Planning Board - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh, heat, heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music]

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

the second one again. You are okay. Can you tell if we're actually lighting? Okay. All right. and we're going to go ahead and get started. So, welcome to make sure everybody's here is here for the right meeting. This is the Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025 regular meeting of the Durham Planning Board. Um, first step is roll call or determination of the quorum. We have four members. So, we have a quorum. Next, if you rise and please join me in stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Do we have any amendments to the agenda, Mr. question. Yes. Um not sure if this is going to be covered under the um um information exchange or not, but I'd like to um discuss the um strategic coordination memo that George presented at the last meeting, but we didn't have a chance to discuss if we could possibly put that at the end. Uh makes sense to me if we got if we got time. That was the timing of meetings and all that stuff and who's doing what. Okay. Any objections? Seeing none, we'll add that to the agenda at the end of the meeting. Um, acceptance of meeting minutes August 6th, 2025, our last meeting. Any changes to the minutes? Seeing none, do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to accept the minutes. Move. Seconded. Seconded. Moved and seconded. Any other comments? Seeing none, raise your hand if you vote yes. Unanimous. Moving on. Pass back toformational exchange on non-aggenda items. George Town Planner.

Yes. And for the first time, I've included my monthly report to the town manager where I go out through all of projects that we've been working on. So, uh rather than try to recap for you just for future, you could just refer that report if you have questions on any of those. uh issues, you can email me and I'll be more than happy to answer them. So, I would just bring you up to date that on September 23rd, the select board is going to be having a meeting at which they'll be discussing economic development, trying to put together some ideas on how the town can move forward with that. Uh and then on October 28th, the select board is going to be hearing from the consultants hired for the open space plan. So, they're inviting town input. So you may or may not be able to participate in that discussion as well.

Yeah. Do you think they'll actually take input from just people in the audience? I think that's what they're looking for. Oh, okay. I thought just just to be sure. So nobody are official town officials. So I'm sure they would welcome you. Especially being on the planning board, you would do a lot of development, the zoning map, and all of those issues. So I I'm sure they would welcome you. Can you see those dates again, sir? Yes. Uh September 23rd regular meeting is the economic development. Uh in our October 28th, which is the second October meeting, they'll be looking at building space kick off their call.

And if you'd rather sit at home with a beverage of your choice, it is streamed on YouTube and played again, you know, permanently. Um residents, any public comment on anything that's not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, uh, non-residents. Seeing none, uh, continuing business, we have none. New business. Uh, okay. So, conditional use review of a proposed bulky waste pickup company at 28 Soer Road, Matt 4, lot 97. No public comment will be taken. So, this is as good a time as any to uh we get to when we get to it. So, uh with that, I guess with the applicant applicants, come on up. Have a seat. Please state your name and um address relationship to the project.

Yep. uh Matthew Moore house uh with 1026 Hollow Road and owner joint owner of the business endur. Okay. Uh I ask speak loudly cuz you're facing away from the only mic is the camera. Okay. So just speak a little bit uh louder and we should be able to pick you up. Okay. All righty. So uh Mr. Targe, if you would like to go over uh your notes on this project. I'd

be happy to. Uh so the applicants here before you tonight for a conditional use review and virtually since the town does not have commercial districts or industrial districts uh business uses are allowed anywhere in in the community and per that every uh business non-residential uh development has to get a conditional use review where the ordinance lays out that uh the board looks at several criteria primarily related to uh is the project going to have a significant impact on environmental uh quality? Is it going to have uh drainage issues? Is it going to have traffic issues? The scale and intensity of use uh compared to neighboring uses. So those um are all set out in the ordinance and they're set out in the application that Mr. Mohouse filled out. And so uh you pretty much have a fairly limited review in this particular case because as I understand it the applicant is proposing to use existing buildings on the site as opposed to any new construction. So uh that would not trigger a site plan review process which we would have if this were a new business uh location. Now I would point out I did point out in the notes that a year ago in April uh another company came in uh an HBA AC company for a conditional use for the same location and it's not clear whether that business went forward if it's discontinued or what the relationship is to the current applicants project. There are multiple buildings on the pro property as indicated in the applicant submissions. So the board uh may want to clarify what uses are currently on the property because obviously that would potentially add to the impact and affect the ability of the board to make findings on this conditional use application. So I did

based on the applicant submissions prepare draft findings of fact. Uh I took the applicant's responses to each of those criteria questions and and put those into the findings the draft findings. As you proceed with the discussion tonight, you when you get to a point of making a decision, you can review those and add any new findings based on excuse me on testimony that you receive. And uh also there are a right now a standard condition of approval uh that we apply to all projects like this that basically says everything that's discussed tonight and committed to by the applicant the testimony that then becomes basically part of the approval if it's approved. So finally uh as I indicated the board has discretion on whether to hold a public hearing or not. You could base that on uh perceived public interest in the project. Uh we we've not received any communications from a letters. The applicant did submit two notification forms to a letters. Uh they are required to notify all property owners in advance of the of the project review by the planning board. So that's where we are.

Were there more than two of us? I am not sure. I assume, but I'm not sure. Yeah. Uh, my business partner made contact with a third. There's three total, I believe, but I think there's I don't know if they're same property owner or not, but is that why there's two in the packet? That's correct. Okay. For a landowner. Okay. But what is the requirement of sending out public notices? They're required either to notify all of the abing property owners by certified mail or they can take a handwritten copy and get the abing property owner signature which is I think what they did in this case. Okay. But within like two weeks of a meeting

it has to be a certain time frame in advance between phase 10 days. Okay. 10 business days. Yes. But I think there's got to be more than two or three. Just kind of looking at the picture, Georgia, that you provided. There's one on each side. As you're driving along Soer, there's a land across the road on Soaper and there's a parcel behind them as well. So, I'm thinking we maybe we missed some. And what's the requirement? Adjacent to.

Yes. And Jason includes across the street. Let's map one number 3 4 97 28 silver

97 97 I learned today that silver starts at metal and not at 125.

Yeah, spent 30 minutes looking for it. That was the best one. Okay. So to the west is pray property. Oh that the apparently the owner of that property is also pray properties. So it's the property owner is one of the property. Do we have to go through them to the other

Steven Carpenter 54 So Road and across the road is Linda Marstellar. And how are behind them? Bruce Marcela and then behind them is so I think part of the limitation is that the property owner.

Yeah, just to clarify, there's I don't know if it's two lots into the one, but we're purchasing there's two Yeah. So that lot right where we have both of those is what we're just to clarify. Yeah. Yep. Where the red roof is. Gotcha. Yep. So there's land as you're facing into your property. There's land to the right. Looks to me like there's two properties across the street as well as um

Marell Marella I think but different different properties different Marstellers right listed could be brother and sister and what about the wooded lot to the left that you're driving in the property that's the that's the also great properties uh go farther over Well, this is the project site. Okay. So that where the that trailer is is not part of the correct. So the question is this is the parcel subject parcel. So anything touching that or across the street.

So it looks like there's five. Yeah. including the guy who already owns um who owns both properties now with the trailer. So I think we may be short so that there's only two or three. Our understanding that there was only three that abuted uh we didn't go I don't think necessarily across the street. So I don't know if that was just a when we were reading over the properties that but yeah it does. So, we need to get a couple some more not notification over there.

And you can, if you decide to go forward with the review tonight, uh direct the applicant to notify any property owners that were not notified at this meeting and then and continue. Yeah. And I would also point out that I think it's only been seven days since the public notices were received by the by the land owners. So for that reason also I think should continue. Thank you Julia. So the short version is start going to get postponed for a final decision or a decision or maybe a final decision next month.

Okay. Just because there's some other concerns that I have at least I don't know about the other board members. So um if you would make sure you get there's actually I think another one. There's also that one right there. That one. Anyway, just make sure we don't need to go through all of it. Just so you got what the requirement is, right? Um, yeah, we're missing a couple. So, you'll have to do it again.

Because you didn't do it. If it's two weeks, you only did it one week. So that two the three or two that you did you have to redo those with the due date correctly from I turn to my expert. So you will need to notify them also well we'll get another concern I have that we get to is is having a public hearing. So it's good good time as any to turn to the other board members your thoughts on having a public hearing. I actually wonder, should we just hold on this until next month or do we want to keep talking about this and then talk about it again? You have that option. Yeah. I almost feel like we should wait and pick this up again next month.

So, I I'd like to get at least go through it just to get any other issues out. So, next month.

Well, what about the folks that don't know possibly about the projects? We might want to rehash those for them. Uh just in terms of the notification, you know, different lawyers would advise you differently, but basically the two that have already been notified were notified of this meeting. Now whether they receive the proper length of time or not, they know about this meeting. This is being recorded. Um and if if you continue this, they have the opportunity to watch or to ask so that technically they have received notice. And if if that now gets extended to the next meeting, they will still have notice of the fact that this is being reviewed. And that's the issue. Give people the opportunity to to participate.

Right. Those are the two people that were notified, but the remaining

Yes, that's correct. That's right. And my thought in response to your comment, Juliet, is that what we would do tonight is go through the 200,000 different things and get give him feedback on it. But then we really have to go through them individually for a vote. So we wouldn't we can't vote tonight on any of the seven or eight or 10 whatever the the things are. So we'd have to go back over them. and we're talking green tea, but there's a whole list of things that we have to look at and we respond to like does it provide a pollution problem? Does it do this, that, and the other things? So, we could go back over those or have to go back over those and actually vote on them. Does that make sense? But we could maybe do it faster and then get the word out that it's already been looked at once the information is on the website. about putting in the applicant there so that everybody can can take a look at that and come in with any questions they have and then we would uh have a public hearing that make sense.

I'm not willing to go through the whole application all of the all of the points here. It feels like a incomplete application. Okay. I I feel like we should make sure we have all the property for the application feel the same way I'm going. Okay. What we want to do then very strongly very strong.

Okay. And then what I I guess the things that I would like you to ask him to take a look at that I the concerns I have regular viewers is u site plan set where you going to put it on the site up again close to how far away from the road you going to do it and then also a a plan to screen it because when I drove that today that's just you can big wide open it kind of looks like this trees. So those are those are issues that I have that we'll discuss that I'll bring up next time. Anybody else want to give them anything you want them to think about before the next meeting? Just my only other comment was quantity of stuff.

And I think it would help to have a site plan, nothing fancy, but take the area and draw a line that says all the dumpsters are going to be behind this line and then how what's going to be on that line to screen it because kind of what I'm getting to. And then, you know, as Brian said, how many 10, 20, 2,000, how many trucks, all that kind of stuff. There's a little bit more detail in that regard.

Okay. And then give me just one second cuz I took notes. See if there's anything. I just want to make sure we don't come here next week and you're missing something else that as long as you're here. There is one other comment that I have on I understand that you don't feel the um proof of finances is relevant because it's not like the subdivision and you're not doing a lot of construction installing sign but it would be good to see that the copy of the act

just that you have the right to do this and show us I'm on paper that you have the right to do this. I think that was one of them. Yeah, you beat me to it. Thank you. Anything else? Um, regarding the public hearing, we can talk about that next time, right? I don't Did we decide that we will we will have a public hearing? I Yes. I mean, I my recommendation is we have a public hearing. We do it next time. You may want to vote to schedule the public hearing as well as both table. Okay. So, I will need a mo Thank you. I will need a motion that at uh to table this and the next time we till the next meeting which is whatever it is in October and at that meeting we'll hold a public hearing.

Okay. I'll make a motion to table this application. Okay. And and also would you add to hold a public hearing as well and to hold public hearing at the next meeting? Uh second been moved and seconded. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote uh to approve or not. And that day will be October 1st. October 1st. So you'll come in as continuing business and be at the front. Please let all the neighbors know. And for those of you who came tonight, we'll see you October 1st. Okay. You can reserve your seats in advance.

Appreciate it. Appreciate the time. So that's it for that project. That's all. You're you're welcome to stay. If not, we're going to move on to uh the next project which is the gray something Greystone Ridge. And I'll read you the formal verbiage for that. Sketch plan review of proposed subdivision on Pinkham Brook Road map 2 lot 35 and 42 and public comment will not be taken at this meeting. So quick and dirt come on right. So quick and dirty the sketch plan is a very preliminary uh review by the planning board. uh we give the applicants uh feedback on the viability that of the project things that we might want to change or ask we can't change anything ask them to take a look at it is a better way to say it. So it's a it is a at this point they're far from having any engineering done or anything like that. So the sketch plan you saw on the website is far more than just an artistic representation, but it's not the final uh final plan. So having said that, Mr. Barge,

yes, Mr. Chairman, uh me for the board, the application before you tonight, as John said, is for sketch plan review of a 13 lot cluster subdivision. Uh the board looked at a a prior application on this project site as well. uh this past that was this year where the former property owner Mr. Puffer I think his name is applied for uh a three lot private way relocating blue jay way um and so the board has already reviewed the access issues related to this project easements you may recall and I assume that the current uh applicant has purchased the property from Mr. buffer and is it proposing to go with a full subdivision including those previously considered lots and then extending beyond into the parcel toward the rear which abuts the Brunswick town proper townline and under main law if you have a subdivision that abuts another municipality you are required by law to notify I think the planning board and the clerk of that uh community so that have to be part of process when it comes to approving their plan

and we do that right away we via the planning board we send notice that u so the applicant has submitted all the documentation for sketch plan including the basic site information wetland survey uh they've also done a concept for a cluster subdivision and I'll switch over to those um those plans should be. So, uh they have submitted uh plans and with all background documentation. Um that includes the site analysis plan which is up on the screen right now which shows what the uh site constraints are on the property. My assessment of it are is that there are some steep slopes over the uh this particular area. There's a microp pit I guess. Not sure exactly what that was mined for, but there is some steep topography in this area. There's some steam a limited number of steam solds over 25% there. And then there's a fairly significant wetland system in the center of the park. So uh and then there's this a feeder. I think these probably drain off to probably uh the east branch of the Chandler I would assume heading in that direction. Uh so those are the major site constraints fairly known other than that no significant that are readily apparent and so they are proposing to take these two existing houses on buffer parcel and create those as two of the subdivision lots as well as the one I think that one was proposed as part of prior private way application. So, um, this does include a conceptual layout,

which I'll let the applicant kind of walk you through that. Make that bigger. So, this kind of lays out what they are proposing for cluster, which allows them to reduce the lot area by 50%. As well as to reduce road frontage by 50% as well. that enables them to avoid wetlands uh to the extent possible and um and just gives more flexibility in terms of a lot layout than you would with a conventional uh layout. Um, one of the issues that I've raised is the fact of the ordinance requiring when we do a project like this, if there are large budding vacant parcels, there should be provision for future interconnection. Uh, and it does not require construction of a road connection. It just simply requires laying out the right way so that 50 100 years from now when and if the town builds up to the point where those connections are critically important for traffic and utility circulation and everything the rights are there and the town is is able to pursue that. Again, not something immediate. The only the ordinance only requires that that paper street connection be made. So probably most logically to the northwest and possibly to the souththeast but it may or may not be uh vacant land there that could be provided within a street convention. So, as you discussed, John, at the beginning, the sketch plan is an informal discussion to look at these issues and get the developer team and the planning board on the same provided page when it comes forward so that everybody knows what to expect in terms of the review process. Uh the next step would be the preliminary plan where they lay the uh take this to the next stage

of development and design and provide the engineering preliminary engineering of the roads, storm water, everything which is just conceptual at this point and uh the board within enough information to verify the board's judgment that this project can meet the subdivision criteria and design standards. uh you can make that preliminary determination based on reviewing uh all the information. You don't need to do findings of fact and conclusions of law at the preliminary stage. If you determine it can beat the subdivision standards, then you would give a preliminary approval which is good for six months enabling the applicant to do the more hard line engineering, get a peer review done of that engineering work. if they need any state permits, uh, storm water or wetland or others, they can go through that process, come back to you with all of the financial security documents in order as well as the um legal documents for the homeowners association and all of that. Uh, legal work to be done as part of the final process. So, that's pretty much where we are. And I do just point out, for example, the bank letter that was submitted. Norway banks says they're good customers. Uh that's not really a financial uh demonstration. What the ordinance looks for is an engineering estimate review and a letter of credit or other um indication from a financing company that we've looked at the project, looked at the applicant and based on those costs, they are willing to finance the project. So that a letter of commitment would be another instrument that we could bring in to to meet that requirement. So at this point the board should do a quick look at the cluster layout and in your judgment determine whether or not

it accomplishes the purposes laid out and I think it's 6.33 which lays out goals of cluster. It's not just to reduce lot sizes and road frontage as potentially beneficial as that is. It really calls for some thought going into where are these lots going to be located and can they take advantage of the open space that's created either just for natural setting or for recreational purposes. Um and that's a discretion discretionary decision of the board to be convinced that the cluster plan is gets the benefits that are called for in the ordinance. I think if you determine that they that the plan is conducive to those meeting those goals and you can indicate the cluster approach is workable or if you just see that this doesn't really meet those objectives you can give direction to the developer at this point before they go forward with any more engineering that they're going to need to take a different design approach. So that's all part of the schedule making process

and you made the coverage I think I would add was part of the cluster is they can reduce the lot size but they have to then turn the extra land into open space. That's correct. So it's not you have more loss that way. Okay. Y uh name, address, and relationship to the project.

Sure. My name is Matt Palier. Uh I am the engineering consultant from Terabback consult representing the applicant uh 565 Hunger Street in Portland. Um as well as Glouster. Um and I think you just said it. We have we're proposing a 13 lot subdivision uh using the cluster development in the as outlined in the zoning ordinance. And I'll just kind of go briefly through kind of the existing conditions where we are on the property and then talk about the actual development and what we're proposing. Uh so the project site uh is on 37.88 acres of land uh lot 35 and lot 42 of the tax map 2 on the kind of darn successor's tax map um which also as pointed out for Brunswick to the southeast. Um the site's located in the rural residential and agricultural zoning district and the site currently right now is mostly forested. Um there are those two lots up there as pointed out earlier that have access to um picking up Brooks Road uh PJ Way and there's also 50 right away access next to them which allows which is where we're going to be proposing a road um further development. Um wetlands and streams were discovered on site for a wetland delineation and that was performed by Eric Lima. Mass environmental very well respectable now we use long for our project work um and he found no natural verbs on site. He didn't find wetlands uh and streams as I mentioned um and none of those wetlands were considered wetlands of special significance. Um you did find the micro pit which is man-made um in the corner there. Um in the corner where

in so the north right there that's good. Yeah. So that could be considered a burnable pool by D standards but it's not significant because it's mandated. It's disqualified for being significant burnable. So it doesn't have the 250 foot setback requirements that a significant burn would get. Sorry to interrupt you. I'm really sorry. Is it this? Yes. I uh so if you go just Yeah.

Um the top topography generally that's the high point. So part of the lot is lot 35 which is the one closest to the road part that slopes and drains toward the major roadway and then the rest of the lot which is lot 42 which is the back drains towards those wetland and stream complexes that are down there. So kind of split two ways. Most of the back lot drains to the souththeast and most of the um the rest of the lot that's going towards the road drains that way. Uh overhead electrical exists along the road which is what we tie into and there are no um public water sewer infrastructure that we would tie to. you the uh the next one for me please. Um as stated before is proposing to submit the property to 13 lots with open space as it cluster subdivision. 11 lots will be accessed along a proposed 2400t layer foot road. Um then it will end at the hammerhead for turnaround access for fire and anyone else. um and will access through the existing 50 foot rightway as shown on the plan here. Uh the two lots that are existing will be subdivided out. Um they will they will remain but they'll still have access of blue J way. So we're not going to touch JJ way at all. Um they'll butt the road but they won't have access and all the utilities will remain through their existing um efforts. The road will be designed to meet prior road standards include 10 foot travel lanes with two twoft shoulders and they be curved or have um or uh ditches depending on storm use or storm water which we haven't designed yet at this point. Uh and we'll follow section 6.33 for the cluster development alternative as outlined the ordinance which as stated before um allows a 50% reduction

in the minimum lot size and road frontage. Uh so for this district uh zoning district for the rural, residential and agricultural uh 90,000 square ft is is required for the minimum uh and 300 ft of row frontage is also required. Um from this development we are have a minimum of 50,000 ft and an absolute minimum of 172 ler ft of row frontage and that's the absolute back back lot. Most of these have at least 200 feet of frontage. Not a little bit more, but 172 is the the very low level that we have. Remaining land will be dedicated open space, which is about 19 acres. Um, so that's over the 50% required right at 50% required for a cluster subdivision. Um and it's designed in a way to avoid um wetlands and steep slopes as much as possible. As said stated before by the mit there's some of those slopes that there lot six. I think I need glasses. uh over by the mic there are some steep slopes there were near that house but we push it out down right there um to try to make sure that they are outside of that because that is a permission of the cluster development and the ordinance that you want them to have vable area so it's not um that place like that we've also included buffer areas so why you see some some buffers on the back edge of the lots and some of the side lots um for trail purposes providing some areas uh some separation from abundant property owners to give it sort of more of an open field. Um that's kind of by design. Um and each lot will be served by uh will be served by private wells, individual subject systems and under electric. Um we're going to work with the fire department determine what kind of fire suppression

that they'll be looking for and it will come uh in preliminary stages going forward. As far as permitting goes, um we have about 1 1.33 acres of purpose area that we're posing, which is the road. Um as well as 1.66 to 2 acres of developed and how stronger work looks out and how all this these acres are inside the wetlands. Is that what you're telling us? Uh no, just a general just the entire the entire most of the road length. Gotcha.

Yep. Um and Rosville will also include a wetland crossing which is um kind of you kind of see right in the middle there where the complex is. So there will be a wetland crossing um but that those impacts are less than 4300 ft 4300 square ft uh which makes it um exempt based on deming. So we won't require DBR for that. Uh we will require core per which is still a big part of it. We will require storm water permit as well. Bas area that we're proposing and we'll also require many DOT entrance permit that is a DOT control. So we'll be required to do that part of it as well.

Is site law required?

Site law is not required. So our storm water will be it goes PBR storm water site law. So we're right in the middle of that. um will be managed uh through storm BPs including buffers and structural BMPs. Um we have just determined what will work for this site yet and length buffers the most. It's less invasive that way. Sometimes you need to do structural DMPs to control flow plane. Um so then we'll look into that as we start designing. So our plan is to meet all DP time requirements um for storm water control and treatment. corners association will manage the uh open space, the storm water management, the road. Um so that will be as part of this subdivision and as stated before we we do have a financial capacity letter which we typically do for these types of things to show that yeah we still have the capacity to build this but there's obviously more engineering and processing to do to get to that. That's all that's all I have done.

Okay. Um, any board members, any questions or comments? Yeah. Uh, I'm sorry if you covered some of this. Uh, what's the timing proposed timing on this subdivision like construction and really construction? Uh, I I think I think they want to kind of get this going pretty soon. Actually turn to the as soon as. Okay. Um, so then tied to that is the Army Corps permit. So is your plan to submit soon or have you already just you did not know the October 15th change?

Yes. So that we do know that our core the October 15 change in the rules required PCN for one of these web activities which is a just a different form um than they've done in the past. So we are aware of that. Um, as soon as you know we kind of get the approval from here to based on the plan or we have to do updates, we're just we're going to go right into design then we'll start doing the permitting and start kind of doing in tandem to get this all submitted. Okay. So, realistically we're looking at probably quarter one right for permitting to finish that up. Um, so I'm just trying to try to understand like when this would

Yeah. So we if we submit D permitting I mean they they've been they've been pretty backed up. Um they just they they just don't have the people we're submitting things. I I don't know what the timing is it is it 6 months on the storm water right now. Storm water permit is supposed to take 4 and 1/2 months but it's been taking longer. Um but you know with feedback from you all tonight our plan is to move ahead with design and as quickly as possible. So um our applications would probably be going into D and Army Corps um probably in October. Okay.

And then yeah I'm sorry. Who are you before we go to your name and address please? I'm Adrien Fine, also a Terod Consultant. Thank you. Civil engineer. Anything else? Uh, no.

Brian, a few thoughts. Um, see, so if you look at the um topo plan, it looks like there's a few areas where we exceed or the site exceeds 20% slope.

Yep. and that wasn't accounted for in the um summary of land that should be accounted for. So, I didn't see anything in the ordinance that specified the contiguous area of steep slopes. Usually, we've seen 2 acres contiguous over 20%. Um, it did say mention the Charlotte zone what those slopes were, but on here there's no there's there's pockets like that near the mic, but that's not that's a fraction of the area. Um, so I'd love some guidance from the board on on that. Uh, because it wasn't specified how much steeps look because I mean you're always going to have you're always going to have 20% here and there, but you necessarily want to take those out and that's not something you've seen in other towns taking say like a 10, you know, 100 foot section. Usually it's a larger swath that you can take out for the purpose of residential area calculations. So the the our argument says um portions of a lot which are unsuitable for development in a natural state due topographical drainage or subsoil condition such as but not to slopes greater than 20%.

And so there's a line that there slopes greater than 20%. And it looks like there are areas where slopes are greater than 20%. I think that should be added to the calculation.

Okay. Um, we're you we're happy to add that. Um, we've actually looked at it internally. It doesn't affect our density. Um, but I wanted some clarity on because it did specify how many how much slopes were you needed because most areas look for 2 acres of it doesn't specify. It just says tell us which parts of the property have slopes that are greater than 20%. And subtract that from your calculation. Similarly um the ledge um that that's an unbable area that was not calculated as saying that that should be part of the calculation is un unsuitable to build but is there any guidance on if there is in fact a small area that has a drop off with it just because it's over 20% in a limited area. Is that a concern to us other than the fact the ordinance says it should be? That's I don't have a preconceived answer on that.

I'm reading the ordinance and the way I read it, it needs to be calculated in the unsuitable land area to be developed. If you look at if you look at the list there on the upper left like you've done a great job of listing everything that should be calculated and that's not there. Um there is there's part there are parts of the property that appear to be to exceed 20%. Um so I I think it's will be a comprehensive review of the entire site to show which parts are unsuitable to be sure. Does that mean your your way to do that?

Yes, we can do that. Usually, let's like I said before, some some towns are very specific on how much areas of 20% slopes should be taken out of the calculation and there are some towns that don't specify. So, we weren't sure what that specification was here for this meeting, which is why which I'm really happy that we're doing like a sort of a a you know like table read kind of figure out what what we should include or what we should not because we read it as in the past 2 acres continuous or Bowden for an example has 100 ft for you know at least,000 square ft is considered steep slopes that you would take out of the residential area calculations cuz there's always going to be a pockets. So, it's going to it's going to be difficult to like get every little pocket on the Well, I mean, we could get every little pocket, but is that notable? I mean, you could, you know, if you have a 10 square ft area of 20% slope, I mean, I wouldn't consider that non-billable. That would be something they could easily put the house on. They just they just kind of uh they just create that and it would be a billable area. So, that's why I wanted clarification. But it just didn't justify it. If if you know, if you come back and and the to shows a depression and that's going to be graded out and there's no reason why it can't be done, I don't see a problem with that.

No, we don't specify as you say other towns may we don't. But I think for cluster subdivisions, it's important to know all of the area that's on and look at that calculation as a whole. If the CAD shows it should be measured. And I would also just chime in that Matt did mention we did look at the number of steep slopes and it just wasn't in the table because of the clarity question, but um it doesn't change the density. We can still have 13 on the property. I hear you. Don't take our word for it. I can't see the numbers.

We can certainly do that. Brian, anything else? I have several comments. Is um is a stream conser considered surface water, George?

Yes. So again, um there are streams on the property. three that I see from the um at least from the um um wetlands, not wetlands, the um one of your consultants listed three streams in the property map there. I can point them out. They're not quite shown accurately overall or they're not highlighted on this map, but there are three streams and I think that should also be listed if those are um surface water streams.

Yeah, I agree if Okay, if I add something here, sorry about that note about the stream. So, I do see um at least one is noted here, right? And there's a setback. So those are red ones. This one right here, that's a setback. Oh, this is the stream. Okay. And there's also a branch that comes out. Okay. So they are noted here. These are the the streams that are here. Those are the stream. The stream. If you look at the screen, this is the screen from Yep. And then it comes down to the cell. Right. Right. It's real clear on the Can we go to the weapon study? Yeah,

they show S1, two, and three. Is there screen associated with this? I think there might be one on the very corner T that little like you put it right away. Nope. Um, on the southern end, southern southwest end this. Uh, nope. If you keep going up, there might I think there's one. Yeah, it's up there. It looks like there's more kind of like the the ver pool survey shows them more accurately a little more highlighted. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, but to Brian's point, it would be great to have it more highlighted on this map like where the streams are. Um the buffer within the buffer of the stream are uh potential storm water BNPs. Those are okay to go in there. Uh so there's a 75 foot setback. This is part of the wetland. Um, and that's usually okay as long as it's on special significance. Okay, you just can't impact or you would have to do a D if you did. Okay. If you're going we go close to the stream, which we're not. This one out here is outside of the need permit to get closer, which we're not proposing. Okay. Okay. So, nothing inside the stream setback, but yes, inside of the wetland, but they aren't significant.

They're not significant. And I believe that setback is defined in your ordinance stat back for um for lots for when she says show them we're not talking about redoing this. Yeah. Just show them when we get to it. Um my point is if streams are considered surface water then again that needs to be taken into the calculations just to confirm that. Yes. Absolutely. Right. Um, one other thing, um, maybe a couple. Go ahead.

In the future, the town is looking at, um, some buffering standards, okay, in some divisions. and um we haven't really approached the topic yet internally, but um wondering if you may consider or your the applicant, your representative of the applicant may consider um working with us in um being maybe a model for buffering standards uh as it relates to the road and adjacent properties. just something to think about if you're all interested in. Um we're we're we're on our agenda to address in the in the in the next year. Um and this looks like a a good project to possibly test that.

Yeah, we can certainly discuss the applicants in go there. Well, along Pigenbrook, you have big trees. So, I guess tying into that, the less you cut down, the happier the world is. Yeah. That's

And just clarify the road that's going in there. If that comes in close proximity to a house on the running parcel, look at what the vegetative condition is. If it's wide open, then that might call for buffering in the future. If it's all fully vegetated and there's no visual impact, then probably not. But the board will have under the draft amendments discretionary authority to look at the impact of the road uh on Parson's existing development. Two things. That's one that is relatively heavily wooded and we can't make you do it because it doesn't exist today. But I appreciate your offer to work with us.

Yeah, we we'll certainly discuss and we are showing buffering already in here. So, you know, we already Okay. Michelle Harrison.

Oh, just a second. Will you recognize her? Michelle Harrison 321 Around Road in Durham. I think it's important that was like jumping back here. We have buffering on all of the lots. I will say that I'm not a huge fan of the conservation subdivision plan the way they exist today in Durham because, you know, from a from a cost standpoint to make this cost effective. We do this, but I like bigger lots and more trees. And so we would absolutely be engaged in looking at ways to add more buffering to future projects. But also, and I don't know, Matt, if you can tell me what lot number is. This one right here. I can't see it.

Relationship the project. Oh, sorry. Owner, a partial owner on the project. Okay. So, lot three. You'll also see that we have a pretty large space from the abuing neighbors land there because we've had conversations with him about that. So, you know, and then along the back side that's all like the rectangle that's along all the back of the property that's all land. I think that's all trees and buffers now anyhow. So, it's actually a very private cluster subdivision. So, and then a lot of the reasons we did the buffering around the lots was to give people access to the open space without feeling like they were going on other people's properties.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Back to you. Um the veracles study also indicated there was existing paths and trails along the within this property. Um it would be nice to see where they are right now. Um, you know, cluster subdivisions are specific, very specific, and it's important to see what some of the natural features now exist and whether or not we want to retain them is something. I suspect we will do a site visit at some point when you're when we can talk about that later, but that'll give us an opportunity to look at it.

Did we already go on? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Do you go on the site? We didn't go on the site. Okay. We just talked about it in the meeting. Yeah. Okay. Um I actually go back to the other I don't have any questions right now. Taking it all in. Okay. Second round. Juliet. Uh thank you. Um any flooding? Um is this site in flood plane? It is not.

It is not. Okay. Any um flooding concerns? So I'm just curious about this crossing over the wet area, the wetland. Um are you proposing culverts or maybe you're not in to that sign yet? to that design. Okay. But we'll have to take a look and see. Yeah. I was trying to look at the topo, but it's hard to tell, you know, where that water is. And he's going to hold his sign up. And you're going to have to Yeah. do that. But that was a question. Okay. Our goal will be to have as least amount of impacts as possible. Okay. But no flooding. No flooding. No flooding. Okay. Um and then the resource protection. Do we Is this No resource protection on the site? Okay.

Great. Uh, let's see. I just had one more question. I think that's it, John.

Okay. I've got a couple. This is very minor, but when you fill out your application, you did not check the block that this is a cluster to subdivision. Oh my in the before before the very turn you down for that. I appreciate all the work of getting the wetlands information and all that stuff together and that was a very good job on that. George already covered uh my concern about uh tying into other neighborhoods because what I see happening in in a couple of years I've been here in Durham is we're creating isolated little kingdoms and our kids are not going to be able to walk to go they're going to have Pinkerbrook which is not recommended to get to the you know somebody 150 ft away from them on their bike. So, please pick two good spots. Make sure that fits in. And I think that was those were my comments. A lot of good work went into this. Brian, you need to round out too already. Have I missed you? Okay. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Are we are we comfortable that what we've seen here uh is enough to recommend they go forward with the next preliminary planning stage

which would start your next engineering stage right in the permitting right that's yeah yeah we did ground running and started doing all that I would say yes um getting back to George's comment about whether or not this is a cluster subdivision. I just again I need to see the whole math there to determine whether or not this is clustered. Um it seems a little spread out I think than the definition of what we want for cluster development but

yeah I would disagree with that. I mean I think you know cluster to me doesn't mean bunched together. It means, you know, we're trying to preserve as much green space, open space, uh, as possible. I think they've done that given the wetlands in the middle, wetlands on the edges, vernal pool, so on and so forth. So, I personally am comfortable with this being a cluster subdivision if, you know, the numbers crunch. Yeah, we'll make sure we get an updated plan. Make sure I think you got land in there to, you know, you got a bigger lot, two, three, and some other stuff that you can make it work too. have a sense of how much access and open space there is now?

Uh, right now we're we're at 50%. Or just over 50% 50.1. 50.1. So, not a lot of them. No, but um but we have 50. You have to design it. So, you have to make the numbers work and we won't tell you how to suck that egg. We we can we can find something. That is really close. Yeah. Okay. I'm interested to see that. Yeah, the numbers have to work. Um, one question, waivers. Any any requests on your part for waivers? No request for [Music] good on everything else.

So, I don't think we need a vote, do we, George? No. Consensus is you just got to make the numbers work. Make some adjustments from your recommendations. a little bit. I'll show the difference. But I do appreciate the fact that there's been a lot of work done on this and you were right that the faster you get your permits in uh the faster this project can move. Down the road, right? Yeah. Okay. This is kind of a process question. Um when do you typically do sidewalks? I know you said you were probably going to want one. Um is that something we should schedule now before we come back? or should it be

do we feel those feeling or I don't know how that works. we might want to go more advanced. Typically, when they file their planning board application, the first thing you're going to do is a completeness review, uh, preliminary, excuse me. Uh, then at that point, you go and schedule. Yeah. So, the answer is after you've submitted the preliminary. Great. Oh, yeah. When And then when would a public hearing occur? with preliminary or just with final if they decide or whatever whenever I want to do one or

it pretty much is if if the board votes to have a public hearing you're not required to do that then you would uh basically make the announcement that preliminary again okay so there's a whole bunch of people sitting there uh you neighbors are you all partners I'm partners have anything else to do Nice. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I think you've got your marching orders. Yes, I do.

And there will more than likely be a site visit and a public hearing at some point in time. So, the more you deal with your neighbors in advance, then u you know, it just saves all those questions when they come into the meeting. Okay. Good work. Thank you. And in the gallery you are friends of or

I'm sorry I since I've seen yet another senior moment. Okay, thanks everybody. Okay, George got bored. [Music]

So the TV's still on so I can't say anything stupid. Um, [Music] yeah. Hopefully they're in quick otherwise we'll be doing sidewalk and like I know there is a there I drove past that today and good news is their ditch in front of the project is finished up to work on it. There's a boatload of trees there. I mean going deep into that I think fairly deep into the project. So George, I thought that was that. Wow, that's a good ask.

Okay, George, what do you want to talk about next? Clarification. Uh, do we want to go over your schedule right away? So, we don't I think we got we got at least an hour. The thing that Brian asked about the strategic plan. It's up to you if you want to deal with that first. We could do that or talk about the codification. It has to be conification because we got to make sure you get everything you need to get it going. Why don't you give us a quick update on I'm so sorry. Can I say something? Yeah. Um it's back to the application just I think we need to do a site visit because it's cluster. Yeah. It's not it's I think I think I'll kind of

No, I know I know we will. I'm just saying it's not a um uh subjective thing we have to it's mandatory. Okay. Well, we I would I know we wanted to I just just wanted everything. Thank you. Okay. So, next meeting or next meeting that you show up, we'll schedule. Yeah. Great. Sorry. No, no problem. George, you want to talk about um codification?

Yeah. So, we've been doing research since uh June uh on uh what we're calling minor policy issues. As you may recall, the uh town has a contract with general code, which is a uh digital code consultant that does 30 plus communities in Maine with their land use ordinances, zoning ordinances. So basically they are in the process of taking the current land use ordinance and reworking it into their digitized format. We've also done an what they title an editorial and legal review looking through uh scrubbing the ordinance for uh obvious uh errors in terms of outdated references to state statutes or incorrect references to state statutes. Um so they are not dealing with uh policy issues in this review process but they hold open the uh opportunity for the town to discuss and insert into the codification process any policy changes with attached ordinance changes that you choose to to put into their product into their product at this time. So, they have uh graciously agreed to give the town until the end of this calendar year to put in a set of additional draft amendments beyond the 139 limited specific technical questions that I've already answered for them based on staff review uh as directed by the select board. And so uh throughout this process what we've done is pretty much presented the that this is an opportunity for the planning board and the select board to address some of the issues that have been recurring such as just as one example kept coming up in subdivisions about

putting the waist bins out on main roads. So the ordinance currently doesn't speak to that issue of what they any demonstration of what they're going to do with the waste uh control. So here's the opportunity to put that in. So I previously identified 14 issues. Se uh we presented and reviewed seven of those in July. Those were ones that the board had discussed in the past in fair fairly good detail. Uh and then in August I brought in an additional round of seven that board hadn't really discussed in the past and you gave me some direction on drafting based on basically an explanation of what the issues were. So I have completed draft amendments for 13 of the 14 issues. Uh today I finished up work on noise and uh the only one that I have left to do is actually drafted a set of amendments is the uh cannabis the small marijuana exempt uh facilities. So that's the only one that I've got left to do. I've taken like everything from um the easy ones which are you know changing the submission deadlines and number of copies uh proof of payment of taxes additional requirement. So those sorts of things there's like a bunch of those. Uh probably the biggest policy ones would be the campground which we talked about at length camp grounds and I took your recommendations which is to look turn over to the state review of campgrounds and just make sure that their regulations don't address all of the room issues such as 400t setbacks from residences 100 foot setbacks from property lines. uh so add on to and focus the planning board review on not

the design of the roads and campsites but look at the overall layout and impact on potentially on on the gutters. So I have prepared drafts of those. The only one I've got left that you haven't seen is the cannabis. And so for the next meeting, hopefully I can send out in advance all of the draft amendments and I'm also going to be preparing for the public process a summary explanation for the website that will try to communicate this very big mass of proposed uh even though they're minor there's a lot of them. It's a challenge to get that out to the public in a way that they can understand, but that's one of the things we do and I do. Uh, and so hopefully by the next meeting, we'll have a package that'll include what's going to be put put forward in the public participation process. Uh, and you can get a final review of that. And the other thing we should discuss tonight is to uh talk about what that process is going to look like in terms of special workshop meetings, public information meetings like we've done in the past. You know, where you want to locate those over at Eureka or over here uh so it can be televised. Um, we should really be starting that public input process now and hopefully by November um and the the December meeting, take that public input, make any changes that are needed and get those right after your December meeting to the Senate board in time for them to review them and basically give a yay or nay to send it on to the codify And again, this is just to determine what is going to be put before the town meeting as opposed to nobody's going to vote on it in

December. It's just a matter of is the planning board, the select board, other affected boards uh comfortable with where it is and putting it before the voters. So, that'll be kind of what we're going to try to accomplish between now and New Year's. Um, the other thing, excuse me, that I would say is that, uh, if we get public input about any one of these issues that begin to say, you know, this is going to be pretty controversial. Maybe it's the waste, I don't know, whatever it is. If any of these during the public input process seem to not get a consensus or you know face real political blowback, then we could just pull that off the list and pass it on like we've done with issues before until after the codification is done. The goal is to try to get as much of this done as possible and if there are any snags in it, let's just pull the snags out. We can deal with it at a future point. So

yeah, now there is one additional issue. There's a 15th one and that came about as a result of the fire chief contacting me and he's given me a letter stating that he wants to see the elimination of water systems as a fire protection water supply because those are nightmares for them because the first issue is is 30,000 gallons of water. Where does that 30,000 gallons come from? The fire department certainly isn't want to take they have 2,000galon trucks I think or 1,000 or 2,000. They don't want to have to fill it initially and then if they use it they don't want to have to refill it by cold trucks.

Yeah. So he just he just thinks they subject to cracks over time, frost and different things and you leak potentially. So, he thinks we should limit it to either uh fire blonds or sprinklers. So, I'm going to put that in into the mix if you're okay with that. Can I just I agree with the system elimination. I think that's wise. Um but regarding fire ponds um what do we currently say about the water level and who's to maintain the water level? Okay. So I drove out to Deer Creek Crossing today and this is drought conditions and you cannot see the water intake because there is water in now. It's down. It got probably pretty full in June and it's down low. But as you will recall, we were we required them to submit a an engineering anal hydraulic analysis, hydraological analysis showing that if you take all of the area that drains into it, uh, and you take the annual precipitation rates and factor in droughts and, uh, they line the bottom with clay, which hasn't been done in the past in other ponds because you didn't have any design standards. Um, and that was peer-reviewed by Laurel Palmer and sure enough, notwithstanding the drought conditions, that it's got quite a bit of water. Now, it doesn't probably have 120,000 gallons at this point, but there's there's fairly good water supply there for the fire department. So, uh, I'm not sure if that answers your question. The other issue is long-term maintenance of it. And one of the fire chief's concern with them, especially some of the older subdivisions where they weren't properly located, weren't properly designed, weren't properly

administered. Uh there's been, you know, failure of of uh fire ponds in subdivisions. But I don't think that's a problem of the concept. It's a problem of the execution. Uh so I think Deer Creek Crossing is a good example of a well built pond with properly designed reviewed by qualified people and tested by the fire department and it's it's actually still operational notwithstanding the severe drill program. It's a life safety issue that I consider. Um, I just happened to walk by the one on Cushing Road a couple days ago

and that one looked pretty low and um I just wanted to make sure that we uh cover ourselves for who's responsible to make sure those water levels where they need to be. You can change the hydraulics after it's built. You can't control rainfall. Uh what you can do is do the best you can from an engineering standpoint. And part of the reason that that one has uh there's like a foot of clay under it and that holds the water in so it doesn't infiltrate into the ground. So but beyond that I mean nothing is failroof. What happens in the winter weather?

Well part of it is the design of the 120,000 gallons has what we call is like a a calculation for it's called freeboard. So we want to make sure the intake is not sitting right on the bottom where it gets clogged. So that has to be they calculate that and they calculate a thickness of ice that takes away from the gall and they've got to make it big enough to accommodate the ice on top.

No, they have dry hydrant down to the bottom goes down to the bottom of the plane. So the pond so it's it's operational no matter what the weather conditions are. Well, but I think that's a good question because even Deer Creek, which is working now 20, 30 years from now, could still there is maintenance required and that's specified in the homeowners association. But who does it? I think that's a good question.

The homeowners are responsible for it just like the road. And you know, this is another issue. In the past, the town has not it's basically said, "Hey, that's your problem, not ours." But the planning board under main law uh has to put in place the appropriate management for these private improvements and the town has a responsibility to monitor and inspect and enforce. Yeah. I mean I I will say that yes the town is responsible but 20 I'm not sure I'm not saying get rid of fire bonds but I think it's a very legitimate question they do up. Yes.

And then the town who's going to go inspect it 30 20 years from now 30 years. All of these storm water stuff that's being put in, those are required to be maintained by D rules. Yeah. The reality is, you know, we don't have storm water inspection police running around, but the town should periodically do reviews of these things. And I know the fire department is going around and

they monitor those ponds and they test all those dry hydrants. If there's problem, they should be we have the tools for new subdivisions because we have been starting to pay more attention to this stuff. and I've got the experience to help you do it to set up the the system that will work if the town, you know, expends the resources and exists.

But then that becomes a challenge. I mean, but the same with sprinklers. I mean, you know, who's who's going to make sure that uh it's like smoke alarms, you know, people have smoke alarms that just battery beeped and they took it out and threw it away. Uh I'm not sure there's a good good solution, but it is to to your question. I don't know if there's a perfect, you know, you got Rob Trip who's who's taking charge of all that stuff and getting it done, but you don't know 20 or 30 years from now,

right? It's just who's responsible, right? I mean, if if it does get below the level that it should be at, you know, there's a homeowners association and we're supposed to maintain it, but in the event that there's not enough water sufficient to put out a fire, that's want to make sure that we're covered. Yeah, they just drive down the road.

Unfortunately, that's the answer. They just drive down the road to the next boat. Well, would you bring in a a load of water just to fill it in the interim just to get the weather up? I don't know what the right answer is there is, but I think that's part of what you're going to talk about here. You know, it's fire ponds versus sprinklers. It sounds like systems should go away and uh it sounds like they're going to do that. I got your email. Thank you. If if you want my opinion, I'm happy to sit on the meeting. But I do think that their staff is going to have a meeting to discuss this, but I assume that's chief and codes and

already did and the consensus is pulled off on the larger issue of you know whether to give her bonds and go with all sprinklers. Fire chief is concerned because the state has just put a prohibition on sprinklers and accessory departments. So there he's concerned they may pull that and then he won't have anything. So he's saying keep fire pawns for now but get rid of sistern. Okay. Sounds like the answer is that whatever you get to it I would strongly recommend that we you have a builder developer on weigh in on ponds and and sprinklers. That's my only comment there. Um, okay. Uh,

George, the amendments that you mentioned that you were working on, when um, are we going to review those again? Yes, I'm going to prepare them. I've got them all ready. I can send them out within a week. If you want more time to review them or we can just put them into the packet for the next meeting. Yeah, that's fine for me. Yeah. And again, we've already talked about all of them. Yep. So, it's just a matter of Brian doing his due diligence. I wouldn't do what you do. Um, and then one other thing if we do have comments next meeting sounds like. Yeah. Um, and I was looking at some of the easy ones. I've got some questions on those. So, bring those to the next meeting. Right.

Now, we did include in this packet because you all I'm sure want you wanted to discuss and look at what are the 139 changes. That's what I was just talking about. Okay. That's what you're talking about. Well, that's all we have is the response that I gave to them. They are then going to take those comments. I mean I guess I I have if you have any questions on any one of them, give those questions to me. That's what I'm will give you the detailed information. I just have a question like why we answered the way we did. Yes. So you can email those to me now. Okay. I can get responses to you and share them with everybody. Okay. Yeah. The more we can

the more we can get done now or get to George get done. Okay. Uh cuz whenever I say we can get done, I'm rather referring to George. That's the royalty. U but the more we can get to them because the sooner this is a big chunk of stuff and when you go to give this to the town and no offense to them, but you know there's there's a couple hundred pages of stuff. I would imagine it is. All right, I'll put that on my calendar to review and get you comments on the 139 if any of them that you have questions. Okay. And I guess we're going to talk a little bit about strategy when I think we have two more articles to look at, right?

Did you want to talk about mobile home parks are part of this package? Yeah, those were just part of the 139. Okay.

Where that's set by state law. You do not have we've had to make some modifications to accessory dwelling units. You cannot allow require them to be in a barn or over a garage. They have to be able to do a complete standalone ADU. Uh we reviewed it with the town attorney and the ECB staff. So we're making that change because it's required by state law. Same thing for mobile home parks. So I understand it's a requirement. Yeah. Could be saying that it's preferred that you do this though.

You don't want to put that into a just just again getting back to maintaining the role of character. Yeah. So even though it's Yeah. I think I'm just wondering if there's a way to say we would encourage you to take this approach instead of it's not it's not an audience if you do that. Yeah, you can put something on the website please.

Yeah, I mean I think we need to make sure the ordinance does you know we do what we say in the minimum. I mean, nothing says they can't go above that, but but maximum whatever it's going to be, but I think we have to have something very specific to say, well, we prefer you do this means I don't care. I'm just, you know, I'm going to do I'm going to do the prefer I'm going to do the minimum, whatever it may be. Um, so I think our code has to be very prescriptive, but basically says this is what you have to do and if you're nice, you'll do, you know, they say it verbally, but they really do think we need to say these are the rules that you have to follow. So

yeah, I'd like to think that there are some homeowners that are um respectful of the maintaining rural character and maybe would prefer to do something that maintains that rather than what's required to do that.

Yeah. I mean, you can put that word out in town meetings and other things, but I think we have to say this is this is the minimum you have to do, for lack of a better term. Does the men don't even have to do this? Um because there's going to be some that aren't that they're we can build up the the minimum standard or whatever. But I think the state and now apparently the federal government is just beginning to decree on this kind of stuff. I read somewhere today that the the feds are now going to do what Janet's doing with the governor is doing and just say these, you know, we're going to look at zoning laws and look at other things to help more housing. I mean, I don't think they it's like a statement. I don't think they give it about rural character. So, that's just we just have to I think we tried and lost for lack of a better term with accessory units. Um, so that's my thought is we just do do that. Well, so far we still No, actually it's not clear. We're still trying to get clarification whether the LD1829 eliminates the provision that we put in that says 2 acres per dwell unit.

That was going to push it toward being accessories, but that may or may not have gone away with the lease legislation. When do we get clarification on that? I mean, some of that stuff kicks off to 2027, right? So if it doesn't that kicks off to 2027, but there's other things that don't. And I my feeling is why if we if we're able to do it now, just do it. But there are other things that are that do in fact take effect now. The only things that take effect now are that prohibition on sprinklers in accessory departments and the fact that you cannot review the three units as a subdivision or site plan. And that's in our changes

that goes into effect. So and that's in our changes. No, but cuz now we require three or more to be reviewed, right? That's a sub. So we need to probably change that. So

and then the other thing is just that has I think taken effect is we all have to be trained in planning more stuff. And I think we all have the Yeah, it doesn't matter. It didn't say when you said before. So you would get the clerk George the clerk the your certificate or something that says I graduated if you can if you kept it. I surprisingly did the thing I said you George. Yeah that if you have it. There's also a freedom of access. Yes. I have records of me attending. I can't remember who I went with. Um, but I don't know if I have the I don't know the stage of my morning. Okay.

Yep. I would just say I went October 2018 or whatever. What was it? I could go again. I actually wouldn't mind to spend a long time if I need to. Yeah, there's probably there's probably good things that I mean just some of these housing laws have changed since you put all the housing stuff like we have no direction yet. So,

yeah. So, um I was tiny homes. Did I miss that? Did I did I not say anything on, you know, right now we require 1,200 square ft. State says, you know, 400 square ft or whatever it is. There were some changes to the tidy home rules that we had never implemented or you know we we've implemented because we have to we'll never change the orders. Well, code officer right now accepts tiny homes as standard on usual. What's going to change is now have to allow homes as they use as well

and that's in here right? Did I see tiny homes? 139 139 I think. Okay. I saw some I saw the word tiny. So, we're good then with the state rules. I think so. Okay. What else you want to talk about before we get

That was pretty much it in terms of here's the game plan and let me present to you for the October meeting the final drafts for all of the amendments and then we can lay out doing a one or more public information meetings to read. So, at the October at the October meeting, we're going to have to lay out some dates to be in October, November. Um, have to kind of figure out what size bites we want to take on this. How many do we want to do the 139 all at once? Do we want to do like we've done it more where we've done, I don't know, seven or eight. Seven or eight. We've done them in two or three bikes like So, I'm saying because that's the one where the public will be invited. So, you know, it's not a public true public hearing, but it is one where we will take their comments. So, it needs to be a small enough fight that we're prepared for it and they can absorb. So, we do a combination of an easy one, an easy one, two, three, and then we're

I think probably you're looking at again, I do not see the need to take the public through 139 questions. you know, do you support changing from select men to select? So, out of all of those, there might be 10 or so that are even worth presenting. Uh, most of those we've already put into the 14 items. So, I think you can focus your presentations on that and put this 139 responses up on the website and tell people they're there. If you have any questions, send them to the uh town planner.

I was talking about the simple ones. I'm talking about like the change from two weeks to 3 weeks. Yeah. Yeah. Those 14 minor policies, including some of the relatively minor ones like should developers have to prove that they pay their taxes to get permits, uh we can put those in two groups of seven. Yeah. Just so that you got a couple really easy ones. And then you know so we just say look you really care. Yeah whether it's 14 days or 21 days you don't care so let's move on to the next one there even less discussion probably half a dozen they're going to generate any real concern. What is the town war going to look like on the 139 is it

we're going to with the plan right now is to take these 15 issues with the systems put those on a separate warrant article first. each one one. No, no, no. Just the 15 all together one one article passes one more one more article. Again, if any of those start to get wobbly, pull them off. Okay, we put all of those onto one more article. These are just minor adjustments in policy for clarity and for uh administrative purposes. Uh not major policy changes. um up or down vote on all all 15 to 15 survive. Okay.

Um and then the second warning article would be the big codification which will just basically be this is just purely technical administrative uh overhaul fixing of the ordinance into the new digital framework. So if the first one fails, the overall clarification still goes forward. But if if that fails, all of them fail. If the second one fails, all of the 139 fail. Correct. So it's it will still be select men. It will still be code officer and code enforcement officer that you know. Why would that not pass?

Oh, no. Why I think where what may not pass is like accessory apartments are in there again state law you don't have any choice I understand but there was a lot of discussion about you know LD 2003 you know so I mean those are the kind I guess to my point I'd really like to make it we need to start the sales campaign

as soon as possible and by that I mean figure out a way to get you know here's 139 mandatory changes and how you know how are we present present that and here are the 15 minor policy changes to clean up concerns that some of you have had like there a couple weeks ago there was a lot of in back and forth on what is it Facebook about 20 foot wide roadway we've worked on our own to say it should be 16 so but that'll have a lot of discussion because there were thousands of uh uh people complaining about

complaining about 20 So, that's the kind of stuff that we'll just have to, you know, sort through a little bit.

I just wonder if we should make it I hear you about posting the 139 on the website and, you know, telling folks to go there versus talking about it in a meeting. Um, I do wonder if we somehow can make that more visible. Um uh just in case there are things here that are picked out that people flag. Like say at the town meeting someone flags something and it starts a whole thing and then all of a sudden we're now looking at 139 138 items that could go through but don't because of one. Right. So I'm wondering if the more we talk about it and I just don't know how you

I know. I don't either. I I'm just saying out loud. I wonder if there's something. Well, I think we when it comes time to pres presenting the 139 whatever this the stuff is back of this, we cut out we cut out all the select board select all that other kind of stuff and we get to the things that we think are going to be of concern to people like accessory units like whatever it may be in here. I'm saying above and beyond 15. Yeah, but I'm tell I'm dissecting the 139 and we can pull out we can pull out and we could even pull them over into the minor policies. Yeah,

this is what the state says we have to do on mobile home parks. We could pull that out and put that ordinances in here in the packet. Yeah. Put that on presentation, too. Do you want to do that? Well, no. I I would love to hear what you all think about that. Um either we make it more noisy or we don't. If you don't, you have longer meetings. Yeah. Might it not depend upon I guess I've expected lots of hoopla the last couple meetings and never really emerged. You know, I mean talking about the town meeting where people were not Yeah.

In part because we, you know, Kimberly Gardo got the word out over and over and talked about this is we have to do this LD 2003. We have to do this. We have to do that and those and so I think if we put the sales campaign out there and somebody comes in and you know you get organized resistance against I mean if you got to do it you got to do it. I mean I think Durham towns people are smart enough to to say I don't like it but we're going to do it. Um so

maybe it makes sense to pull out anything that has a policy whether you're forced to do it by the state or not. put that into this minor policy and just say we have to do this. Yeah. What if breaking it out into what we have to do on a warrant from other items like these are items we have to do. So even if you don't even if you vote against it, we're still have to do it. But you voted against it and now only those eight failed. But does it require a vote if you have to do it? Yes. Does the ordinance change? Then what you end up with is you end up with your ordinance says you're supposed to do one thing and state law says you can't.

Yeah. And so then you end up in court being sued. Yeah. We can't we can't just say not change it, you know, much as we might like to. You can't just say we have to do I just change the ordinance and and you know and that raises another question which I discussed with the town manager today. The town attorney part in this process. So given budget constraints, what we discussed today was taking out any of these that raise legal issues and sending I've already identified about six like the cannabis

like changing the way you review nonconformity expansions. Any of those that kind of raise legal, you know, potential red flags, we should run those by her before we go to the public process. Absolutely. Yeah. So, I'm going to do that. Okay. I think that's a great idea. Well, I don't know. Maybe we talk more about it next meeting. I don't know. We can keep talking about now. I know it's getting late. Well, I I think it's super important that we do plan out this. Let me go through the 139. I've already If you go through here, you'll see referred to planning board. Refer to planning board.

Okay. What I will do is if there's any others that are more than just select board changing terminology, anything that somebody could consider a policy, I'll pull those out and you can look at them next time and decide. Do we want to keep in 139 or do we want to put in the 15? I think that's a good idea. Yeah. Okay.

When do we get the final final draft or the actual cotification? What we will do is once you get I mean they've got 139 responses um we're going to give them another 15 bigger ones. Then what they're going to do if those are in by the end of the year they will put create a draft of the new ordinance with everything in it. I think not sure if they're going to keep it probably try to keep it as two separate with their format all of the proposed minor policies and with their format the entire uh ordinance. So, we're going to have to work through those logistics because it's hard to keep them separate and have it be the same format. So, I'll have to work with consultant on that.

And did we did we talk to the select board about what how they would like to receive these? They want big bundle. They want to you know what I'm saying? The select board back when we get to the chart basically delegated to the planning board putting this together for their consideration. Okay. I can thinking more of I think be able to handle if this is a good time to go to the charter. I'm good with that.

Yeah. One last comment on this stuff. Um if we're going to separate stuff out that goes to the website for the public to comment on. I guess I would just want a legal opinion as to whether or not it's okay to do that instead of having it in a open public forum. Well, there will be required before the town meeting a formal public hearing. Well, we're still going to have public meetings on all of these and I don't know how we do the 139, but

so the we're still would have multiple public meetings to take a chunk of the minor policies. So, kind of how we broke the minor policies out into I forget what they were about, but you know, there were seven of them I guess in the beginning. We might have a public meeting about those seven. Then we have another public meeting above the other seven. Yeah. Right. I hear that. I think what I understand is there will be say 14 21 public that we have a public forum to discuss and then everything else goes to the website for people to comment on. Is that what I'm hearing? That's what I heard too.

I just want to make sure that legally that's that's accessible without having

Yeah. I don't know that we have to George because I'm not sure we don't have a meeting where we somehow just say these are the technical issues and you know maybe that's a part of one of the other meetings that you know that 100 whatever you want to call it 139 125 cuz we took some out or whatever it may be and as part of where we're going to we're going to talk about six or seven minor policy issues. We start that meeting, we end that meeting with look at there's also a whole bunch of minor changes and and we're not going to go through those tonight, but examples are select board versus select none. Uh I don't know whether the other ones, but you know, you're welcome to go through those and you comment on them or whatever. I don't think most I think most people would accept the fact they don't really want to talk about, you know, a common missing. I mean, one of them was we we're missing a letter in a word or something.

So, does that make sense that we we we give them the opportunity to look at it and comment on it. Um, that's kind of what I was talking about too is like instead of just the website, I think talking about it, showing it in a meeting, all of them somehow we could give examples. Yeah.

Yeah. and just say, "Hey, look at all the all of them are on the website or they're over here. Go take a look at in a piece of paper, whatever you want to do, but give them the we can say, well, we you know, you had the opportunity, folks. Does it really did you really not want that little letter put back in there or what whatever it might be?" But I Brian and I agree with that. The more we can get out there, the better. Because my fear is if we don't cover something in a public meeting, then there are people going to sit there and insist that you know, you hid it from me. You know, it's like the guy on Facebook who said all of these taxes were raised in a backwood back room public meeting or private meeting. You know, it's the good old boy. So

also I mean really another big part of it is if we miss something if we you know there's something someone brings up that we weren't considering right that's a big reason why we have these public information meetings right yeah it's a good point yeah somebody may have a better way of doing it you know I can see why why select boards it's not select men you know and just maybe education there you know why change or not a change why just sticking the one over the other maybe. I think it was a mix. Yeah. I mean I I those kinds of things I think are not going to hit people's brain. No, but just explaining right just like this is why. Oh yeah. Personally wouldn't take time to explain in my interview stuff

unless questions come on. Yeah. Somebody says hey you know I don't believe in women in government. I want to go back to select men. You know give them their two seconds and move on. Okay that is my So George you have marching orders construction? Yes I do. You want to talk about that? Yes. Brian, I'll turn to you.

Thanks. Um Um I'm not I'm not sure where this is going. I know this is just a draft. Um but regarding economic development, um uh you know, the comp plan lists putting together a development committee. So, I'm not sure if that should change to include that. I'm not sure where it's going to go, if it's going to happen. Um, it's a convocation thing in this, but um, also, could you go to the next slide, George? [Music] memo strategic vision.

Yeah. Keep planning initiatives. Um just this just explains those individual charts.

I just wanted some clarification on. So in the right hand column the first bullet point sand and gravel aquafer as potential semi-public water source. What is that? What does that mean? Okay, so uh the town of North Yarmouth and the town in the town city of Lisbon have their public water supplies are from groundwater amplifiers, sand and gravel amplifiers. the one in Lisbon that is supporting the uh Springworks lettuce manufacturer producer that generates 300 gallons per minute and that just doesn't serve them. It serves a particular town. So, one of the things to look at in in exploring an economic development district in the south portion of Durham where we've been talking about battery energy storage solar reason all the gravel that's there is because of the sand and gravel aquifer. the sand and gravel contains the aquifer. Um, so that depending on how much water is there and how you know that's just a general mapping geological survey. Uh, but to testing to see is there adequate water there to support some economic development. That's the idea of that.

Okay. Can you George you you and I have talked offline I guess about ideas to do in in this area about like Lisbon has the vertical plants and solar farms and you know battery storage things that need water uh things where you've already torn up the land because of gravel fence.

Um could you maybe you could do a better job of explaining it than I did. You you had kind of a concept to discuss. Well, we presented and will be exploring. There's two grant applications in right now for energy and for economic development for the area down where the where the town considered, you know, the contract zoning and the battery energy storage. It was a major proposal to put a large very large facility down in uh south the power line. And that area has multiple gravel pits that would be optimum locations for solar farms as close to open fields. So the idea is to try to explore whether the town can tap into some of that opportunity for economic development either through gravel pits with solar farms in them, battery energy storage along the power line, uh possibly tying those into some sort of agricultural production facilities. Uh I did meet with representatives of the agricultural committee and they expressed concern about that and their concern is that that may or may not be a unfair competition to the existing organic growers in town. So we will need to work closely with them. Right now, the town has the opportunity to get I think there's a $20,000 grant that we're looking at. We've applied for and a $75,000 grant to begin to explore the concept of an agricultural and energy economic development district down that area.

So, specific to that area, line, correct?

Yeah. And part of the reason that's driving that are some of these considerations gravel gravel aquifer power lines the gravel pits the far act active farm farming agricultural farming commercial scale all of those things are right there right now. Well, and that's why I I said it's not going on record is saying we have to be careful. There needs to be leadership and and uh whoever does that, but because there are going to be a lot of people who are protecting their turf,

you know, so they're not picking on, you know, the agricultural committee or anybody else, but if you write rules to protect existing, you don't get economic development because you get what you got. Well, it might tailor the form of economic development if you do something different. But if you're protecting existing, that's not economic development. This is what I'm saying. If if you're the agriculture committee is concerned that working on a new area is going to be unfair competition to the existing and that's a legitimate concern but you need we need to be able to work through that and say but you know if we if we're going to protect what exists and what we're going to protect the only gas station in town then you know that's not economic development don't let anybody else come in is I guess what I'm saying.

Yeah that is a concern. Yeah. So we need the leadership townwide to say look at we're going to look at a whole bunch of stuff.

So in terms of the idea of having a larger townwide economic development committee to look at other possibilities of which there aren't very many because you do not have public water or sewer or market to support economic development. Um but even to take over and guide that whole process if it if it happens. Um, I did request a proposal from the Greater Portland Council of Governments who has an economic development division for a proposal to put into the budget for a support for a an economic development committee. So that'll be part of the presentation on September 23rd. But the reality is we do not have the capacity to do another committee. So, if the town wants to do that, some more additional resources are going to have to be put into it.

Well, these a good this is a good time to be talking about that because and Brian, I appreciate you going to the select board. Comp plan starts next year based on your Yeah, back to strategic planning. Brian's going to the board. I'm sorry. He said thanks for going to the softboard. Well, you you talked to the whiteboard last meeting, right? Oh, I'm sorry. You're running against me. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, uh at the whatever the meeting was July, um I basically offered to present this to the select board. They said yes, please do. You know, they were looking at talking to the various boards and commissions. Uh agriculture is looking at amendments conservation commission is doing an open space plan. You see at the bottom of the chart there uh we have to do respond to the LV1829. That's the housing one working you and I. Uh codification is going forward. You're taking the lead on that with this select board. Uh I'm working with GD card to try to get these grants going for the economic development district in uh South Durham as I said a egg committee I think they call themselves working with the main farmland trust which is providing technical assistance for them is working on agriculture and then uh we again working with GB COG. So really if you think about it you know this is the the real core of the next comprehensive plan for the town. Because back in 2018, it was more look, let's just look at do we want the town to continue to be all rural or do we want to have growth areas like was in the earlier iteration of the plan and the process ended up saying no there's no basis for doing growth areas in Durham. It's all world. So that was kind of set the direction and so now this is going to really more focus within that but in the town could go in a completely different direction. People think yeah we want to do smart growth. We want to have builtup areas with public utilities and we're willing to you know go through the process of raising capital to do it. Uh we want to be like Brunswick. We want to be like

these other North Yarmouth if you probably good comparment model is North Yarmouth. they've got a real village center with compact development commercial mixed in. We may have a public water system to support it. U maybe some people in Durham would like to see that here but not. So the next comprehensive plan that would be one direction to go. The more realistic one is this one, which takes these things that are in motion right now, which really puts a framework in place for continuing the planning process for the rural continuation of the rural character and enhancing that in many many ways. Space planning, with agricultural planning, uh with more uh with housing planning, how does it all fit together? and then put in budget into the next budget money for the first phase of the comprehensive plan update which should be done ready for enactment by 2029 town meeting. Uh and then phase two. So phase one would be the research taking all of this stuff that we're doing over the next year putting that into the comprehensive plan phase one doing the visioning process where you do ask that is this the way the town wants to continue or do you want to move in a direction of North D for example? uh and if you know depending on that visioning process if people say yeah this is the best course for the town for the next 20 years then you put that into phase two.

So on that note the energy piece that we were just talking about right now this next year would be more of a getting into it like reviewing it researching it. Yeah. What what if the town wants to see these things happen? solar farms, battery energy storage for economic development purposes and to use that energy to support like Beth is it uh it's a farming operation from I think they're in Auburn John you know valley so they have some some fields

they have to do irrigation you know they're doing commercial crop production they need irrigation that takes energy they could tap into the lower cost alternative energy from the solar farms and tap into the battery energy storage so that you know if we were doing some kind of a facility you know green houses they don't lose their crops and power outage but like that would be we're researching it now it'll go into the comp plan for the public participation visioning and then see where that goes right that's what you're because right now the comprehension solar doesn't mention battery storage

right but of course we we do have contract zoning now. So, we have we have some things in place. We have the solar ordinance, but but as far as what we talked about with our energy, we're in the research phase. You're in the research phase right now. And then it'll feed into the comp and what the town has done on solar solar and battery to date has been reactionary. You know, we don't have any regulations. This is to say, okay, now let's look at now that we've got the regulations and the protections in place, what kind of these types of activities should the town try to pursue it?

Yeah, I was going to say the pursuit part is a piece of it. Once if you decide that what you're going to do is what George discussed an area for solar an area for agriculture combined and that's the way the town wants to go you then have to pursue that because I don't know how you do that with a consultant with somebody who's who wakes up every day saying I got to go find a battery storage thing or I've got to find some encourage agricultural whatever maybe it's not a person it's a consultant or whatever it may be but you have to just the fact that we created an area doesn't mean people are going to come to right and Juliet you do solar farms right

so I mean would you rather go to a town that that has all the tools and is interested in seeing solar farms along the lines as opposed to going to a town where you're going to get hit with morator which is a better business commit so that's what you do you start marketing you start going out and contacting business yeah that's what economic development is Anything else? Well, thank you for um letting the or or entertaining the fact of amending the agenda to talk about this. It's very helpful to hear. We did have it on the agenda for last month.

Yeah. Yeah. Um I appreciate that and I appreciate um the backup and listening. But what what I see is after listening to you, George, is energy and economic development seem to coalesce. What's what separates them?

Well, they do coales and that's the whole idea of coordinating all of these together to go into the next compreh that project. The uh agricultural committee is working with the main farmland trust on some amendments to clarify and update the definition. So for agurism that's so that's a project that they're working on. We are now pursuing a grant for an economic development district. It's a separate project from the energy grant and from the agriculture. So that's why they're compartmentalized because we're doing them as separate planning projects. But they're all part of you see the connection between all of them. They're all part of this. And and the other part of it, the reason to do this is to delegate to who's going to be responsible for doing. You put them all together with no delegation. This this helps effectively manage the process. That's why they're separate.

Could one exist without the other realistically? Right. Exactly. I mean I mean to be to be to be real energy is its own thing, right? Economic development is its own thing. All of these things are their own buckets, right? All interconnected. Yes, they are. But like you don't need energy to have economic development. You don't need economic development to have like they're separate. They are related. But you're saying these are all separate projects which is why they are separate. you see the title strategic coordination of the Durham planning projects.

But but in general, you could look at just the the topic and be like that is super important, right? We can focus on that, not just the project, but the title, right? Open space. And I think I think that that you know the top two up there energy and and agriculture what George has discussed is is an area or a package that says our focus on an economic development is going to be energy and agriculture. It's like the town west of Indianapolis. Their focus was very big warehouses. I mean they wouldn't talk to you unless you were coming in with a million square foot warehouse. But that was their economic development. And so I think what George is saying is they Durham could say our focus is going to be energy and agriculture.

It's up to the town.

Well, I understand right. See, these were actually going completely independently until this chart. This is pulling them together. It's not splitting them apart. The conservation commission has been looking at solar for 3 years now. you know where is the best place in town to do solar completely isolated from the other considerations. Uh agriculture farm agriculture committee has been independently discussing trying to make the regulations in fit modern agricultural practices. No discussion solar, no discussion of anything else. This is pulling them together to say look tie these into an economic development program. speak and agricultural committee.

Yeah. Do you think are they planning to have something for presentation at the town hall and should it not be included in the indicated to those representatives where I presented this the need to get their amendments to you for consideration? So that would be number 60. There were some good ones too I think that are are important for us. They did present a list of them to the board. But good question. to follow up on that. Yeah, that's something else to to throw. And then um open space is not this year, right? They are in the process of doing first year phase of twoear project. Yes. I mean 287.

No, which is perfect, right? To go into the comp plan. It's like perfect timing to add to the comp, but it's not added to this year's workload for us, which is going to be so good. Anything else? I'll take a motion to uh retire for the evening. Motion we retire for the evening. Second. It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? If you're ready to go home, please raise your hand. And we are closed. Thanks, George. Thanks, and thanks to all of you. Thank you.

I no longer need my sunglasses when I go home. I know. If you have a chair, put them up. Get out of here. Um, uh, George, September 23rd, right, is the, uh, select board economic development. You're going to present on that. I'll be there participating. Okay. And then October 28th is open space. I think I sent you uh Roberto Brzinski's email. Yes.

The week before there's supposed to be a packet about that. I said the week before that meeting that they're going to have a packet for their consultant. the the conservation committee

start at 6:30 right both these meetings I'm sorry

okay everybody have a good [Music] busy day. First day of school just anniversary. I spent my 25th anniversary. Yeah, I know about that. was very understanding. I thought I thought the 25th was a was a bridge too far. Good night everybody. Good night.

Good night. Good night. [Music] All right.