Brunswick Town Council Workshop on Rate of Growth Ordinance - July 6, 2026

The Brunswick Town Council held a workshop on July 6, 2026, to discuss a proposed Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROG) aimed at moderating residential development in the town's rural areas. The meeting included a presentation from planning staff, extensive deliberation by council members, and public comment. Key topics included the annual permit cap, allocation between common scheme and single-family developments, carryover provisions, and exceptions. The council generally reached consensus on a lower cap of 25 permits per year, no carryover of unused permits, and support for specific exceptions while rejecting a financing agreement loophole.

Discussion Items

• Presentation on Rate of Growth Ordinance: Planning staff explained that an ROG limits the number of residential units permitted annually to manage the pace of development, protect rural character, and allow infrastructure to keep pace. The proposed ordinance would apply only to rural areas, with each new dwelling unit requiring a rural growth permit issued concurrently with a building permit. Permits would be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis for complete applications, with a waiting list if the cap is reached. The ordinance must be reviewed every three years per state law.
• Justification for ROG: Staff highlighted that rural residential development has trended upward over the past six years, with a pipeline of 47 potential new units. The 2025 comprehensive plan recommended establishing a building permit cap in rural areas, and resident feedback expressed concern about too much development in rural neighborhoods. State law changes limiting local density control further necessitated the ROG.
• Comparison with Other Communities: Staff reviewed ROGs in Scarborough (25 permits annually in rural areas, with 50% for common scheme), Gorham (22 permits), and Windham (45 permits in farm district). Scarborough’s ordinance was the most useful comparison.
• Cap Number Discussion: The draft ordinance initially used 32 permits per year, based on the average of the last three years (excluding ADUs) – actually 24, but 32 was used as a starting point. Councilors debated the appropriate cap. Councilor Pearl questioned why a 10-year average wasn’t used and noted that 32 would add 320 homes in 10 years, straining natural resources. Councilor Ellis favored a conservative approach (e.g., 20, then 15, then 5), arguing that residents feel growth is too fast. Councilor Teamy supported a cap of 23-27, citing historical averages of 16.9 (2009-2016) and 36.2 (2017-2025). Councilor McDonald noted that a 17-year average was 27. Councilor Ecker and Councilor Wilson expressed concern that 32 was too high. A straw poll showed majority support for 25 permits per year.
• Allocation and Carryover: The draft included 75% of permits for common scheme developments and 25% for single- and two-family. Councilors debated carryover of unused permits. Councilor Teamy preferred a low number (e.g., 23) with rollover, but others (Councilor Ecker, Councilor Weems, Councilor Pearl) opposed carryover. The consensus was to let unused permits expire at year-end, not roll over. The three-month opening of remaining common scheme permits to single-family was also opposed by most.
• Exceptions and Loopholes: The council discussed exceptions for ADUs (already included), family gift lots (inherited property), affordable housing units, and existing financing agreements. Most councilors supported exceptions for ADUs and family gift lots. The financing agreement loophole was widely rejected as a potential loophole. Councilor Ellis inquired about a waiver process for special projects like affordable housing, but staff noted the council can amend the ordinance at any time.
• Other Considerations: The start date of the permit year (July 1 vs. January 1) was discussed, with builders noting that a July start might conflict with construction seasons. Staff will gather input from other communities. Councilor Teamy raised concerns about mobile home park expansions and water utility expansion; staff clarified that utilities generally remain in growth areas and that sewer district boundaries are set by the legislature.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Greg O'Donnell (157 Brackett Road, Brunswick) requested that permits be distributed evenly across voting zones to prevent a builder from concentrating multiple houses near his property.
• John Poralt (295 Hacker Road, Brunswick) opposed limiting building permits, arguing that it would cause economic hardship for builders and that individual homes are more attractive than large apartment buildings. He noted limited lots in the growth zone and said Brunswick will continue to grow naturally.
• A Brunswick resident and chair of the housing committee asked about mobile home additions on vacant lots and suggested giving preference to mid-level housing (not just high-end). She also mentioned the affordable housing support fund could help offset costs.

Key Outcomes

• The council reached a straw poll consensus to set the annual rural growth permit cap at 25 units (down from the initial 32).
• There was general agreement not to allow carryover of unused permits from one year to the next; permits would expire on June 30 of each year.
• The council opposed the proposed three-month end-of-year release of remaining common scheme permits to single-family projects.
• The council supported adding exceptions for family gift lots (inherited property) and maintaining the existing exception for ADUs. The financing agreement loophole for developers was rejected.
• Staff will refine the ordinance based on this feedback and bring it to the next council meeting for a public hearing. The public hearing is expected to be scheduled for the first meeting in August 2026, with the ordinance adoption to follow.