Brunswick Planning Board Workshop on Zoning Text Amendments - January 13, 2026
Brunswick Planning Board Workshop on Zoning Text Amendments - January 13, 2026
The Brunswick Planning Board held a workshop on January 13, 2026, to review two sets of zoning text amendments drafted by the Planning and Development Department. The first case (26-001) addressed establishing a compensation fee program for developments in the Merribrook urban impaired stream watershed. The second case (26-003) covered updates to minimum height requirements, off-street parking restrictions on Main Street, facade materials in the Village Review Overlay, and the continuance period for nonconforming uses. The board provided feedback and directed staff to refine the proposals for future public hearings.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jennifer Navarro submitted an emailed public comment (distributed to the board) and briefly noted date errors in the draft materials (showing 2025) and requested clarification on how mitigation parcels would be selected and grouped for stormwater conservation. She intended to comment on the first agenda item but was unable due to a technical issue.
Discussion Items
Case 26-001: Merribrook Watershed Compensation Fee Utilization Plan (CFUP)
- Staff presented proposed zoning amendments (Sections 1.7 and 4.5.4) to allow the city to accept compensation fees from developers in lieu of mitigation credits for projects subject to the state Site Location of Development Law within a direct watershed of an urban impaired stream. The goal is to fund restoration projects identified in the 2022 Merribrook Watershed Management Plan, which aims to restore Merribrook to Class B standards by 2037.
- Board members expressed concerns about whether fee assessments would be sufficient to fund meaningful restoration, citing the example of Long Creek in South Portland where millions of dollars yielded little improvement. They discussed lowering the threshold for fee collection (e.g., from the current site law trigger down to 20,000 square feet or a quarter acre) to capture smaller developments and address "death by a thousand cuts."
- Staff noted that the fee amount is set by DEP and may be modest; they committed to providing estimates of potential fee revenues. The board also suggested allowing funds to be used for on-site mitigation projects, not just off-site, and increasing specificity in the ordinance about fund use (e.g., tied to projects in the watershed management plan).
- The possibility of developing watershed management plans for other impaired streams was raised, and staff noted that 2026 EPA grants (604B) may be available to fund such plans.
Case 26-003: Miscellaneous Zoning Text Amendments
- Minimum Height Requirements (GM7 District): Staff proposed clarifying that the minimum height is calculated as the average height of a proposed building, exempting existing buildings, accessory structures, and certain architectural features. Board members supported the clarification.
- Off-Street Parking Prohibition on Main Street (GM6 District): Staff proposed banning parking within 30 feet of the right-of-way along Main Street to promote active frontages. Discussion focused on whether 30 feet was sufficient (some favored 60 feet) and potential unintended consequences, such as hardship for small lots or scenarios where change of use triggers the requirement. Staff agreed to study lot depths and consider alternative language (e.g., requiring parking behind the building).
- Village Review Overlay Facade Materials: Staff proposed allowing concrete-based products if the board finds they resemble wood or stone. Some board members argued concrete should be allowed to look like concrete, provided it meets the board's aesthetic intent. Staff noted the language originated from the Village Review Board.
- Continuance Period for Nonconforming Uses: Staff proposed reducing the period from 36 to 24 months (outside specified overlay districts) to bring inactive nonconforming uses into compliance sooner. The board generally supported the change.
Key Outcomes
- No votes were taken; the workshop was for feedback only.
- Staff will refine the CFUP and related zoning amendments based on board input, including exploring a lower fee threshold and clarifying fund use. The Merribrook Watershed Steering Committee will review the plan, then the DEP will review for consistency before returning to the Planning Board and ultimately the Town Council.
- The miscellaneous amendments will be revised to address board comments (e.g., studying lot depths for the parking setback, clarifying height calculation, reconsidering concrete language) and brought to a public hearing scheduled for January 27, 2026.
- Jennifer Navarro's written comment and request for clarification on mitigation parcel selection will be considered in future drafts.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. Welcome to the January 13, 2026 Planning Board meeting. We have a workshop tonight of my home. Good evening. Welcome to the January 13th, 2026 inaugural planning board meeting. We have five total zoning text amendments tonight in two cases, case number 26 001 and case number 2603. And I'll introduce introduce members of the board who are here presently on my far right, Chris Baldwin, next to Chris Laura Hatmaker on my near left, Alison Harris. Next Alison Julie Erdman, our director of planning and development. Next to Julie, Jimmy Dealman, our principal planner, and just arriving our newest member, Steve Walker. Welcome, Steve. Thank you. Didn't know that. And Rob Burgess may be joining us tonight on Zoom, but presently I don't see him. All right. I'll throw it over to you guys. The planning board will hold a workshop tonight to provide feedback on zoning text amendments drafted by the planning and development department. The amendments are proposed in sections 1.7 and 4.5.4 and would facilitate collection of fees from certain development located in the in a direct watershed of an urban impaired stream. Okay. So I should also note that you're also providing feedback on the CFOP itself, which is the compensation fee utilization plan that we've provided to you in your packets. And we've discussed this a couple of times. It's come up a couple of times recently, I think, where applicants have mentioned that they wished we would have this in place. So we are looking at it now. And Larry, could you bring up the slideshow? Are you able to move through that? Okay. Thank you. So projects subject to the state site location of development law and located within a direct watershed of an urban impaired stream are required to meet the state's Chapter 500 urban and pe impaired stream standard. And under Maine DEP's Chapter 501, stormwater management compensation fees and mitigation credit. Developers can pursue on-site and or off site mitigation measures within the watershed to earn credits required to meet the standard. Municipalities with recognized urban impaired streams can accept a compensation fee in lieu of mitigation credits for applicable projects. So some of the highlights of the Merribrook watershed management plan, it was finalized in 2022 and identifies multiple stressors contributing to Mayor Brooks urban impaired status, and there are many of them, but of just a few of them are our stormwater runoff from developed land, wetland loss, and improperly sized culverts. And the primary goal of the plan is to restore Mayor Brook to its state designated Class B standards by 2037. So I've had um multiple conversations with the DEP about um creating a CFUP for Mayor Brooke. And they report that meeting the urban impaired stream standard through individual mitigation projects is often challenging for developers and doesn't consistently result in uh meaningful improvements for the impaired stream. And so establishing a CFUP therefore represents a practical benefit both to the developers and to the Brook. So we're looking for feedback from the Planning Board tonight on the plan as well as the Chapter 19 amendments which establish the Mayor Brook um compensation fund and or Urban Impaired Stream Fund and the associated draft zoning amendments. After planning boards review, this will actually be reviewed by um Ashley Charleston, our environmental planner. She was out on vacation, so she hasn't had a chance to really dig her teeth into this. But she's also going to call a meeting of the Mayorbrook Watershed Steering Committee and have them take a look at this as well. So that will be reviewed by them, and then any changes that are made will then go to the DEP. We'll have them review the document for consistency with their standards before it comes back to planning board and ultimately will land in front of council. Okay. So with that, um I would open it up to any questions or concerns you might have. Um I think I understand the intent and the desire, and especially like making sure like things are occurring in the watershed that is being impaired. Um I'm a little leery of in Luffy not being um sufficient to have meaningful restoration happen. Um I'm just worried that potentially the fee assessments will not be sufficient to say, for example, repair a culvert or put in a correctly sized culvert, which are quite costly, and the amount of damage and harm that would have to occur as a result of that would potentially outweigh any benefit that that potentially would do, but potentially a developer doing like the credit rule might be able to do it, do that that way. So I'm just my main concern is uh not that I I like this idea. I'm just worried about its implementation to meaningful restoration projects. I think um well, DEP they established the fee. What I can do is we haven't really had a chance to look at what maybe an average fee might be for these projects that come through, so we can take a closer look at that and maybe give you an idea of what could be expected.
openpublica.com