The Vinalhaven Comprehensive Planning Committee unveiled the results of its 2002 community survey and sought input on the preliminary recommendations of its subcommittees at a public information meeting Aug. 12. The Committee, which has been gathering and analyzing information about Vinalhaven since the spring of 2001, is in the final stages of compiling a list of policies and recommendations. If accepted by voters at a town meeting, the plan will become a guide for the decisions of town government, including the selectmen and planning board. But rather than being “set in stone,” said Committee Chair Phil Crossman, the plan will be “a living document” that lends itself to amendment as the town continues to evolve.
Among the possible recommendations discussed at the meeting were the implementation of a building cap, which would help control the island’s rate of growth by limiting the number of building permits issued annually, and the establishment of a historic district in order to protect the character of some of the community’s historic areas.
The survey, which was mailed to all year-round residents and seasonal taxpayers, had an exceptional response rate – 43 percent – and yielded some interesting results. On average, the seasonal respondents spend 8.5 weeks on Vinalhaven a year. Of all 526 respondents, 63 percent own less than five acres of land, 30 percent own less than one acre, while 7 percent own more than 50 acres. 22 percent of seasonal respondents and 5 percent of year-round respondents rent out their houses for some period of time in the summer.
A recent ‘build-out’ study by the Comprehensive Planning Committee indicated that under current zoning, 4,000 new houses could be built on Vinalhaven. When asked what measures they would support to help direct future growth, over 80 percent of year-round respondents said they would be in favor of better enforcing existing zoning laws, limiting spot zoning and identifying areas for future neighborhoods. At least 60 percent of seasonal respondents were in favor of each measure as well.
Almost a quarter of year-round respondents said they were strongly in favor of a building cap, while 16 percent said they strongly disagreed with a building cap. A quarter of seasonal respondents also were in favor of a building cap, while 28 percent weren’t sure.
Rick Donahue, a member of the Growth, Development, Tourism and Housing Subcommittee, said that there are misunderstandings about what a building cap is. “What we’re asking is not ‘should new houses be built on Vinalhaven?’ but rather, ‘what limits should be put on the acceleration of growth?'”
Donahue added that while the subcommittee has been considering recommending a limit of 20 building permits per year (with exemptions for multi-family units, affordable housing or add-on rental apartments), exactly how the permits would be issued and to whom still needed to be worked out.
Grace Hinrichs and Lucy McCarthy of the Natural Resources Subcommittee presented that group’s recommendations, including the creation of a well monitoring program for groundwater protection, and establishing a permanent natural resources protection committee to make recommendations to town government.
Better enforcement of existing regulations and expanded use of accurate Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps in town management were also recommended. The community survey indicated over 80 percent of year-round respondents and 100 percent of seasonal respondents would favor land use regulation to protect wetlands, ponds and streams, and the public drinking water supply.
Jennette Lasansky presented survey results relevant to the work of the Historical and Archeological Sub-committee, noting that 94 percent of all respondents were in favor of preserving some historic buildings, and 55 percent were in favor of establishing some kind of historic district. Lasansky pointed out that, like building caps, historic districts are often misunderstood. A historic district doesn’t necessarily have to dictate the appearance of its buildings down to the paint color, she said, but could perhaps just require that new construction follow certain rules of proportion in order to better blend with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mary Ann Hayes, a Senior Planner from the Maine State Planning Office, attended the public meeting and commented that the Comprehensive Planning Committee had made great progress.
“You’re asking all the right questions,” Hayes said. “I’m very impressed with the level of knowledge of all your committee members and the depth of your plan.”
Hayes added that if things continue on track, the plan “will be approved by the state, because it’s well thought-out.”