tax relief. Those are opinions. And they are not opinions cited by the Courts of the State of Maine. But, it has been noted by the courts of the State of Maine that increased business activity in towns subsequently does reduce residential property taxes in addition to offering residents services. Businesses bring revenue. Towns needs revenue. You see it in the transfer station’s efforts to generate revenue. With no new revenue generating business tax base, residential taxes increase. There has to be businesses to offset it. That is obvious and is an accepted principle.
The businesses prospering in traditional buildings in South Berwick and most of the downtown area exists in a B1 Zone. Why exclude 7 parcels from that to wait for new zoning laws to be designed and approved? It is wrong. It is immoral. Developer exploitation of 7 Parcels? That is propagandistic and the argument is mute. The parcels and the entire area is too small as has been noted by many.
If new zoning laws are to be applied in the next 5 - 10 years to protect the character of the town - then that will be fine in that time period when that becomes available. At that point - the entire downtown can then be treated by the same new ordinances. That is not yet available.
Until then, it is only right and just and fair to return the property owners of those seven parcels to their rightful values. Stop depriving them of their right to their property. This has gone on too long. This is an opportunity to undo the injustice (to a degree) done to them in 2002/03 and the opportunity should be embraced. It is the least the town could do.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Some of those property owners bought their property after it was zoned R1– they are hardly being “deprived.” Homes and churches have been along this part of Main St. a long time, not just businesses. (One of the beauties of our downtown is that it is MIXED.)
But if some of the owners also actually want businesses, let’s pass some business zoning, and yes, let’s do it for the whole downtown. I agree with that. JUST NOT B1. For years the town has been working on various types of zoning to protect the character of the village while allowing businesses. The town council just has to pass it along with some kind of business zoning. There is no need to wait 5-10 years.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Tony T.
What if you were one of the 7 properties owners in this zone and you purchased your property and business for a premium price because it was in a B1 zone at the time you purchased the property in 1994. Then in 2002 the Town Council decides to change the zone from B1 to R1 and does so within a 90 day period without proper notification(certified mail of a public hearing-the one and only one they had) to all 7 property owners at the time. So you as one of the 7 property owners in this zone don’t find out about the proposed change until it is to late to speak at the one and only public hearing because you were not properly notified by the Town Council-but you show up to the next meeting where you are dumbfounded to realize that the stacked town council is voting on the change that night and the town council chairman (David Webster) refuses to let you speak because you missed the previous months public hearing(because again you were not notified by certified mail as required by the town) and the town council creates a situation of “spot zoning” that night when they vote to change the zoning on these 7 parcels from B1 zoning to R1 zoning. (I might add that at the time 5 out of the 7 parcels had businesses operating and this zone had been B1 zoned since zoning was started in this Town).
You tell me Tony how would you feel as a property and business owner who has worked tirelessly over 17 years in this town to try and stay in business and operate in this community and state.
There are going to be lawsuits over this mess before it ends, and I have not started any-but I have a copy of one filed last week by another property owner. I felt wronged in September 2002 and the feeling hasn’t changed 6 years later.
Over 40 years I have lived here. My grandfather operated 2 businesses here, myself and my family 17 years in business here in South Berwick. It is sad to see the hate and discontent among the people of this town-it is disheartening at best.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:43 am
JCH, you’re right, that certainly doesn’t sound like due process if somebody forgot to properly notify property owners. No wonder you’re upset.
It should be pointed out, though, that existing businesses weren’t made R1. Their business status was “grandfathered.” So the issue for you can’t be simply “staying in business,” because you did, but rather expanding and transferring property. And other property owners bought in as R1 with their eyes open.
The 2002 irregularities you describe sound a lot like a similar event around the same time, when citizens (including other business owners) were worried about the threat of overdevelopment, especially at Main and Sewall. That time, the town council’s remedy, which included restricting building sizes throughout the B zones, was supposedly improperly voted. That measure would have kept Main Street to Sewall zoned for business, but discouraged unrestricted development, demolition, big boxes, etc.
The businesses near Sewall Road aren’t the only businesses in town. If mini malls, fast food, and convenient stores take over, with parking lots and traffic taking away from our present “walkable” atmosphere, retailers and restaurants in the current central district will suffer. We need a balance.
How should this balance be achieved by today’s council? There seem to be two poles with options in between. At one extreme: B1, with almost no restrictions. At the other: R1, with restrictions that apparently are excessive. Answer for 2008: business zoning with some measures to discourage the loss of traditional community character.
Zoning in successful towns involves debate and compromise. That’s the way it should be in South Berwick. Lawsuits and “hate” should not have a place with this issue, when the answers are right in front of us.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
TonyT makes excellent sense. Articulates the case very well. There are two extremes: B1 and R1. Neither makes sense for the area in question. R1 too restrictive for reasonable business development; and B1 opens the area for RiteAid again (and the like; surrounded by residential properties, and the churches). I don’t think the majority of South Berwick want either, if they think it out. The Council and Planning Board have the opportunity to be smart on this, and determine a hybrid that meets both objectives. It’s not that hard. I hope they do the responsible thing and get there.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
That’s what I was thinking as well.
Would it be possible to zone a modified B1 that say limits the foot print to a reasonable level for the existing owners, but discourages overdevelopment?
Do we also need to look in to the sign statutes so that we can avoid the glaring LCD landing light they have in Somersworth for the Mortgage company across from Walmart?
What part of B1 causes the most concern for people who object to it?
Where does B2 fall short for the existing property owners?
What compromise can be reached that both sides can agree to?
September 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am
It’s reassurring to read contributors comments on seeking compromise solutions to our zoning questions. Finding the middle ground which allows reasonable property use and still maintains the look and feel of the town is our challenge.
Let’s hope for a good turnout at the planning board public hearing and good exchange of ideas toward a long needed solution.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Jack,
I agree.
There is a lot we can get accomplished if we just listen to the concerns of others, and work towards the common ground.
Will we always get the full result people want?
No, but we can get most or part of what we want accomplished by looking at unique and not so unique ways to come to a comprimise which can work for all involved.
Some people will still want their all or nothing, but a majority of the people should be willing to reach a common agreement to move things forward.
That is one of the reasons I decided to run for Town Council.
I may not agree with everyone’s ideas and concerns, but I know that to each and every one of us, our concerns are very real, and should not be dismissed lightly.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The downtown area of Freeport has kept a village type atmosphere w/ restricted signage and storefronts.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Tony,
Yes my business is grandfathered for its current use. I can not expand my business or change the current use due to R1 zoning. When I purchased the property in the mid 90’s it was in a commercial zone and I paid a premium at the time for the location and the business with the idea that someday I might want to change the commercial use. The spot zoning change from commercial to residential in 2002 has changed what I and the other 6 property owners can do know-but hey we can throw in some more apartments if we want to. I find it real ironic that a few weeks after the zoning change was done in Sept. 2002 I recieved a phone call from a developer who wanted to purchase my property and the property next door (insulation business). This developer who was referred by Dick Brown (Town Manager at the time) was the same person who rehabbed all the apartment buildings on Norton St. and did a great job. Their idea was to put both properties together so that they could fit as many as possible (15-18) apartments on these 2 properties located on Main Street in the newly created residential zone (formally commercial). Of course the price they wanted to pay was a joke (I guess they fiqured I would want to bail out after the zoning change devalued the property) and I had no interest in selling. I have nothing againest building apartments but I don’t believe putting them on our town’s Main Street at a high traffic intersection is the place to put them.
My argument in 2002 (which I was never given the opportunity to voice) is that with proper business zoning requirements (footprint requirements, building design reviews, building size requiremets and etc.) the town can protect it self from “The Fear of Box Stores”. I am pro business for this State and Town but I also want to preserve the character of the downtown. Freeport is an excellent example of what can be done with proper restrictions in place to preserve existing town character, you can drive by the McDonalds in downtown and not even know it is there because it blends in with the existing building designs.
I’ve had to wait 6 years to voice my opinions-rest assured I will this time at the Public hearing on Tuesday night.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
It seems like the positions expressed on this blog are not far apart at all: take care of these 7 properties to allow reasonable business development while avoiding the damage that could potentially be done with a blanket B1 zone; while maintaining the essential streetscape character that this unique area has. This is not R1. It’s also not B1. It isn’t that hard to “dust-off” the work previously done that would have achieved this hybrid, ad make it work now. I hope people express this direction to the Planning Board and the Council. Get it done.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The problem with waiting for the planning board to dust off the work previously done is that they are continually stopped, questioned, petitioned against and stalled by a variety of sources - whether it be different factions of town administration or vocal opponents among the town residents.
I don’t see how we can reasonably expect those partially concieved plans to turn into ordinances and be applied any time in the near future. The planning department has been making asurances that ‘we are almost there’ and ‘just a few more months’ for years now. We have already been down that road and have seen nothing in the way of changes.
In the meantime, people suffer financially and continue to be deprived of their property rights. It is wrong to make them wait any longer. That illegal spot zoning change may and should be invalidated. If the town invalidates the change themselves, they can move quickly to bring the new Business Ordinances that do more to protect the town’s character into place. They might be more urgently at the task and have more support from the people of the town as well - instead of the opposition they have had so much of.
And by the way - BOTH property owners who purchased the parcels after the zoning change of 2002, did so under the belief that they were purchasing property in a business zone and that they would have the freedoms to perform the work they set out to do.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I was one of the many residents who, back in the late 1990s, got worried that a RiteAid or similar business could start tearing up our downtown. Concerned about that threat, a group of us pushed the Town Council to pass some zoning to maintain South Berwick’s character as well as its economic vitality. The solution we pushed for was never rezoning business areas to R1. Instead, it involved size restrictions based on the types of houses we now have, as well as a type of design review process, to discourage demolition and construction of vastly different types of buildings. These recommendations were developed under the Planning Board with the guidance of Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission staff, whose expertise the Town Council had requested for this purpose. The Planning Board approved the final recommendations, and in 2000, many of us believed Town Council passed them.
These ordinances are drafted, and presumably right in the South Berwick planning office. As someone else has pointed out, there is not a huge division of opinion here about the outcome we want. There probably never has been. This time, let’s all urge the Planning Board (and Council) to stay on task and get it done.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Wendy’s right. We are not at a standing start on this…. This can be done in relatively short order, based on the work completed several years ago. It would be a ridiculous outcome if B1 was reinstated just because it is “convenient”. There are important long term considerations here, and the outcome should reflect those realities. Everyone seems to agree on the nature of the appropriate outcome. Let’s push to see it happen; With this kind of input, the PB and Council would be hard-pressed to do anything different. A B1 proposal at this point should be seen as a simplistic, and wrong, idea.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
And quoting guest:
“BOTH property owners who purchased the parcels after the zoning change of 2002, did so under the belief that they were purchasing property in a business zone “…………
Come on now, if someone invests $$ without knowledge and having their ducks in a row, that’s just not the Town’s problem. The “Planning Department” doesn’t change zoning, or make policy. If people go on that, they are …………..
But in any event, let’s push for the right outcome here.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Unless I’ve missed something here, the zoning in question was B1, was changed to R1, and now is being considered to be changed back to B1. Returning a zone to its original zoning status is a far cry from changing a zone into a new one pulled from a hat. And it sounds as though it never should have been changed in the first place. I like the small town feel of our town, but I don’t think that restoring seven properties to the original zoning is going to change the face of the whole town forever…more like put it back the way it was in the first place.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Anon, That’s not quite right. RiteAid came in and wanted to do a box store there several years ago, with B1. That kind of proposal would be fair game if B1 is reinstated; now, or 5, 10 years or more down the line. It’s a unique area, with a mix of residential, and small businesses now. It is surrounded on 3 sides by well established residential areas. It has two landmark churches across the street. No-one is saying that R1 should necessarily be kept. There was a design review plan that integrated business with the unique naturte of the area that was developed (not implemented) that would have been acceptable to most, if not all. B1 is simplistic, and the wrong zoning for these properties. It’s not that big a project to get it right, and it’s the right thing to do.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
In Foster’s today, it quotes Steve Harrington, the fellow that boarded up his house in the area considered for rezoning, as saying he “thought” it was zoned business when he bought it, and then started to convert the place to multiple apartments. It was in fact zoned residential, and teh Town had to tell him to stop. He did not check on the zoning??!! Wow. I don’t have much sympathy for a guy who doesn’t do a little due diliigence before spending a whole lot of $$, and then blames the Town for his problem. That’s kind of like blaming the cop for the speeding ticket you just got going 57 mph on a 35mph street.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
To MakeSense: If you or any of you are really interested in why Steve believed the property was zoned B1 when he bought it, then give him a call and he will be happy to talk to you about that. 207-752-2368. If he does not answer, leave a message and he will call you back.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Molly, good luck wit your father. You have the right message about the zoning issue. COMPROMISE to acheive the desirable outcome. It won’t be hard; it can be accomplished readily.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I love the way here say is put out there as fact. Right aid came looking to put a store in. Just like they look at every other corner in every other town. After they looked and it didn’t fit there profile they moved on. Corporations like that fight small towns on issues like sudden changes in zoning and a lot of times they win. don’t think for a second that if right aid could of made a lot of MONEY they would of fought it right to the very end.
South Berwick just does not fit the profile for big box stores.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mark, I’m not as confident as you are when you claim that S.B. does not fit the profile for box stores. OK, there’s no room in town for a Home Depot, but there are two Cumberland farms within shouting distance. South Berwick is a crossroads of two state highways. It has high traffic count. There are lots in town that could accommodate medium-boxes, and certainly if two lots were combined.
From a RiteAid’s point of view, we are a gateway to all three Berwicks, and a perfect stop on the commute to and from work. If not a RiteAid, maybe a D’angelo’s or a Dunkin’…. hmmmm.
Since we don’t want the town to take on the character of a franchise strip, let’s develop the controls we need that will allow businesses to grow, but grow in a manner more respectful of the town’s traditional appearance. That character is a durable asset. It appreciates with time.
Isn’t it true that Rite Aid actually wanted to buy a lot in town but the owner chose not to sell? I don’t know whether that is legend or fact. If anyone knows for certain, I would ask them to post the details.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Sue,
I keep hearing how we are a gateway and a crossroad, which will only attract bad businesses.
If we are a gateway, then our current message is
“Hi hurry on through and spend your money elsewhere, because we have nothing for you”
I am not advocating a Rite Aid, or a strip mall, but we have to be looking at ways we can entice people to stop in our town and spend some of their money.
There are several reasons for this, but primarily, our existing businesses can benefit from people actually having a reason to stop.
Currently, unless they are going to buy a baby hat, a sub or pizza, or eat at Cafe Brioche, there is nothing to entice them to stop. Fogarties is off the beaten path, so you have to know it’s there before you would stop.
I keep hearing about how SB has a great walkable downtown area. That may be true, but there is very little to walk to, and even less to encourage visitors to stop.
We have lower main street, which could be an ideal place for some small businesses, and or office spaces, but not in it’s current condition.
People are in South Berwick for a couple of miles before they hit down town when they are traveling up 236. What gives them any idea that they may want to stop?
From the north, they see a golf course, then houses, and then nothing but a traffic snarl that they just want to get through.
From Rollinsford, most of the people never hit down town as they mainly turn on to 236 to leave town.
Traffic on the weekends can be ridiculous with all the out of state cars just going through on their way home or to their vacation spot.
We also have many thousands of cars and trucks that just zip through on a daily basis on their way to and from work.
What do we get from all this traffic? Nothing but the inconvenience of having to fight through it.
We could work together to come up with a plan that would benefit the town, the businesses, and encourage new business, is a manner that welcomes people.
I would see no problem with a McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendy’s done in a way that fits in with the towns character.
If I pick up take out from any of those places (yes, we do occasionally do that when we are in a pinch for time) it is always cold by the time I get home.
I would also not mind seeing some small stores that may have a nitch theme that would work to entice people to stop.
There are ways we can restrict what type of building that goes up, how big it can be, how much parking is required, etc. so that it fits in to the character of the existing structures, but we should not rule out any and all businesses just because of their name.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Here’s something to consider-
What will happen to this “prime” crossroads retail space when the proposed DOT bypass takes route 236 traffic out of the mix? The latest plan is to take the traffic off at Great Works School, go over the heights and spit out onto route 4 near Powderhouse.
Here’s another thought-
As the former chair of the planning board and an all around nosy neighbor- I have been hearing for years that South Berwick’s downtown business owners do not get much business from commuters- They (the comuters) just want to get through the traffic bottle neck that is our downtown. One of the problems is that there isn’t sufficient parking- even the ONB parking lot, that was intentionally positioned to make it more available to downtown businesses, is too far away for most people. Commuters don’t want to get out of their cars and walk. The only businesses that are profitable with commuters have a Drive Through Feature. No business with a drive through is going to bring an additional dime to our established downtown retailers.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Brian,
I agree, parking is a critical issue.
That’s part of what I meant about lower main street. We can encourage all kinds of business, but if there is no parking there, no one will come.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Once again, Big Box scare tactics… It ain’t happenin’ people.
Brian hit’s the nail on the head, our “crossroads” are so conjested that it deters shoppers instead of attracting them.
There simply isn’t enough real estate and certainly not enough infrastructure to support any of the large retail outfits. And once again, that spot is half a mile form tax free New Hampshire… Not Gonna Happen. Don’t believe the BS spewed on here about Rite-Aids, Wal-Marts and Lowe’s. There could be room for one of those evil chain Restaurant’s… What’s so bad about that? Us common folk would love another choice for food in town even if it is a chain.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
very well said Dave, many towns restrict the “look” of any building and control their historical identity (refer to York library), and parking can always be “out back”. But why restrict our conversation or possibilities to ” box stores…what about Dr. and lawyer offices. We have some nice looking ones now. Expanding medical facilities, specialists, insurance, contractors, small bussiness retail (lobster/ fish market), auto parts.
…any business that needs office space Some of these need traffic others are destinations that a by pass wouldn’t affect…if that ever happens…can you imagine the “fight” that will go along with that!!
September 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Mike,
I agree that office space would be a good use for some areas.
My concern with that is there is no alot to draw the businesses in.
We need some additional small businesses that would work well with an office park based area. We also need to ensure there is parking for such offices and their potential customers.
Lower main street could be used for such offices, but again, it would be nice to have some lunch choices, small shops for a walking lunch, etc… for these businesses to be able to take clients to.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Mike- If DOT wants a bypass there is no fight. The state gets to decide what they want, how much they want to pay for property and when it will happen. The system does not include an opportunity for citizens to voice their disapproval, except through their elected state representatives.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Brian, but it does mean putting a road through someone’s property and/or open land… there are quite a few residences in that area…and all of a sudden it’s going to be a bypass…? if it was my property there would be a fight! As a matter of fact if it involves some of our wonderful open or recreational land I’ll lend my voice to the fight!
September 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Folks:
Rite Aid approached one or more property owners a few years ago in the area in question, and offered to buy the properties at way above market price. It was then zoned B1. The owners refused. Since then, as the area was zoned residential, precluding this kind of proposal.
The RiteAid or big box store risk is not a scare tactic at all; it’s a fact, borne out by actual history in this very place!! That area is attractive to this that type of development. Arguments to the contrary ignore history; and what could happen now, 5 years, 10 years or more down the line if the zoning is returned to B1. I for one don’t want that risk to be taken that “it won’t happen”. It DID happen.
At the Planning Board hearing Tuesday night, there was overwhelming agreement of those testifying, including business owners and others, that a mixed use type zoning be established, that allows robust and reasonable business development while maintaining the essential character of this old, traditional neighborhood at the center of town.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Last Tuesday’s public hearing on rezoning a section of Main Street was well attended. Thank you, all who came to support, listen and speak on this important issue.
As people spoke, they were just about unanimous in calling for restrictions to be incorporated into any rezoning to business. While there was much support for local businesses, residents at the hearing did not want to see downtown South Berwick opened up to “Anywhere USA” development. With such a consensus, the Planning Board decided not to recommend B1 expansion.
The Planning Board and the Town Council now plan to hold a joint workshop at 6 pm on Tuesday, October 7 to work on rezoning to business with restrictions. Building size restrictions and design review need to be put in place.
Coming to a common ground as to what is appropriate building size and adequate design review is the work in front of the Planning Board, Town Council and the public. Please continue to advocate for restrictions that maintain the traditional character of the village.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Village? Gretchen, Wendy and others The Village went out the day the estates were built, the day dunkin donuts move to town, the day we got two gas stations, the day Cumberland farms moved in, the day that 5000 cars move thru town, the day I have to pay $3500 a year in taxes. Wake up and look around this is a full blown town.
I agree that B1 is not the appropriate designation for that area but nether is its current one. I see nothing wrong with apartments or doctors & lawyers offices or something like that.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I agree. The day Dunkin’ Donuts was allowed to put up their storefront with the ill-conceived traffic flow pattern was the day it ceased to be a village.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I remember when Dunkin D was Christine’s Bakery. Same place, same operation, basically. Looks like we all agree on what shoule be done here.
Look around other towns. I think we may be accustomed to what we have here, and maybe don’t see it. I think there is a great deal of village characteristics here that we see every day, and don’t appreciate every day.
Reminds me of when I was 20 years old ( a very long time ago–, in the 1970s) I got a job washing dishes at the Jackson Lake Lodge in the Grand Tetons in Wyoming for 6 weeks. After a couple weeks , I realized that I was not noticing the spectacular view of the mountains, because I saw it every day.
I think that’s what we have here in South Berwick.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
My point, to quote Joni Mithchell:
” You don’t know what you got till it’s gone……”
September 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Well, I have to say I’ve lived in Maine all my life except for my college years and early married life and I never grow tired of the view off the Piscataqua Bridge. I love seeing what is around me - I try to make sure I never take it for granted.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
OK MakeSense I got one for ya. The best part of going away is coming home!