Greenville Planning Board approves setback amendments

GREENVILLE — After several months of discussion, the Greenville Planning Board formally gave its approval to 

some land use ordinance amendments concerning changes to property line setbacks in certain sections of town. A setback is the minimum distance a structure can be from the property line.

The planning board voted in favor of the proposed amendments for article 5 of the land use ordinance during its Feb. 19 meeting. The Greenville Select Board will later take a vote on the adjustments, possibly at the next meeting on Wednesday, March 5, and if OKed then the amendments would be decided on by residents via a town meeting vote.

Code Enforcement Officer Ron Sarol had said after hearing from the public, reduced setbacks are being considered in both the residential and the village districts with the length being reduced from 15 to 5 feet where applicable. A detailed list of pertinent streets will be presented to the select board at the upcoming meeting following a formal presentation by planning board representatives.

The property owner would need to meet some criteria in order for the code enforcement officer to grant a variance.  These are: 

1. Properties that were created prior to the land use ordinance being established and the landowner must show reasonable justification that the setback is necessary;

2. Properties that are .4 acres or less; 

3. Setbacks can be reduced to 5 feet for accessory dwellings and/or accessory buildings; 

4. Setbacks can be reduced to 10 feet for primary dwellings; 

5. Setbacks can be reduced to zero for buildings that have a shared wall for example duplexes; 

6. Reduced setback must demonstrate no harm to neighbors or public interest; and

7. These setbacks should not be confused with the minimum shoreland setbacks.

When asked about his interpretation for the need of a variance, Sarol said, “They can’t proceed with their project, what they are looking to do without that setback.” He mentioned an example of wanting to extend an existing garage.

“They also have to show that there’s no harm to their neighbors,” Sarol said.

Some older lots in town are very narrow. A parcel 50 feet in width would have only a 20-foot space in the middle to build on at the present time.

In other business, Sarol said he has been approached by about five landowners who like to construct new buildings and are asking their properties be moved from the current zone designation to the adjacent zone.

One request being made is for the land to go into the village commercial district from downtown district 2. 

“It allows for a little more use of the property, it would cut the amount of ground coverage they could do down significantly,”  Sarol said. Downtown district 2 allows for 90 percent of the parcel to be covered by buildings, and in the village commercial district this percentage goes to 50 percent.

“Village commercial is kind of a mixed zone, you can have multifamily dwellings, you can have regular dwellings, you can have commercial businesses in it,” Sarol said. 

“It’s probably not an advantage for the property owner,” he added. “It’s more of an advantage for the town because we have some more free space available, but at the same time it does give them the advantage to build a bigger building.”

The code enforcement officer said another property owner with land by the steam plant road would like it moved to the village commercial district. This would allow for housing while still being a commercial parcel being in a mixed use zone.

“They are currently in the industrial district which does not allow housing at all,” Sarol said

“It is a benefit to the town because of the possibility of more housing,” he added.

A third adjustment concerns a relatively empty lot in the industrial district which would be moved into the village district. This would allow for a mixed use, which the town would encourage.

“I think we are interested in considering this, we certainly are not going to decide this tonight,” Planning Board Chair John Contreni said. 

Sarol will put together a list of what is allowed and what is not permitted in the districts for the planning board to examine.

He said he continues to work on a dangerous building ordinance, which so far has been adjusted to no longer pertain to vacant buildings that pose no hazard.

A proposed dangerous building ordinance was put together by former Code Enforcement Officer Jack Hart around a decade ago. Hart used this when dealing with a dangerous structure on Lincoln Street, which eventually was torn down.

What was put in place is very similar to Maine statute, as dangerous buildings fall under the category of nuisances, to detail the steps that must be taken to deem a building dangerous.

At least two officials, such as the code enforcement officer, fire chief, and town manager, need to agree that the building is dangerous.  The structure must demonstrate some type of threat to the public or to property.

Steps are included to notify property owners and give them time to remedy the problems and/or find solutions. Ways for the town to recoup costs, if necessary, are also included.