Albert Mosher’s homestead in Gorham sits at Mosher’s Corner where Main Street intersects with Route 237. His 155-acre Long View Farm sprawls along Route 237 leading to Little Falls.

Like other landowners, Mosher, the sixth generation on the family farm, had questions this week about how a proposed amendment to the town’s Land Use and Development Code would affect what he could do with and the value of his land.

The Town Council was expected to consider a change Tuesday night, after the American Journal’s press time, that would restrict new access for residential homes, allowing only one access from existing lots onto 53 roads and streets in Gorham.

Gorham land affected would be that on arterials and a web of connected roads – termed “collector” roads and “rural sub collector” roads – that funnel traffic to them. The arterials are routes 22, 25, 114, 202, 237 and 112, along with Newell Street and New Portland Road.

If approved, the ordinance change would require landowners to build private ways or new town roads to serve newly created lots for homes. Building a road to serve one lot would hike costs, making it cost prohibitive to many people.

Mosher, who markets hay since selling his dairy herd 20 years ago, currently uses entrances from the roads to access his fields. He wondered on Monday whether those entrances would be restricted.

Mosher, who lost his large barn in a fire on June 9 last year, was going to the meeting last night seeking answers about the impact on his land of the proposed access restriction. It wasn’t clear to him Monday whether his entrances would be grandfathered if he decided to sell land for development. If the town didn’t honor the existing entrances, Mosher could be forced to build a bridge over a brook if highway access were restricted.

The ordinance change is aimed at avoiding future traffic problems by restricting the number of places at which cars enter and exit roads. Fred Daigle, another large landowner, believes it would have different effect.

“It’ll promote thousands of house lots,” Daigle said.

Daigle, a former potato grower, owns more than 300 acres with frontage on six roads, including the Sebago Lake, Huston and Mosher roads that would be impacted by the proposal. He believes that a restriction would cause landowners to sell whole parcels rather than just one house lot.

“This ordinance would just promote subdivisions in my opinion,” Daigle said. “I’m opposed to it. They’ve got to think more about it.”

The proposed restrictions are not new in Gorham. The town did have a similar ordinance in effect about 15 years ago, according to Town Councilor Calvin Hamblen. He said it dealt with nearly every road in town, but the town council overturned it.

Hamblen, who raises beef and hay on his farm, is opposed to the proposal limiting access. The change would require property owners to build new roads for new residential lots, rather than use existing roads.

“It’s an imposition to landowners,” Hamblen said.

Mosher, a former town councilor, felt that the council would likely reject the resurrected proposal. “A lot of people would be surprised if it passes,” he said.

Town Planner Deborah Fossum said the measure stemmed from a residential growth study, which was done for the council two or three years ago. It targets increased traffic congestion on town roads and streets caused by more houses by limiting the number of driveways entering existing roads.

The proposed change now in front of the council is more stringent than a similar one drafted by the Planning Board. That one recommended to the town council that restrictions apply only to the arterials – the more heavily traveled roads.

Town Councilor Norman Justice, chairman of the Town Council’s Ordinance Committee, said Monday that originally the town council referred the proposal to the Ordinance Committee, which worked on it and returned it to the Town Council. Then, the town council sent it to the Planning Board for its recommendation.

“It kind of went around the barn,” Justice said.

The wording of the council’s original version was the one presented last night, and Justice said he would not support the Planning Board recommendation. “I will support the original council version,” Justice said.

Justice said the original council version included restricting access to the arterials and collectors but not the rural sub collectors. He said he would not support limiting access of new houses on rural sub collectors.

Town Councilor Mike Phinney served on the Planning Board when the earlier restriction, which was overturned, was in force. He said the increase in mandatory private ways required under the ordinance created a “huge” amount of work for the Planning Board.

Phinney said there’s a question about which roads should be included. He said the council could opt for the Planning Board recommendation or reject the proposal. “I have major concerns about it,” Phinney said about the ordinance change that the council considered last night.

Copy the Story Link