Orono boards define issues within housing ordinance

ORONO – Several issues were defined Monday as needing attention when the council and planning board met at a joint workshop to discuss revisions to the town’s planned unit development ordinance, which deals with housing developments.

There is a moratorium on such developments that expires near the end of September, Town Manager Cathy Conlow said. While members of the two boards have said they hope not to have to extend the moratorium another six months, it is a possibility if revisions to the ordinance haven’t been completed.

“I’d rather extend this and get it right than feel like it’s rushed,” council Chairman Geoff Gordon said Monday.

Evan Richert, a planning consultant from the University of Southern Maine, was hired by the town to assist in revising the ordinance.

The town now has four planned unit developments that are built or are in the works, but officials say the ordinance doesn’t ensure the type of development that the document intends is what can or will be constructed.

“It doesn’t guarantee what we really want,” planning board Chairman Mark Kittredge said.

While Monday night’s workshop wasn’t a time for public discussion on the issue, residents will have a chance to voice their concerns and opinions at a meeting scheduled from 6 to 9 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 23, at the town office.

During Monday’s session, councilors, planning board members and the town manager discussed what they felt needed to be changed in the ordinance.

“It is unusual for a PUD to be sort of a one-size-fits-all tool,” Richert said, noting that the wording of Orono’s ordinance doesn’t specifically address different types of development for specific areas.

The purposes of planned unit development outlined in Orono’s land use code, according to a handout from Richert, are to:

. Permit more flexible land development to allow a variety of uses.

. Allow efficient use of land resulting in a smaller network of utilities and streets.

. Provide open space and recreation areas.

. Respect and conserve natural resources.

“Those are very common purposes found in all kinds of PUD ordinances,” Richert said.

He went on to list four other purposes frequently stated in PUD ordinances, such as promoting innovation and excellence in design, and encouraging a range of housing opportunities.

While several issues were identified as important to both groups, open space and density were cited as the most crucial revisions to make.

“I look to the PUD as a way to put more housing in town while still allowing open space,” Gordon said.

Planning board members also voiced concern about needing proper wording to ensure that the ordinance produces the kind of development it is meant to.

“We need the tools to have the ability to reject things that are going to be bad,” planning board member Christa Schwintzer said.

Richert briefly addressed some of the issues mentioned, noting that it is possible to create what the town manager called an ordinance that has “flexibility with teeth,” that will benefit the town and its residents.

“Clearly we could put more bounds on this without losing the ability to be creative,” Richert said.

Several other issues, such as preservation of natural habitat, promotion of neighborhood compatibility, and zoning also were discussed.

“I think we’ve arrived at some knowledge of what needs to be done,” Jack Kartez, Richert’s co-worker and the meeting’s facilitator, said in closing. “We’re just not sure how it’s going to come out yet.”