Topsham planning board moves to targeted workshops on townwide 'recode' after members raise process, PCD and use‑table concerns

The Topsham Planning Board agreed to begin a series of targeted workshops to continue work on the townwide zoning "recode," prioritizing the land‑use use table and Planned Community Development (PCD) provisions after a lengthy discussion about process, consultant input and economic impact.

The town manager urged the board to resume work on the draft recode rather than abandoning the effort, noting the town has spent "over $100,000 on this" and that staff had incorporated decades of technical fixes supplied by longtime staffer Tom. "If we don't continue with the draft that we've got, we lose the benefit of all that," the town manager said, urging a focused approach and recommending regular workshop nights where staff, the planning director and peer‑review engineer would be available.

Board members voiced concern about both content and process. "We took a six to one vote of this board," said Carrie Bford, who argued that the planning board's procedural vote was being undermined by meetings and decisions outside the board and that members had not been adequately consulted. She urged redlines showing what changes would be made relative to the current code and raised concerns about politicized pressure on appointments.

Other members emphasized a targeted approach. "The first section... that's probably the one that's got a lot of questions... the use table," said one board member, urging the board to start with that section because it drives many downstream effects. Several members warned that removing or narrowing PCD could threaten major local projects, citing the Highlands and other developments as examples that rely on PCD flexibility.

Members and staff also debated the consultant's role. Planning director Salotti and others said the consultant's form‑based focus had driven certain choices; some board members questioned that perspective and asked that staff bring clear justifications for each change. The board requested interim, section‑by‑section votes (not necessarily "ought to pass" final votes) so the public and board can see discrete decisions as the draft evolves.

On next steps the board agreed to schedule workshops (preferably on regular planning‑board meeting nights) and to bring Tom's list of roughly 50–100 clerical and code‑cleanup items to the first session. The board also agreed that the first workshop should examine the use table and PCD and that staff would provide materials showing differences from the current code to help the board make focused decisions.

Staff additionally noted they had received a pre‑application from Skylight Development for an affordable‑housing proposal; staff asked for time to prepare that item for future consideration.

The board did not take a final "recode" vote at this meeting; members agreed to the workshop approach and to continue reviewing the draft in public sessions.