In response to public outcry, Harpswell’s Affordable Housing Working Group has eliminated several recommendations, including development of housing on town land. Instead, the group is now advising smaller-scale initiatives.

In a revised report issued July 17, the working group focused on repurposing existing properties and encouraging the development of lower-cost single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and accessory dwelling units. It eliminated previously stated goals for building apartments, creating affordable housing districts through zoning, and developing lower-cost subdivisions on town-owned properties such as George J. Mitchell Field.

“The group understands that this approach will not solve the community’s entire affordable housing problem,” the report says, “but it will allow steps to be taken to provide a range of attainable housing options not currently available in Harpswell.”

The working group reiterated the dire need for more lower-cost housing in Harpswell for working families, young people and older residents. Recently, Harpswell’s median home price has been hovering around $1 million, the group noted.

Still, it said community feedback has made it clear that many residents are worried — justifiably or not — about the potential impact of larger affordable projects on groundwater supplies and the town’s rural character.

In response, the group said it opted to focus on more modest approaches, such as promoting accessory dwelling units, house splitting and home sharing. House splitting involves modifying a home to create two units, while home sharing does not.

It also recommended the town move forward with plans to reduce minimum lot sizes for attainable single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes with no more than four units.

The group advised Harpswell officials to create a trust fund to provide funding and other assistance to those building attainable housing, and to form a standing committee that could work with local conservation groups and others to set aside lower-cost land donated by individuals or nonprofits for the development of affordable homes.

On Aug. 22, the Harpswell Select Board approved a mission statement that forms the basis for creating a seven-member Housing Committee that would include representatives of the town Planning Board, Harpswell Aging at Home, the Harpswell Heritage Land Trust and Habitat for Humanity.

Goals revamped

Working group member Jim Laughren told the Select Board during a July 25 meeting that the group’s final report has been changed significantly in response to residents’ concerns that the original approach was too aggressive.

He said some of the public’s criticism was based on a misunderstanding that the town intended to pursue large-scale affordable housing development similar to projects in Brunswick. That was never the case, Laughren said.

Still, he said working group members thought the scope and intensity of criticism warranted a different approach. Laughren noted that one of the group’s mandates was to listen to the community.

“Our response to (public criticism) was to simply get back together, confer, and rewrite the whole report,” Laughren said. “We have addressed, and in some cases mollified, certain skewed and inaccurate perceptions, and we have reemphasized the things that we think are the heart and soul of the program, and what we need to be doing if we really want to achieve anything.”

Working group member Courtenay Snellings said one of the major changes was to abandon a goal that would have encouraged the development of attainable housing on town-owned properties, including Mitchell Field. A parcel on Doughty Point, off Mountain Road, also has been mentioned as a possible location.

“We knew that Mitchell Field’s master plan had housing, but obviously some members of the public were very uncomfortable with that,” Snellings said. “So, we thought — certainly for now — that’s out of our recommendations.”

One of the concerns expressed most often by community members was that an aggressive push for attainable housing could negatively impact Harpswell’s limited supply of fresh groundwater, she said.

Snellings noted that any proposal to build housing in town requires proof of adequate groundwater, as well as viable plans for a septic system and roadway access. Still, the group took residents’ concerns into consideration when revising its report.

Another component of the original report that stirred public outcry was a goal to promote small-scale development of apartments, Snellings told the Select Board.

She said many residents who drive by low-income housing developments around Cook’s Corner in Brunswick have incorrectly assumed Harpswell was planning to build something similar.

“That was never our intention,” Snellings said. “But because of that, we’re not recommending any apartment buildings. They created so much unease and apprehension that it seems at this particular point that’s just off the table.”

Comprehensive plan impact

Al LeGrow, chair of the town’s Comprehensive Plan Task Force, said in an interview that his group plans to incorporate the working group’s more modest affordable housing recommendations into the draft plan.

LeGrow said some of the recommendations made previously for the comprehensive plan by a town land use consultant had upset many residents who felt they were too aggressive.

He cited similar examples to the ones mentioned by Snellings, including the suggestion that Harpswell create special districts for affordable housing and promote “cluster home” development on town-owned land.

“We brought that up before the public earlier this year,” LeGrow said. “People expressed concern about both of those ideas.”

As a result, the comprehensive plan will no longer recommend special districts or any designated affordable housing projects on town land. Instead, it will treat all inland areas as potential sites for lower-cost development and focus on making zoning requirements more conducive to attainable homes.

The Affordable Housing Working Group’s report recommends revising the zoning in non-shoreland areas to allow a new single-family home of three or more bedrooms, designated as attainable housing, to be built on a lot of 20,000 square feet. The current minimum is 40,000 square feet for all single-family homes, and 80,000 square feet per housing unit for subdivisions.

For two-bedroom attainable homes, the report recommends reducing the minimum lot size to 16,000 square feet. For a one-bedroom home, it suggests reducing the minimum to 12,000 square feet. For attainable duplexes and townhomes, it advises creating minimum lot size requirements of 8,000 to 10,000 square feet per bedroom.

“We are going to use what (the working group) came up with,” LeGrow said.

Cost of inaction

The working group’s report cites specific examples of people who have been harmed or denied opportunity as a result of Harpswell’s severe shortage of attainable and workforce housing.

Examples include caregivers, grandparents, fishermen, teachers, first responders and even business owners.

“A local business owner advertised for a baker, but the only candidate withdrew his application when he discovered housing was neither provided nor available,” the report says.

It notes that many older adults wanting to age in place in Harpswell have been forced to leave town and “say goodbye to lifelong friends” for lack of housing options.

“The people who make Harpswell the town it is increasingly find themselves on the outside looking in,” the report says. “Harpswell is in danger of becoming a monoculture, a retirement community for the wealthy with fewer and fewer essential workers and a diminished fishing fleet.”

During the working group’s July 25 Select Board presentation, board member Jane Covey said Harpswell must be mindful of residents’ concerns while continuing its efforts to address the town’s attainable housing shortage.

Covey supports plans for the town to conduct a groundwater study that would give local officials an evidence-based picture of what sort of housing could be built sustainably, and in which areas.

“There are some issues where people have very strong opinions — groundwater being one of them — without the data,” she said. “We need to, again, not defer to strong, loud opinions, but to assess what the situation is, and then determine how we’re going to go forward.”