ROCKLAND — In response to the various interpretations by residents of a December agenda item, the Rockland City Council has postponed readdressing a proposed Accessory Apartment amendment until the February meeting in order to hold a workshop with the community, to make sure residents feel heard, and to determine a way to more clearly define the intent of the amendment.

“How do we communicate this better so that the community understands what we are talking about,” asked Councilor Louise MacLellan.

Though the Council showed appreciation during its December meeting for the lengthy, and sometimes emotional, voices of support and opposition regarding the amendment, its members expressed confusion as to why residents spoke as if the ordinance didn’t already exist.

The amendment would remove language that currently requires some sort of physical connection – such as a deck, roof, or hallway – between a single-family home and an existing secondary structure on the property that was renovated into a livable space.

Instead, the agenda item reignited a fiery debate among residents volleying fears of over populated neighborhoods, reduction of visual aesthetics due to “tiny houses,” and fear that future accessory tenants could quietly evolve from relatives to dissociated contracted renters.

Others, however, pointed out a lack of housing options, reduced affordability of existing options, the desires of some to become landlords in order to supplement income, worsening gentrification, a generation trending away from large cavernous abodes, and the disservice of letting old carriage houses crumble from dis-use.

Thrown into the mix were references opposing the Midcoast Habitat for Humanity’s Philbrook Avenue small house subdivision and Habitat’s proposal to build a small house subdivision on Talbot Avenue, which has yet to come before Council. (These proposals have nothing to do with the single-family dwelling ordinance being discussed, according to Council.)

“This ordinance amendment, in this form, would not change the size of buildings that are allowed in Rockland, or their position, or even their use,” said Councilor Nate Davis. “Alleviating this attachment requirement seems like it would save people money and time and frustration, but not actually change the ability to build in Rockland – except that people would be able to build more easily.”

The secondary dwelling option already exists for single family zones (A, B, RR1, RR2) in Rockland, as long as they are attached to the principle structure. As Councilor Ben Dorr stated, if he owned a large enough lot, he could already build a secondary structure 150 feet from the primary dwelling and build a 150 foot hallway to connect the two, as long as all other requirements are met.

“So what we’re doing is removing that financial burden so that I don’t have to build a 100-foot long hallway to a building that I can already legally build on my property,” said Dorr.

Easily, though, is left to interpretation.

According to Davis, the Maine Municipal Association lists the following municipalities that have similar ordinances: Bar Harbor, Belfast, Brunswick, Falmouth, Harpswell, Kittery, Portland, Scarborough, Yarmouth, and York.

“And none of those, to my knowledge, have become radical dystopias,” he said.

Accessory dwelling units are becoming more common throughout the state, according to Ackor. In reference to the pandemic, Councilor Sarah Austin spoke of healthcare workers needing to live separate from the household while quarantining.

Existing ordinances often take into account the placements, setbacks, and other open space standards that could be adopted in Rockland.

Ackor listed other requirements that must be met as well: building code, energy code, connection to city sewer, not be on a chasse, not be on wheels.

“There are still a number of safeguards,” he said, “which frankly would discourage the vast majority of people from investing in something like a 400 sq ft structure. That’s just conjecture on my part, but it’s [having an accessory apartment] not something that could easily be accomplished.”

Ackor also stressed that a potential for negative consequences exists for the amendment. Accessory structures may exist within five feet of a property line.

“There may be some nuances to this moving forward, should you choose to,” he said.

In response to a comment that the people of Rockland had rejected this ordinance, or other changes to zoning ordinances in the past

Davis reminded Council that he, too, signed a petition to get Ordinance Amendment 48 on referendum, though he was a strong proponent of the amendment.

“I don’t see much evidence that the people of Rockland, as a whole, has rejected this, specifically.”

Samplings from the 16 public comments entered into the December 14 City Council meeting:

James Kalloch: “...keep going over the same old lane the last three years on this tiny houses -- garage apartment, mother-in-law apartment – whatever it is you want to call it. We went past this in 2018, I thought. Now we keep bringing it back up. There are so many other things that we could be talking about, in the City, that need to be addressed. Taxes are so high, when I added a 3-bay garage out behind my house, they doubled the price of my taxes in the City of Rockland. I’m paying almost $8,000 a year on a quarter-acre lot. This is ridiculous. I’ve got City streets out here that we paved, and the manholes are 4 inches below the paving….You’ve got non property owners living in the city of Rockland who do not pay any taxes, but you’re taking the people on fixed income and taxing the hell out of us. This tiny house thing, I know it’s a pet peeve of you people who come from away, but we do not want this. Please find other issues to work on….There’s a housing development up in Philbrook. That’s where you put your tiny houses. You find a lot of land, and put tiny houses, if that’s what you want people to live in. But you don’t spread the fill of the friggin Historic District. No one wants that. Please people. Listen to your constituents.”

Andy O’Brien: “It’s no secret that there’s a severe shortage of affordable housing. Four years ago when my wife and I were looking a home in Rockland, after renting here for a number of years, it was very difficult to find a house in our price range. At one point we finally found what we thought was our dream home, and we were ready to sign the paperwork when someone swooped in at the last minute and outbid us. A few years later, that buyer flipped it for nearly $40,000 more than what they bought it for…..Fortunately we were able to buy a home that we could afford, but I don’t think we’d be able to buy a home here now.”

Anna Quinn: “I believe that this is to be an important move towards creating more affordable housing in Rockland. In 2019, I purchased in Rockland...The structure on the lot was crumbling and had not been fit to live in for years. I am now a week away from moving into my new house on the property that also includes an accessory apartment. The ability to include an accessory income property in this project is the only way that it was financially feasible. Because of this, the lot has changed from being completely unused, to housing two young individuals who live and work in Rockland full time. Changing outdated restrictions will create this opportunity for others….Rockland thrives on the diversity of the residents and the economy.”

Rebecca Lothrop: “My husband and I have been married for 39 years, the same number of years we’ve been in our home – a home we picked out for its location and its amount of land around it, knowing that if I wanted to spit off my doorstep, that I wouldn’t be hitting the house behind or beside me. I, and my husband were born, raised, and stayed, and even have our burial plot at Achorn Cemetery. We both have been hard workers, and now are retired….I believe the Accessory Apartments, Sect. 19-302, is going through the backdoor as apartments above garages and AirBnB’s. I’m against this and the two words councilors hate to hear: Small Houses. Just what personal agenda do one of you, or friends or family have that this has to be brought up again? Can’t you just take your position as council person to keep the integrity and welfare of the city in place?

“Welfare? If you use the excuse of low income, by all means, put a big apartment building on a large parcel of land with that zoning purpose in mind. Don’t take our houses and decades of ownership and use the excuse of the owners are getting older.”

Reach Sarah Thompson at news@penbaypilot.com