Castine
Proposed changes to historic preservation ordinance presented, debated at hearing

BY JONATHAN THOMAS
Six members of the Castine Historic Preservation Commission presented their draft revision of the town’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to a group of six citizens who chose to attend the public hearing on February 22 in Emerson Hall. Despite the light attendance, the discussion about changes in the 23-page document lasted for about one-and-three-quarter hours.

The proposed changes, which may be single words, phrases, or whole sentences, are scattered through most of the document. Deletions are indicated by strikeovers. Additions are identified by underscoring. Commission chairman Ann Miller said before the hearing, at the March 27 town meeting there would be a single vote to accept or reject the changes as a whole.

Miller said that the revisions were the outcome of a series of neighborhood meetings over the past year in which residents were able to talk over their concerns with commission members.

Accompanying the ordinance handout at the meeting was a single-page summary of the issues that were addressed in the revision.

The summary states, “The draft revision does not change the coverage of the existing Historic District, nor does it establish any new historic district.” Therefore, the ordinance, with or without the changes, has no effect on either off-neck areas of Castine, nor those on-neck portions of the town that are not part of the previously established historic district.

The summary also says that the revision makes clearer distinction between the requirements for properties more than 75 years old in the district (defined as contributing) and newer properties in the district (defined as non-contributing).

One change is that owners of non-contributing properties will no longer be required to obtain an historic preservation certificate for alterations that “do not change the size or footprint of the structure or are easily reversible.” Also, a certificate will not be required for “minor changes, such as lighting, sidewalks, paving and curbing.”

Another change clarifies that within the district a certificate would not be required for “construction or alteration of any structure not visible from a town street or public way.”

Citizens Robin Mass, Don Mordecai and Gordon MacArthur said that the terms “town street” and “public way” were not adequately defined in the ordinance and that this matter should be corrected.

Mass (who said that although a member of the planning board, she was speaking for herself) pointed to several word changes in the definition section that she thought were not helpful. She also noted what she considered to be “unclear language” in the amended definition of “viewscape.”

Commission member David Schoonover said he would like to later sit down with Mass and discuss her concerns in greater detail than could be done in the hearing.

Another change proposed was the removal of the requirement for a certificate from the commission before a non-contributing structure in the district could be demolished or removed.

Also, property owners of all buildings in the district would no longer need to obtain a certificate if their repairs consisted of the installation of a different siding material (such as vinyl) as long as the design or appearance were not changed.

During discussions about the process, Schoonover said that the purpose of many of the changes was to remove “needless requirements” whenever possible. However, he stressed that the overall process was necessary to comply with the general provision section of the ordinance, which says its intent is to protect the architectural heritage of significant areas.

Miller cited her experience with architects making applications to the commission who did not find the process to be complicated.

In response, Mordecai said that although in his view the commission has “worked extraordinarily hard to clarify” the process, it is “not quite there yet” in quieting the concern of those who have non-contributing structures and may need to apply to the commission at some time in the future.

As the meeting concluded, Miller thanked everyone for their input. She said her group would be “fine tuning” the revisions based on comments made at the hearing in the days remaining before the final version is submitted to the selectmen.

Other commission members present and participating in the discussion were Thomas Mason, David Adams, Michael Coughlin and Ruth Basile.

Share this page

Return to the Castine Patriot home page.

---