Though one of the longest in Raymond’s history, Saturday’s Town Meeting saw the passage of 63 out of 66 warrant articles. The three that were voted down, Articles 59, 61, and 62, were under Land Use Ordinances and Shoreland Zoning Provisions. Each pertained to the minimum lot size requirement in its respective district.
Although voters were weary from more than five hours of democracy in action by the time Article 59 was presented, many were quick to step up to the microphone to voice their disapproval.
A Realtor from the community said young families have difficulty finding affordable land in Raymond. She pointed out that if the town required larger lot sizes, it would make it even harder for young people to stay in the area.
Other residents wanted to protect their right to choose how to divide their land. One man spoke of his 14 acres, including an apple orchard, he had promised to subdivide and give to his children. With the new ordinance in effect, he said he would be forced to get rid of the orchard to be able to fulfill his promise.
Shortly before the article went to a vote, Raymond resident George Clark offered his advice: “Folks, this is a bad idea…It is not right to try to control land the way this ordinance is trying to do… Don’t tell other people what they can and cannot do with their land.”
After Article 59 was defeated, the debate resurfaced over the similar issues inherent in Articles 61 and 62. Instead of reiterating the comments that were made during Article 59’s debate, most of the opponents of articles 61 and 62 simply chose to say, “Ditto.”
Asked to comment on the defeat of these articles, Jim Stevenson, co-chair of the Comprehensive Plan’s Implementation Committee said, “We were happy to see that most of the articles did pass, especially the incentive to see growth encouraged in the village district.”
Stevenson was disappointed that the committee, which has been working on the plan for the past six months, was unable to present the “full package” to voters at Town Meeting. This package would have included a provision for landowners to revert back to original zoning requirements if they incorporated a plan for open space. “Essentially, we were applauded by the state on the [open space] concept,” said Stevenson.
But, since the committee felt that the idea “would require a total look at plans on the books,” time restraints precluded its presentation as part of the articles in question. And at this time, Stevenson does not know if the open space component of the plan will be presented at next year’s town meeting.
Passage of Article 59 would have increased the minimum lot size in the rural district from three to five acres, allowing a one-time division of a parcel of eight or more acres to include a lot of a minimum of three acres with subsequent lots of at least five acres apiece. On parcels of less than eight acres, a minimum of three acres would be required for each of the lots.
For Articles 61 and 62, passage would have increased the minimum lot size in the rural residential district (Article 61) and in the limited residential recreation district (Article 62) from two to three acres, allowing a one-time division on a parcel of five or more acres to include a lot of a minimum of two acres with subsequent lots of at least three acres. On parcels of less than five acres, a minimum of two acres would be required for each of the lots.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
