Council debates building height, moratorium, trash

Pay-per-bag approved in final reading
By Daniel Dunkle | Jul 15, 2014

Rockland — A divided Rockland City Council voted to postpone consideration of a height limit on buildings in part of Rockland's downtown, but gave initial approval to a moratorium on buildings more than 50 feet tall in the South End July 14.

The council held a public hearing and final reading on an ordinance amendment sponsored by Councilor Elizabeth Dickerson that would limit buildings to a maximum height of 50 feet or four stories in the downtown south of Park Street.

Dickerson moved passage on the amendment, and the floor was turned over to Councilor Frank Isganitis. As Isganitis was starting to speak, Dickerson said, "I move the question."

Dickerson argued that her moving the question trumped what Isganitis was going to do, but Mayor Larry Pritchett and City Clerk Stuart Sylvester said Isganitis had the floor at that point, so she could not make the motion.

Isganitis proceeded to move to postpone until February to give the council six months to study the issue.

Dickerson asked if he supported the six-month moratorium on building projects of more than 50 feet in height, which was proposed by the city's Comprehensive Planning Commission. He said he did not support the moratorium.

Dickerson argued that if the council was going to postpone the height limit, it should support the moratorium.

She said it has been an unfortunate process that has left the citizens divided, but she felt giving it six months might bring people together. She said it is important for a political body and city staff to maintain "agnostic engagement" with the issue and that, too often, the citizens are at odds with the council or feel helpless to protect their quality of life and sense of place.

Isganitis argued the existing 65-foot height limit has been in place for 30 years.

The council voted 3-2 to postpone the height limit ordinance with Dickerson and Louise MacLellan-Ruf opposed to the postponement. Isganitis, Pritchett and Eric Hebert supported it.

The Comprehensive Planning Commission had recommended the council not act on the ordinance and recommended a six-month moratorium on new applications for new and expanded buildings exceeding 50 feet in height in the downtown zone south of Park Street. Pritchett describes the area in question as "the two blocks bounded by Union, Pleasant, Main and Park Streets plus the properties along Main Street and Park Drive that abut Harbor Park."

The council voted 3-2 to give initial approval to an ordinance for the moratorium, and will have to finalize it at a later meeting. In this case, Hebert and Isganitis were opposed to the motion.

Isganitis argued the 65-foot horse was already out of the barn, referring to the five-story hotel that has already been approved in the South End. He and Hebert expressed concern that this sends the message that Rockland is not open to new development.

Pritchett disagreed. He noted this will affect about one city block.

In other business

The council voted 3-2 to approve in final reading an ordinance amendment establishing a pay-per-bag system for disposal of municipal solid waste (trash). MacLellan-Ruf and Dickerson opposed the ordinance.

Dickerson said she has always promoted recycling, taking care of the environment and limiting trash, but said she opposed this because the citizens of Rockland feel pushed up against a wall with property taxes and other rising costs for services.

Hebert argued this is the fairest way to pay for the disposal of trash.

As of May 2, 2015, residents will have to buy special bags from the city to dispose of household trash or pay by the ton, rather than buying dump sticker for their vehicles.

Dickerson pointed out the city is spending $6,000 to buy the plastic bags for the program.

Courier Publications News Director Daniel Dunkle can be reached at ddunkle@courierpublicationsllc.com or 594-4401 ext. 122.

Comments (2)
Posted by: Amy Files | Jul 15, 2014 12:46

It should be noted that the Comprehensive Planning Commission has requested the 6 month height moratorium in order for them to have adequate time to consider appropriate heights in the DT Zone. They are not necessarily advocating that 65ft not be allowed at all -- but that there clearly need to be some transitional heights where the Zone abuts residential and zones where lower heights are a maximum. It is just not common sense to allow 5 or 6 story buildings to abut 1 story homes.

I am surprised and disappointed to see that, after the amount of concern expressed by residents that the City Council did not unanimously approve this. What's done is done regarding the hotel but residents have clearly expressed repeated concerns about the height allowance that abuts their homes. There is something to be said about making sure that Rockland remains business-friendly. But folks who want to invest in their homes, who want to renovate and update also need some assurance that Rockland considers their properties worthy of protection and have some trust that they won't be surrounded by parking lots and 65ft buildings in 10 years. Without this Rockland will push out the same folks that they want to attract to live here year-round.



Posted by: Maggie Trout | Jul 15, 2014 12:46

Is it a correct statement that the least number of Rockland residents are bearing the brunt of the dumping with the greater proportion using commercial haulers?

 

The plastics bags are, or are not made of recycled materials?

 

Councilors opposed to the building height moratorium must ask themselves why they have so little faith in the ability of Rockland to attract new business and new development that a developer would decide against construction solely on the basis of height restrictions.  Which is Rockland?  The city that pulls in CMCA and boutique hotel and Smith-type, and other development and the several new businesses that have recently opened, and the number of businesses that have expanded, or the city with a perpetual inferiority begging bowl in its hands?  One can apply that question to the granting of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). 

 

There are far more For Sale signs that have cropped up over the last two months.  Is it the goal of the city to be entirely free of residents and homes in favor of a solely commercity city, because that's what it's looking like.



If you wish to comment, please login.

Staff Profile

Dan Dunkle
Editor
207 594-4401 ext. 122
Email Me

Daniel Dunkle is editor of The Courier-Gazette and news director for Courier Publications. He lives in Rockland with his wife, Christine, who also works for Courier Publications, and two children.

Dunkle has previously served as editor of The Republican Journal in Belfast. He has worked as a reporter and photographer in the Midcoast for 15 years.

 

Recent Stories by Dan Dunkle