Town Council’s decision leaves committee with questions
Town Council’s decision leaves committee with questions
By Amanda Estes
Staff writer
Scarborough's Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee (CPIC) is currently at a standstill after the Town Council voted down proposed amendments to the town ordinance regarding affordable and multi-family housing and remanded the proposed development transfer provision back to the committee. The CPIC will need to reevaluate its explanation of the development transfer provisions with the intent of creating a more transparent argument for its implementation.
The council was divided over what role the town should play in the transfer of development rights. The proposed amendment would allow the town to purchase land in limited growth areas with money generated by fees paid by developers for additional residential density within the designated growth areas. The CPIC created the amendment in response to the lack of success of a direct transfer of development rights program. Councilor Sylvia Most, who serves as the council liaison to the CPIC, said the proposed amendment would allow the “community to choose what land it wants to take off the market” and it is a way to shift development from the west side of town, which is more expensive to service, to the east side of the turnpike where there is water and sewer. She refuted claims that the town does not belong in the real estate business by reminding the council of the town’s role in the land trust and the land bond.
Councilor Shawn Babine, who was opposed to sending the amendment back to the committee, said under this amendment the town would be “acting as an intermediary as opposed to the land trust where the town is the purchaser or the beneficiary.”
At this stage in the plan’s implementation, the amendment to the development transfer provisions would only provide a tool for transferring development. The developer would not be able to use this tool until the town designates the areas where the development transfer credits can be used.
The amendments to the growth management ordinance and the definitions of multifamily housing both failed by a vote of three to three with Shawn Jeff Messer and Richard Sullivan opposed on both counts. The amendment to the growth ordinance was intended to make it easier for developers to build affordable housing by extending the time permits for multiplex, elderly, and affordable housing are valid. Under the amendment, the maximum number of growth permits issued each year would be 135 plus any remaining growth permits at the end of the previous year. Babine said allowing the permits to carry over would be “counterintuitive” to the town’s goal of stabilizing growth.
“The permits are not being used now because of the market and Scarborough’s definition of affordable housing,” Babine said.
Babine said allowing growth permits to be carried forward would result in spikes in services and expenses.
Most said she was surprised by the council’s reaction to the definitions regarding multifamily housing. She said, “It’s unusual to vote down definitions, they are just definitions, they don’t apply to anything yet.”
Creating definitions for multi-family housing was a recommendation from the Scarborough Housing Alliance. The definitions are meant to be aids in determining how to handle the different types of housing when the time comes to update certain zoning districts. The amendments would also provide a definition for bedroom that would be enforceable by Codes and a definition for a dwelling unit in a mixed-use building. The amendments also call for adjustments to the definitions of a live/work unit, living space, and multiplex, senior housing, and townhouses. Living space would be adjusted to not include common spaces and multiplex, senior housing and townhouses would all be considered multifamily dwellings. A live/work unit would be defined as a multifamily dwelling or mixed-use building that contains both living space and work space.
Richard Shinay, a member of the CPIC, said he was “disturbed” by the council’s decision to vote down the definitions. He said the council had made it impossible for the committee to move on. Council Chair Jeffrey Messer said he voted against the amendment because he did not fully understand what he was voting on. Shinay asked that in the future, the council should table amendments back to the CPIC rather than shut them down completely. If the order is not brought up for reconsideration at the next council meeting, a year will have to go by before it can be broached again.
By Amanda Estes
Staff writer
Scarborough's Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee (CPIC) is currently at a standstill after the Town Council voted down proposed amendments to the town ordinance regarding affordable and multi-family housing and remanded the proposed development transfer provision back to the committee. The CPIC will need to reevaluate its explanation of the development transfer provisions with the intent of creating a more transparent argument for its implementation.
The council was divided over what role the town should play in the transfer of development rights. The proposed amendment would allow the town to purchase land in limited growth areas with money generated by fees paid by developers for additional residential density within the designated growth areas. The CPIC created the amendment in response to the lack of success of a direct transfer of development rights program. Councilor Sylvia Most, who serves as the council liaison to the CPIC, said the proposed amendment would allow the “community to choose what land it wants to take off the market” and it is a way to shift development from the west side of town, which is more expensive to service, to the east side of the turnpike where there is water and sewer. She refuted claims that the town does not belong in the real estate business by reminding the council of the town’s role in the land trust and the land bond.
Councilor Shawn Babine, who was opposed to sending the amendment back to the committee, said under this amendment the town would be “acting as an intermediary as opposed to the land trust where the town is the purchaser or the beneficiary.”
At this stage in the plan’s implementation, the amendment to the development transfer provisions would only provide a tool for transferring development. The developer would not be able to use this tool until the town designates the areas where the development transfer credits can be used.
The amendments to the growth management ordinance and the definitions of multifamily housing both failed by a vote of three to three with Shawn Jeff Messer and Richard Sullivan opposed on both counts. The amendment to the growth ordinance was intended to make it easier for developers to build affordable housing by extending the time permits for multiplex, elderly, and affordable housing are valid. Under the amendment, the maximum number of growth permits issued each year would be 135 plus any remaining growth permits at the end of the previous year. Babine said allowing the permits to carry over would be “counterintuitive” to the town’s goal of stabilizing growth.
“The permits are not being used now because of the market and Scarborough’s definition of affordable housing,” Babine said.
Babine said allowing growth permits to be carried forward would result in spikes in services and expenses.
Most said she was surprised by the council’s reaction to the definitions regarding multifamily housing. She said, “It’s unusual to vote down definitions, they are just definitions, they don’t apply to anything yet.”
Creating definitions for multi-family housing was a recommendation from the Scarborough Housing Alliance. The definitions are meant to be aids in determining how to handle the different types of housing when the time comes to update certain zoning districts. The amendments would also provide a definition for bedroom that would be enforceable by Codes and a definition for a dwelling unit in a mixed-use building. The amendments also call for adjustments to the definitions of a live/work unit, living space, and multiplex, senior housing, and townhouses. Living space would be adjusted to not include common spaces and multiplex, senior housing and townhouses would all be considered multifamily dwellings. A live/work unit would be defined as a multifamily dwelling or mixed-use building that contains both living space and work space.
Richard Shinay, a member of the CPIC, said he was “disturbed” by the council’s decision to vote down the definitions. He said the council had made it impossible for the committee to move on. Council Chair Jeffrey Messer said he voted against the amendment because he did not fully understand what he was voting on. Shinay asked that in the future, the council should table amendments back to the CPIC rather than shut them down completely. If the order is not brought up for reconsideration at the next council meeting, a year will have to go by before it can be broached again.
Comments