By Amanda Estes and Molly Lovell
Leader Staff
Prior to confirming Dan Bacon as the new town planner, the Scarborough Town Council conducted and unanimously approved a second reading on proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding multifamily housing.
      At Wednesday's council meeting, Bacon said the ordinance change is "intended to lay the foundation for future amendments as the town's comprehensive plan is implemented over the next several years."
      A 2006 update of the plan called for more affordable housing and more availability of houses of different types and prices. In an overview of the amendments the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee (CPIC) called for the creation of a "definition of a multifamily dwelling that does not limit the number of dwelling units in a building unless a limit is established in a particular zone, definitions for other types of multifamily housing (multiplexes, townhouses, senior housing, live/work units, units in mixed use buildings) and a provision for the residential density of multifamily units to be calculated based upon the size and number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit."
      In terms of density calculation, a dwelling unit with no more than one bedroom and no more than 750 square feet of living space would be counted as half of a dwelling unit, a dwelling unit with no more than two bedrooms and no more than 1,200 square feet would be counted as two-thirds of a dwelling unit and a dwelling unit with three or more bedrooms or more than 1,200 square feet would be counted as one dwelling unit. According to the CPIC overview, the change will allow for more, smaller apartment-style units rather than larger units with more bedrooms in zones that will allow for such density.
      At a February meeting, the council remanded the amendments back to the CPIC for clarification due to concerns over the number of units that would be allowed and the potential stress in services.
      On Wednesday, Councilor Patrick O'Reilly said he could "live with" the amendments since his lingering concerns about density would be addressed with future revisions to the zoning districts. Councilor Shawn Babine agreed with O'Reilly and said although the amendments didn't clarify how many units would be allowed in a building, he would support them with the knowledge that zoning would provide some restrictions.
     In other business, Town Manager Ron Owens and council members responded to a letter from resident Ian Engelman. Engleman wants to save the water tower at Oak Hill that’s scheduled to be torn down July 9. He has visions of turning the 80-foot tower into an observation deck resembling a lighthouse.
     Engelman was not at Wednesday’s meeting, but a letter was read on his behalf. “We gather here tonight at a crossroads. By shear accident, a gift has been bestowed upon our town which cannot be ignored,” read the letter.
     “The water tower was built upon the highest hill four score ago; without thought of our future, but for the delivery of sustenance for the citizens. Who would have thought back then, that a town would be built around it, that the center of town would be redefined and that we would be seeing the tower in a whole new way.”
     Engelman’s statement went on to reference a letter he received from Joseph Leasure, a principal with L & L Structural Engineering Services, Inc. out of South Portland. The letter talks about an Old Orchard man who purchased the town’s water tower with the intention of using if for commercial and residential space. While plans fell through for the tower’s conversion, Leasure indicated that a transformation was possible. According to Leasure, the tower is now being used for a cell tower at the top and storage at the bottom.
     Engelman provided Leaure’s letter to the Leader  earlier in the week, which detailed the plans for the Old Orchard Beach water tower, as well as provided recommendations for Scarborough’s water tower. In terms of the Oak Hill water tower, preliminary study by Leasure indicated that it is possible to transform the water tower into an observation deck. It would require reinforcement as well as interior supports to resist the proposed structural loading.
     “Let us not squander this moment due to fear,” Engelman’s letter read. “There is no reason to believe that by taking possession of the tower it will suddenly be a hazard or fall town. The tower has been quietly standing for 80 years without hurting anyone. Scary words like “liability” and “lead paint” should not derail a bigger and brighter future for our town. There are many very old historic examples of architecture meant for the distribution of water, bath’s in Budapest, aqueducts in Rome, Cisterns in Istanbul. Eighty yeas aint nothin’.”
     Engelman’s mention of hazards is one of the issues Owens and other members of the council have with the plan. Owens said it would cost $250,000 to remove the lead paint and repaint the structure. He estimated the cost of providing access to the top at $500,000.
     “This is an 80-year-old tank that’s held water for 80 years in a static condition . . . attempting to take something designed for a very specific purpose and turn it into something it was never designed for,” Owens said. Owens said any cost from delay of demo would the be the town’s responsibility and was concerned about liability should the tower be turned over.
     Council Chair Jeff Messer said he appreciated Engelman “thinking out of the box.” Messer said he spent time walking the site and had some concerns. He was concerned about parking and wondered if an observation deck would need to be staffed by town employees. He also wondered if it would need a bathroom. He mentioned a long-term plan for renovations at Wentworth Intermediate School that calls for the tennis courts to be relocated to the tower’s current location.
     “I just don’t think it’s attractive. I think the water tower is an eyesore. As far as putting something on top of the tower–I just don’t think it will look good,” Messer said.
      Ron Ahlquist called the cost of dealing with lead paint “astronomical,” and said the tower has been a site of pranks from high school students. “Kids are kids, it’s going to be a magnet to do something there.”
     Carol Rancourt was in favor of taking some time to mull over the situation. “Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.”
     Both Patrick O’Reilly and Shawn Babine said the idea for the tower’s transformation was good, but just not the right time.