Bridgton’s ballot on Nov. 5 includes three referendum questions up for consideration. Question 2 reads, “Shall an Ordinance entitled Nov. 5, 2019 Repeal of the Town of Bridgton Affordable Housing Local Preference Ordinance be enacted?”

By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

As Bridgton continues to evolve, selectmen felt it was time to take a look at various ordinances on the books to be sure they were compatible with new standards or even were still applicable.

The board charged the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) to take a closer look at town regulations to remove contradictions, increase clarity and make changes based on attorney and other expert input.

The committee, which makes recommendations to selectmen as an advisory group, is led by chairman Len Rudin, and includes Deb Brusini, who serves as the Planning Board’s chairman, and Samantha Zawistowski.

One standard — the Affordable Housing Local Preference Ordinance — has been recommended for repeal.

A “yes” vote repeals the ordinance, which the ORC says “restricts development opportunities for more affordable housing” and has been deemed by legal counsel as “potentially problematic and discriminatory.”

A “no” vote keeps the ordinance on the books.

This is the second time this issue goes before voters. At town meeting, the repeal attempt was rejected, but officials decided to bring it back because there was a feeling confusion may have existed — people possibly thought repeal was a strike against allowing affordable housing here.

ORC says the opposite exists. Repeal will make it easier to bring forth affordable housing projects in designated districts in Bridgton.

“This series of preferences, and direction in the ordinance how it is to be managed, organized and approved, discourages development of affordable housing (built with federal and state subsidy). Subsidized housing, particularly for the elderly, is needed in Bridgton. Local research found there is a waiting list for such housing,” the ORC reported.  “We want to encourage development, not discourage it by making it so hard that it just doesn’t happen. Where are people supposed to go when they can’t pay their taxes and keep up with their homes when they don’t have much of an income anymore?”

The repeal is supported by the town’s Community Development Committee, and is in “harmony” with the Comprehensive Plan, ORC members said.

The existing ordinance would be repealed in its entirety. The ORC feels what is currently on the books is so difficult to manage, authorize and approve that people will not build affordable housing facilities.

The ordinance was crafted in response to an Avesta proposal to build affordable housing in the downtown area (where the former stone business operated) or property off Route 117. The fear was the potential for “undesirable” people to move here and adversely impact the town.

When the ORC looked into the ordinance, they found that the town is in need of affordable housing — it is not Section 8 housing — people have to possess some level of income. There is also a very rigorous application process, which includes updates regarding the individual’s financial situation and who resides with them.

“This is not a freebie, it’s subsidized. When you look at what’s in town, there hasn’t been any real issues,” the ORC said. “They are well-kept. There are waiting lists — nothing is available. We know we have an aging population that is having a difficult time staying in their homes. Where do they go?”

Currently, there are three or four government-subsidized housing projects in Bridgton.

There have been legal cases that have challenged “preferences” similar to what Bridgton currently has on its books.

The code enforcement officer is the overseer of whether a property’s owner is following the stipulated “preference” — something a Housing Authority official would be responsible for, not a CEO.

The ORC points out that the town already has other ordinances — such as the Site Plan — that can regulate affordable housing development and not result in an adverse impact to the town.

“The Site Plan Review has a section that limits the amount of residential on the lower floor of a building. There’s ways to make sure it is done properly,” the ORC said.

As to how the existing ordinance is viewed from a legal standpoint?

“It’s not technically illegal. However, it raises the risk of litigation for the town because these housing preferences are being litigated not just across the country but in Maine. They are considered discriminatory in some fashion because it limits where people can move and live where they want,” the ORC said. “It could be problematic.”

The ORC’s biggest concern — which the selectboard agreed — is there is a need for more affordable subsidized low-income housing?