Skip Navigation
Detail Detail
Detail Detail Detail


This table is used for column layout.
Gardiner ME on Facebook
Gardiner ME on Twitter
Comp Plan Review Minutes 04/01/02

April 1, 2002
6:00 PM


Members Present:                
James Montell
                                Dorothy Washburne
                                Bill Ebert
Phil Barter
Members Absent: Allie Vigue, Chair
Jean Dellert
Peter Johnson
                                Andrew MacLean

Also Present:           Rich Rothe, Consultant to the Committee
Jeffrey Hinderliter, Gardiner CEO/Planner
                                Francis Grey, Gardiner Economic/Community                                       Development Office

1.)     6:16 p.m., Meeting called to order by CEO/Planner, Jeffrey Hinderliter (Members agreed that Jeffrey would be the moderator for the meeting)

2.)     Roll Call taken by Jeffrey Hinderliter

3.)     James Montell made a motion to accept the minutes of March 20, 2002 with one correction (date of next meeting from Tuesday to Monday).  Phil Barter seconded the motion.
        Vote:   4 in favor, 0 opposed. Motion passed.

        Phil Barter made a motion to accept the corrected minutes of February 20, 2002 (date referencing February 6, 2002 minutes). James Montell seconded the motion.
        Vote: 4 in favor, 0 opposed. Motion passed.

4.)     Jeffrey Hinderliter introduced the Proposed Site Plan Review Draft Ordinance.  He said this was the more technical part of the Ordinance.  The current Ordinance applies the same criteria to 160,000 SF commercial buildings as it does to small sheds.  It leaves a lot open to interpretation and a lot of gray areas

        He suggested that the proposed Site Plan Review (SPR) Ordinance is very restrictive and it might be a good idea to adopt the following criteria:

                1.      Change of use or new buildings under 1,000 SF reviewed by the CEO only
                2.      Between 1,000 and 3,000 SF a minor SPR
                3.      Over 3,000 SF, a full SPR

        Rich indicated that to do this, the Committee would have to go back to the tables and make changes.  If it just applied to change in use, it makes sense, but with new uses, there could be problems.  It is not always the size of the building, but the intensity of the use and traffic or sedimentation, etc. issues.  He suggested that he and Jeff work together on this issue.

        Dorothy Washburne suggested that the waiver would cover this issue.  Jeff said if it were consistently applied it could be ok.

        The Members discussed (5-2), B-3.  They discussed putting a cap on the amount of total increase in parking.  They made changes to 5-2, C-2, change figure to 500 SF; 5-5, 2-b, corrected paragraph to include H in addition to I & J. Sections 5-5 thru 5-26 were reviewed.

        The appeal process was reviewed. It was suggested that for a Minor SPR, an Administrative Appeal could go to the Board of Appeals.  A Major SPR Administrative Appeal should go to the Superior Court.

6.)     Jeff indicated that the Shoreland (Section 6) and Flood Plain (Section 7) pretty much follow the state standards.  The Committee can only make them more restrictive.

        Phil Barter suggested that a colored map showing the shoreland areas be developed.  Rich indicated that the Committee would have to spend several meetings on developing these maps.  They also need to spend some time on the Overlay Districts.

        Jeff explained why some areas are designated Shoreland and others Resource Protection.  

        Section 4, Administration, was reviewed.  It spells out the duties of the CEO.
Jeff suggested adding two other types of appeals.  The current Variance Appeal process has a 4-part hardship requirement that is very difficult to meet. The two appeals he described as follows:

Practical Difficulty Appeal  an appeal that is not as difficult as proving the 4-part hardship criteria. You can ask for a relaxation of the dimensional requirements provided the relaxation does not equal more than 20%.

Disability Appeal  to cover items such as ramps, etc. Jeff read the State definition.

Internally lit signs and other signs were discussed.  It was decided to leave the Historic District as is.  Members saw a difference between an internally lit sign against a building and a freestanding sign. A suggestion was made to look at Augustas sign ordinance for some ideas.

It was suggested that the Committee take a tour of the area to look at signs and specific areas being considered as Overlay Districts, etc.

5.)     Other Business

°       Next Meeting

The next meeting date was set for Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers

6.)     Adjourn

Bill Ebert made a motion to adjourn. Dorothy Washburne seconded the motion.
Vote:  4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
        8:03 p.m. meeting adjourned

Detail Detail
Gardiner City Hall, 6 Church Street, Gardiner, ME 04345 (207) 582-4200
Click Here for Town Office Hours
Website Disclaimer
Virtual Towns & Schools Website