BRUNSWICK
It was a typo.
A transcription error from 2008 regarding boundaries of the Village Review Overlay Zone — and which historic properties it was intended to envelop — is part of the reason town councilors have scheduled a July 1 public hearing.
Councilors that night will take comment about both the recently completed revision of Section 216 of the town’s zoning ordinance, as well as a Bowdoin College request to expand the overlay zone.
Section 216 governs the Village Review Zone, or VRZ. Board members long have complained that language in the section — particularly related to demolition requests involving historic structures — was ambiguous to the point of uselessness. So Planning and Village Review board members worked through the winter to revise Section 216, clarifying language and removing inconsistencies.
The VRZ is currently a jagged area encompassing part of Bowdoin College, all of Federal and Maine streets northward beyond Cabot Street, west and south along Cushing Street, then parallel along Pleasant Street back to Maine and School streets.
Bowdoin College’s request to enlarge it dates back to 2008’s update of the town’s Comprehensive Plan.
A “key action” defined at the time was to expand the zone to include more of the downtown area — including the Joshua L. Chamberlain Museum, which stands on Potter Street but fronts onto Noble Street, where the parking lot is located.
However, when the meeting’s minutes were transcribed — and ultimately approved by the council — “Potter Street” inadvertently was replaced with “Page Street,” which is one block to the south.
Councilors are expected to delay expansion of the VRZ until “more careful analysis” can be done, according to a memo by Anna Breinich, the town’s director of planning and development.
Such analysis would be part of a total zoning ordinance overhaul scheduled to begin later this year, to remove inconsistencies that increasingly have plagued both Planning Board and Council in the past 18 months.
jtleonard@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less