Council approves, rejects changes to Dunstan, Oak Hill impact fees
Council approves, rejects changes to Dunstan, Oak Hill impact fees
By Amanda Estes
Staff writer
Retroactivity and its effect on the proposed roadway impact fee ordinances for Oak Hill and Dunstan Corner was a significant factor as town councilors faced a public hearing and a decision on both issues at last Wednesday's meeting.
The proposed Oak Hill impact fee was devised to acquire 25 percent of the costs for roadway improvements from developers. Those possible improvements could include adding more left turn lanes to Black Point and Gorham roads and adding raised and flush medians to reduce dangerous entering and exiting of roads. Town Manager Ronald Owens said that, although safety has to be addressed when improving infrastructure, the purpose of the plan was to add "additional capacity to Route One" by increasing the efficiency of connecting roads.
As the ordinance was drafted, fees could only be collected from projects approved after the provision's first reading on Jan. 17. The ordinance would not affect projects pending before the Planning Board as of that January date. In a memo to the councilors, Owens outlined that the following projects would be excluded from the impact fees: Saco-Biddeford Savings Bank, the Eastern Village subdivision, the Cabela’s/Scarborough Gateway Project, the MER commercial project and the Haigis Parkway Professional Center.
"(It is) disappointing that Cabela's is not contributing to the fees, said Councilor Patrick O'Reilly. "The Eastern Village project (is also) clearly impacting the intersection."
O'Reilly made an amendment, which was seconded by Councilor Sylvia Most, that all projects that had not received the final approval from the Planning Board by Jan. 17 be subject to impact fees. The amendment was met with criticism from other councilors and subsequently failed. To compensate for losing that option, O'Reilly proposed that the Oak Hill fee be raised to 33 percent to match Dunstan Corner, but that amendment failed and the council neglected to approve the ordinance.
"(I'm) not in favor of making (fees) retroactive, said Council Chair Jeffrey Messer, referring not only to Oak Hill fees, but also fees for Dunstan Corner. "Developers already have a sizeable investment in their project when they come before the Planning Board."
The first reading of the Dunstan Corner impact fee occurred on June 21 of last year and the ordinance was later approved on Aug. 16. At that time, the ordinance called for a retroactive provision for the procurement of 33.3 percent of the costs for roadway improvements from developers. The amendments in question Wednesday night would have reduced the developer's share to 25 percent. Fees for projects pending as of June 21 would need to be recalculated to reflect the change. According to Owens' memo, the pending projects include Bayley's Campground, Dunstan Crossing, Homewood Suites, Dead River/Orion Center, Eastern Village, Sam's Club and Bessey Square.
"The ordinance hasn't been in place long enough (to change)," said Most.
O'Reilly also expressed concern over "undoing something that a prior council did," as the initial approval of the ordinance occurred prior to elections. Owens said that the council had the authority to change the ordinance.
Just prior to the council's approval of the proposed amendments, Councilor Carol Rancourt added a third that would exempt individual, single lot developments from impact fees.
Although the Oak Hill ordinance was rejected, Owens did not count out a possible plan years down the road that would reroute traffic away from Route One, thus also affecting Dunstan Corner. He said one method would be intercepting traffic with a turnpike interchange before it reached Scarborough and the town is "contributing funds to a study" of a project that would include Saco and Old Orchard Beach.
As it stands now, the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) may decide to take action to improve Oak Hill's efficiency. It is not known, however, if or when MDOT will become involved.
By Amanda Estes
Staff writer
Retroactivity and its effect on the proposed roadway impact fee ordinances for Oak Hill and Dunstan Corner was a significant factor as town councilors faced a public hearing and a decision on both issues at last Wednesday's meeting.
The proposed Oak Hill impact fee was devised to acquire 25 percent of the costs for roadway improvements from developers. Those possible improvements could include adding more left turn lanes to Black Point and Gorham roads and adding raised and flush medians to reduce dangerous entering and exiting of roads. Town Manager Ronald Owens said that, although safety has to be addressed when improving infrastructure, the purpose of the plan was to add "additional capacity to Route One" by increasing the efficiency of connecting roads.
As the ordinance was drafted, fees could only be collected from projects approved after the provision's first reading on Jan. 17. The ordinance would not affect projects pending before the Planning Board as of that January date. In a memo to the councilors, Owens outlined that the following projects would be excluded from the impact fees: Saco-Biddeford Savings Bank, the Eastern Village subdivision, the Cabela’s/Scarborough Gateway Project, the MER commercial project and the Haigis Parkway Professional Center.
"(It is) disappointing that Cabela's is not contributing to the fees, said Councilor Patrick O'Reilly. "The Eastern Village project (is also) clearly impacting the intersection."
O'Reilly made an amendment, which was seconded by Councilor Sylvia Most, that all projects that had not received the final approval from the Planning Board by Jan. 17 be subject to impact fees. The amendment was met with criticism from other councilors and subsequently failed. To compensate for losing that option, O'Reilly proposed that the Oak Hill fee be raised to 33 percent to match Dunstan Corner, but that amendment failed and the council neglected to approve the ordinance.
"(I'm) not in favor of making (fees) retroactive, said Council Chair Jeffrey Messer, referring not only to Oak Hill fees, but also fees for Dunstan Corner. "Developers already have a sizeable investment in their project when they come before the Planning Board."
The first reading of the Dunstan Corner impact fee occurred on June 21 of last year and the ordinance was later approved on Aug. 16. At that time, the ordinance called for a retroactive provision for the procurement of 33.3 percent of the costs for roadway improvements from developers. The amendments in question Wednesday night would have reduced the developer's share to 25 percent. Fees for projects pending as of June 21 would need to be recalculated to reflect the change. According to Owens' memo, the pending projects include Bayley's Campground, Dunstan Crossing, Homewood Suites, Dead River/Orion Center, Eastern Village, Sam's Club and Bessey Square.
"The ordinance hasn't been in place long enough (to change)," said Most.
O'Reilly also expressed concern over "undoing something that a prior council did," as the initial approval of the ordinance occurred prior to elections. Owens said that the council had the authority to change the ordinance.
Just prior to the council's approval of the proposed amendments, Councilor Carol Rancourt added a third that would exempt individual, single lot developments from impact fees.
Although the Oak Hill ordinance was rejected, Owens did not count out a possible plan years down the road that would reroute traffic away from Route One, thus also affecting Dunstan Corner. He said one method would be intercepting traffic with a turnpike interchange before it reached Scarborough and the town is "contributing funds to a study" of a project that would include Saco and Old Orchard Beach.
As it stands now, the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) may decide to take action to improve Oak Hill's efficiency. It is not known, however, if or when MDOT will become involved.
Comments