Some Casco residents worry a proposed zoning ordinance could lead to sprawl, while others think the restrictions on land use would be excessive.

The ordinance could be presented to voters at the annual town meeting.

The first of at least two public hearings on the zoning ordinance was held Tuesday. The Zoning Advisory Committee will review the comments received before setting another public hearing. The full zoning ordinance is available for residents at the Casco Town Office.

The fewer than 15 residents who attended the hearing were split on whether they thought the ordinance was too strict, too lenient or just right. What they agreed on was that it would impact residents, and they hoped more would weigh in at future hearings.

“This is a terrible showing for something that is going to affect a lot of people,” said Trevor Tidd, who served on the committee that drafted the ordinance.

The committee has been working on the ordinance for six years. The process was initiated when in 2003 the town adopted a comprehensive plan – “a map into the future,” according to Town Manager David Morton.

State law requires towns’ zoning ordinances to be in compliance with comprehensive plans, Morton said, and keeping the existing zoning ordinance is not an option.

Dale Doughty, chairman of the Zoning Advisory Committee, said the major changes in the new ordinance are the addition of two new districts – rural-residential and rural – and rules meant to direct growth toward villages and away from rural areas. There were few changes to rules for commercial zones, Doughty said.

Resident Pam Edwards said she didn’t think the proposed ordinance was protective enough of the rural areas, adding that she would not vote for it as written.

Gil Avery, another resident, read a letter from Pat Troy describing similar concerns.

“It could easily lead to sprawl,” Troy wrote, pointing out that the village district was enlarged and lot size decreased.

Avery, however, said he thought the ordinance should be less restrictive to property uses in the villages, pointing out that automotive shops would be denied in the village district and yard and garage sales would be limited to four during a six-month period.

“I believe this ordinance should be revisited in its entirety,” Avery said, adding that the document was hard to understand.

“Peoples’ businesses have an effect on other people,” Tidd said in response to Avery’s comments about allowing automotive shops. Both Tidd and Morton said the current ordinance was more restrictive than the one proposed.

Doughty said the proposed ordinance represents the most comprehensive change since the original zoning ordinance was adopted.

“This has been an enormous task,” Doughty said.