The Standish Town Council narrowly voted against a moratorium on Nov. 12 that would have blocked the construction of new large-scale housing developments for 180 days.
The moratorium defines a large-scale subdivision as being one that “proposes 20 or more contiguous or non-contiguous lots or dwelling units in a common scheme of development.”
According to the moratorium document, Standish has experienced a significant rise in residential proposals, far exceeding both current trends and the number of dwelling units approved over the last 15 years. The increasing number of large-scale subdivisions threaten Standish’s rural character, it says, and stresses the town’s infrastructure and ability to deliver services.
The document also notes that the town’s impact fee ordinance has not been substantially updated since 1996, resulting in rates that do not adequately compensate Standish for the impact of such rapid development. Therefore, a moratorium was proposed on the development of large-scale subdivisions to implement the necessary amendments to the impact fee ordinance.
Speaking to the Lakes Region Weekly, Town Manager Brandon Watson, who had submitted the document, noted that several Planning Board members had come to him asking for a moratorium so they could get a better grip on the growth in town. At the same time, the council was already working on updating impact fees, and it was decided that a moratorium was necessary for “sustainable and obtainable growth” and continued work on impact fees.
Impact fees are added onto the cost of a building permit and are used to offset costs for improvements necessitated by new development. New impact fees that will go toward recreation and public safety are being developed.
Watson, who has served on the council for three years, said that 150 to 250 housing permits were given in the last 15 years, but 2024 alone has seen an exponential growth in the number of requests for permits.
According to the document, “over 160 dwelling units either approved or under construction, and more than 200 additional dwelling units (are) currently under review … a rate that far exceeds recent trends and in excess of the total number of dwelling units approved in the town over the past 15 years,” and hundreds more units are in the pipeline.
“It’s gotten to the point where at every Planning Board meeting,” said Watson, “there’s housing development, housing projects being proposed. Some 20 units, 30 units, one of them is closer to 250 units. It seems there’s been an explosion over the last six months of proposals and projects being permitted.”
There was a considerable debate regarding the moratorium.
One resident spoke on behalf of Tom Childs, a former efficiency officer, in support of the moratorium. In a prewritten statement, Childs explained that he believes the new houses the moratorium is seeking to block would be of a low-quality, “cookie cutter” variety, comparing them to similarly poorly built homes he had evaluated in Falmouth and Cape Elizabeth, and lamented the previous inaction of the town government.
Sean Sheehan also spoke in support of the moratorium. Praising the new intersection at Routes 114 and 35, which was recently fixed after 25 years, he noted that time is of the essence. He had looked at three proposed subdivisions over the last couple of weeks, and said not one of them bore any resemblance to the others, with no continuity.
Good timing, Sheehan said, produces good projects, and to him, Standish needs to step back and realize that they are moving too quickly. He said the nebulous idea of “connectivity” has been prioritized over Standish natives, particularly the school system, which he noted was overpopulated and evidence that the town needs to slow down and take a better approach.
“I’m not asking you to say ‘no'”, said Sheehan, “I’m asking you to say ‘not now.'”
Peter Anania, a workforce housing advocate, spoke in opposition to the moratorium, noting that there is a potential for broader impact fees, and took issue with language stating large-scale subdivisions threaten Standish’s rural character. Anania said he is working on a 240-unit development which would be directly affected by the moratorium, despite meeting the town’s comprehensive plan in a designated growth area.
He noted that the language of the moratorium goes beyond simply impact fees, pushing for the limiting growth and disrupting existing projects in growth areas, and pointed out that Standish already has a growth management ordinance that regulates housing in the more rural parts of the town. A moratorium, he said, would discourage future investments that align with Standish’s goals.
In the council comment period, Vice Chair John Gardner said that he agreed that things were moving too fast, but the moratorium only addressed impact fees. Therefore, Gardner felt that, with the issue already covered, such a lengthy moratorium was unwarranted. Councilor Robert Deakin asked if the town was confident that the fees were sufficient to address the concerns about prospective development, noting that schools are seeing an uptick in enrollment for the first time after years of complaints about high costs and low enrollment.
Following this discussion, a role call vote was held on the moratorium. Initially, three councilmembers voted in favor, two against, and one abstention. Jennifer Thomas explained that her vote to abstain was because she represented developers in town, and thus had a pecuniary interest. However, Terence Christy changed his ‘yes’ vote to ‘no,’ explaining that he had misheard what the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes meant, leading to a second role call. The final count was two votes in favor, three against, and one abstention.
Regarding future plans for managing growth, Watson stated that the Town Council’s main focus is on the new comprehensive plan, which he hopes will address concerns about where the town wants growth and how the growth will happen.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.