Buckfield hopes to engage the public in preparing comprehensive plan

BUCKFIELD – At a special workshop held to initiate the comprehensive planning process, the question was not if a new plan should be prepared for the town of Buckfield.  Planning board members were unanimous in their resolve that the town’s current plan, written in 1984, was all but useless to help guide municipal officers in preparing for the town’s continued growth.  The only real question that arose was how best to engage the public in the process.

Planning board member Richard Piper, in particular, was critical of the public’s unwillingness to approve a previous update that had been written in 1993.   

“A very complete draft was presented to the public during a very well attended public meeting,” recalled Planning Board Chairman Judy Berg.  “It was not well received.”

As a consequence of negative reaction, that plan revision was never taken to the town for a public vote.  The update has languished away in limbo ever since. 

Noting that a comprehensive plan is a prerequisite for many grants that the town might otherwise apply for, Piper pressed Town Manager Glen Holmes on what the town has lost in potential revenue as result of having abandoned it’s 1993 attempt to update the plan.

“From talking to other town managers in the last week, most have said that between $5,000 and $50,000 per year is what most towns get [in grants], that we don’t even apply for at this point” said Holmes.  “So using a low estimate of $10,000 [per year] over the last 11 years.”

Holmes noted that comprehensive plans, to be considered valid, are required to be updated every 10 years.  With the 1993 proposed update not having made it’s way past the public hearing stage, the town was left with only the 1984 plan as it’s only official growth planning document.

“The problem, the 1984 plan is completely out of date and is no longer accepted,” said Holmes.  “That plan is absolutely worthless.”

“Right now, we’re costing – taking a long time, since 1993 – we’re costing the citizen’s of Buckfield a lot of money!  Period!” exclaimed Piper.

Most board members felt that citizen antipathy to zoning had scuttled the previous attempt to update the comprehensive plan.

“It’s about this map which alienated enough people for whatever reason,” noted board member Wes Ackley referring to a map included in the 1993 proposed update which had divided the town into rural and growth areas.

Berg noted that a minimum of these two regions were required for state acceptance of any plan that might be created.  Strategies would need to be developed, she said, to direct a minimum of 70 percent of new growth into the designated area.

“But you don’t have to have zoning to have a comprehensive plan,” said Piper.

“I don’t want to get people all wound up about zoning, when that’s not really what this is about,” agreed Holmes.  “It’s just a planning document.

Board members noted that the lack of an official planning document had done nothing to slow the pace of growth.  Berg noted that new building permits were being issued as the pace of “12 to 15 a year” at the time the board had last attempted to introduce a new comprehensive plan.  In recent years, between 20 to 23 permits were being granted annually.

Berg also noted that the trend was to a greater number of subdivisions.  Although subdivision requests in the early nineties had generally been for larger developments, many of those never came to fruition.  In recent years, the trend has been to smaller, and ever more frequent, subdivisions.

Board member Margot Siekman made note of the fact that Buckfield population figures has not kept pace with State projections compiled for the 1993 proposed update.  The town currently has some 300 fewer residents than has been anticipated.  School enrollment has also gone down, rather than up as had been charted at the time.

However, board member Roberta Hill postulated that much of the growth in town since 1993 may have occurred in those areas that were to have been designated as rural growth zones.  Sprawl, always a dirty word for growth planners, may have been the result.  In preparation for future meetings.

Board members agreed that the document should reflect the needs and desires of Buckfield’s citizens.  For this reason, they will now look to rewrite the town’s comprehensive plan, with hopes of bringing a new draft to voters in time for the next annual town meeting in June 2005.

The planning board hopes to save money by doing much of the work themselves.  Berg advised the board that the town would not be eligible for any state funding, as a grant had been used to complete the revision done in 1993.

Berg recently attended a selectmen’s meeting in hopes of soliciting approval for the project, along with a commitment to secure necessary funding.  Berg informed selectmen that the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments has provided an estimate of $7,000 for them to undertake work on the plan.

“We thought that was a bit much,” said Berg.  “We were thinking probably closer to $5,000.  We think that we can make a real push.  We can do most of the work ourselves.  The only thing that we cannot do is the maps.

“We would just like sense from you [selectmen] that we would be able to go to voters,” said Berg.

Complications for Buckfield subdivision proposal

BUCKFIELD – At a recent meeting of the Buckfield Planning Board, a conceptual plan for a proposed subdivision on North Whitman School Road was presented by Parker River, LLC.  While board members agreed that the plan was a good one, they were forced to advise the developers that the plan could not proceed, at least in it’s current form, at this time.

Laurence P. Minott, Jr., registered agent for Parker River, presented conceptual drawings for a plan to develop approximately 133 acres off of North Whitman School Road.

“It’s a wonderful plan,” said Planning Board Chairman Judy Berg, to the unanimous agreement of board members.

Unfortunately, board members were forced to point out that any roads, or curb cuts, into the property could not be allowed.  As a portion of the original property had previously been subdivided, the entirety of that mother lot would need to be considered under state subdivision law (Title 30-A, Section 4401.) for a period of five years.

The history of the property, and its development, is fairly convoluted.

Martha Blackburn, a partner in Ty-Han Associates, originally approached the planning board in September 2003 with a plan to purchase 140 acres, of a 400-acre lot at the corner of Whitman School Road and Paris Hill Road, from Harold and Winfred Jones.

The plan presented originally called for 8.5 acres to be developed into five housing lots.  As Buckfield, at that time, had different requirements for what it termed minor and major subdivisions – a stipulation since removed in recent updates to the town’s subdivision regulations – Blackburn revised the plan to include only four lots on 6.8 acres.

That development included two driveways, each serving two homes.  According to planning board members, this would use of the available number of curb cuts to the entire property for a period of five years.

“We, a long time ago, felt that people are entitled to subdivide their land,” said Berg.  “We just want to see that they have good subdivisions. 

Berg stated that Buckfield’s subdivision regulations are specifically written to encourage the creation of neighborhoods.  The town, she said, does not want to simply have road frontage subdivided, with a myriad of curb cuts on existing highways.

According to board minutes, Blackburn declined at the time of the original 6.8-acre development to detail any plans for the remaining 133 acres.  However, she did intimate that she had no further plans for five years.  In November 2003, Blackburn reportedly told the board that she had only purchased the 6.8 acres for development from the Jones’.

Board members were reportedly surprised to learn at their November meeting that Ty-Han Associates had apparently sold the four developed lots to Community Concepts.  The remaining acreage was sold to Parker River.

Blackburn’s husband, Thomas N. Blackburn, is the president and treasurer of Parker River. 

Representatives from Parker River seemed as surprised to that they would be denied further curb cuts, as board members were to find them involved at all.

“We were not told at that time that any other entity had purchased the land, and assumed it was still held by the Joneses,” said board member Margot Siekman.  “I only learned at this last meeting that Parker River has been holding it for the past year.”

“The point is, you were forewarned,” said Berg on questioning.  “There are several times were we discussed this.”

“It does not matter, according to State law, who does the subdivision of the mother lot,” said Siekman.  “When you [Parker River] bought that mother lot from the Jones’, you had already given up your rights [to further subdivide or add additional curb cuts.]

“When we questioned you about further subdivision, you stated that you had no plans for five years.  And you stated that twice,” said Siekman, addressing Martha Blackburn.

“We did encourage you to think about it very carefully,” said Berg, before quoting from previous board minutes: “Several board members encouraged her [Blackburn] to work with the board to develop an integrated plan for the entire lot.  Wes Ackley states that she might be hampering herself by not doing so since future access to the property could be limited if it is not planned in advance.”

The board did state that it wanted to work with Parker River to achieve an equitable solution.  Town Manager Glen Holmes, in particular, questioned various ways in which the firm might be able to reach its goals.

It was eventually decided that, if Parker River would obtain an easement from Community Concepts, turning one of the existing two driveways into an actual road leading to the future development site, this would allow development to continue without creating a new curb cut on the main roadway.

“That would be a wonderful solution for everyone, if that could be arranged,” said Siekman.

Buckfield to launch update of comprehensive plan

BUCKFIELD – Now that Buckfield’s subdivision regulations have been successfully updated – a project that consumed more that a year – the town’s planning board is turning to the next major task at hand. 

“It’s called a comprehensive plan, we’ve got to do it,” stressed planning board member Richard Piper.

Town Manager Glen Holmes agreed, stating that without a current comprehensive plan, the town is ineligible for most for the grants he might otherwise apply for.

Members of the board will now look to rewriting the town’s comprehensive plan, with hopes of bringing a new draft to voters in time for the next annual town meeting in June 2005.

As a major first step towards that goal, a public workshop has been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 15, at the Buckfield Municipal Building.

In preparation for this workshop, board members will be reviewing the town’s existing plan, along with a number of previous proposals for revision. 

Buckfield’s current comprehensive plan was written in 1984.  In 1993 a complete revision was drafted and brought before voters in a public hearing, with mixed results.

“A very complete draft was presented to the public during a very well attended public meeting,” recalled Planning Board Chairman Judy Berg.  “It was not well received.”

As a consequence of negative reaction, that plan revision was never taken to the town for a public vote.  The update and languished away in limbo ever since. 

According to Berg, some additional work was done in 2001 to update certain sections of the plan.  Those updates will be looked at, along with the entire 1993 proposed revision.  Board members will also be reviewing current plans from other area towns, including Turner and Greenwood.

“We are really just brainstorming at this point,” said Berg.

The planning board hopes to save money by doing much of the work themselves.  Berg advised the board that the town would not be eligible for any state funding, as a grant had been used to complete the revision done in 1993.

Berg recently attended a selectmen’s meeting in hopes of soliciting approval for the project, along with a commitment to secure necessary funding.  Berg informed selectmen that the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments has provided an estimate of $7,000 for them to undertake work on the plan.

“We thought that was a bit much,” said Berg.  “We were thinking probably closer to $5,000.  We think that we can make a real push.  We can do most of the work ourselves.  The only thing that we cannot do is the maps.

“We would just like sense from you [selectmen] that we would be able to go to voters,” said Berg.

“We’ve been waiting for this for a long time,” said Selectmen Oscar Gammon.  “If this is the only way that we are going to get it, then we ought to be at it.  I would say that as soon as you are ready to ask for some money, then come to the board and we’ll decide what we are going to do about a special town meeting.”

Berg does not expect a dollar figure for plan costs to be decided on at the upcoming workshop.  At that time, members will mostly be crafting an overall framework for the plan, including the debate on how much, if any, zoning to include.

“The most important thing we have to do is come up with zoning,” said Berg.  She stated that state approval of any plan would require a minimum of “growth area” and “rural” zones.

Board members have also recently debated the need for zoning in the downtown village area.  Such zoning might include different regulations for development in that area, such as shorter setback requirements.  Currently, a planned expansion at the Zadoc Long Free Library has hit a snag due to property line setbacks, which are now uniform throughout the entire town.