Gorham road rules
Limiting the number of new driveways and roads that connect to existing roads in Gorham, as a proposed amendment to the land use and development code would do, makes sense in a growing town with some traffic congestion problems.
However, the proposal in front of the Gorham Town Council goes too far by limiting access to the less heavily traveled roads as well as major arterials.
The proposal would require new homes to be built on new roads, as opposed to being connected to existing roads by driveways. The purpose would be to limit the number of places where cars turn off of and onto roads.
In Gorham, a growing town with more and more commuters coming through, figuring out how to manage traffic on town roads is important. Changes like the one proposed can play a key part in that and shouldn’t be abandoned completely because it’s unpopular with landowners.
The problem landowners have with the proposal is that it would make it more expensive to build new homes on property, which could cause some people to build more houses to offset the increased cost of developing. Landowners with property running along a road, for example, couldn’t simply break off a couple acres, build a house on it, and connect it to the road with a driveway – something a lot of landowners will do for a son or daughter looking for affordable property or a way to move closer to family.
Instead, landowners would have to build a road into their property and connect driveways and newly constructed homes to that road. That could cause them to build three or four homes, instead of one, and sell them to offset the cost of building the road. Or, because of the cost, landowners might decide not to build any homes at all.
The latter effect might be desirable for those who want to see residential growth in Gorham slow down. But those who might support this proposal for that reason should keep in mind that landowners selling off a house lot or two accounts for only a small portion of the growth in town.
This change wouldn’t stop developers from buying up land and building a subdivision on it. It would instead slow smaller, incremental growth that is typically caused by longtime residents.
Nonetheless, a change like this is justified for the more heavily traveled arterials. Despite the impact it would have on landowners, the town has to take some steps to ensure it’s not dealing with more traffic problems down the road.
However, it seems excessive to similarly restrict access to the smaller roads that feed the arterials. Making such a change to 53 roads crisscrossing throughout town would affect a drastic amount of land in town. The town can always consider restricting access to more roads as they become more heavily traveled.
For now, however, the adverse impact on landowners should outweigh traffic management on what are still, in many cases, country roads.
Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
