Planning Board - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today I got shut If you can tell today they play three days in a row. Yeah. Yeah. They play in the same time. Yes. I think Yeah, I think so. How was that crazy? [Applause] It is 6:30, so we'll go ahead and go.

Welcome to the October 1st meeting of the uh Durham Planning Board uh regular town meeting. So, we have uh five members. So, we have a quorum and we will Next is the pledge of allegiance. Join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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. Amendments to the agenda. Are there any?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion to accept the agenda. Wait, I'm sorry. Don't need to do anything here. acceptance of meeting minutes for September 3rd. One question, any any adjustments on the meeting minutes? One question I have, it's under no business on item seven. Uh it says the vote was 401 extension. Is that correct? No. Should be 40. Yeah, Georgia. There's only four of us. Y that's the only thing I catch on. Other than that, I would uh move to accept as presented. I'll second. As amended. As amended. Second that. Y.

It's been moved and accepted. Anybody have any uh comments, questions, or discussion? If not, please raise a hand to accept the minutes. 4 Z. Uh information exchange on nonaggenda items. Town officials. Uh Mr. Tar planner, please. Uh, I did include my monthly report in the packet and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer. Uh, not to drag it out, but could you maybe spend a couple of minutes on the um, you did a nice job presenting at the select board meeting last week. Could just very quickly where we are in the grants and you know kind of what you talked about there.

Yeah. So JP Cog has applied for two grants for economic development purposes. one for energy and one for doing the study of that area that's been identified as potential for an agricultural and energy uh economic development district. So uh one is for the energy one is for 20,000 then we'll look townwide at alternative energy connections and opportunities and then as I said the larger one which is I think uh 70,000 will go toward the uh economic development area study uh 100k it's 100k 100,000 it's it's 95k combined I think 20 20 and 75

oh okay

yep and uh we did discuss Brian I know you're interested in the the issue of an economic development committee if those grants come through then there will be plenty of resources to do uh an econom and it'll be a real need to have an economic development committee to kind of manage that whole process as you guys do the development reviews and ordinance work uh as a fallback uh DB Cog has indicated that they have uh potentially as much as 10,000 in their staff time they have an economic development and a harm and they could provide some technical assistance to to the town. Um, and then as a third fallback was if neither of those come through or say GB COG is like an interim step, then some money can be put into the next budget cycle in June of next year to fund an economic development program going forward. So that's basically what was discussed at this point meeting.

I think one thing I'd add to that is yes they get funding of some kind they'll be looking to form an economic development committee that may include if you're interested anyone in particular uh spoken of uh you want to join that but they won't do that until after they have some kind of funding. So just two questions. Go ahead. one uh is the um I want to get this right. Um you're George's report.

Yes, I am under economic development program number four. Um is it focused or is like is the area of South Durham already if we do get that money it's already focused and who develop who found who came up with the South Durham? Pretty much the select board has indicated their support for doing that. that kind of came about as discussions of that u mission clean energy battery storage. So we did quite a bit of review of that area and as I indicated in the report it just has a lot for an initial economic development and one I think one of the concerns is trying to get something moving

because it's going to take years before you establish it get uh development going in it and then to get something on the tax roles. So that's why it's kind of looked at this area is like prime and the select board feels that it's within the character in terms of its rural character. So uh given the limitations of the town for other forms of economic development uh like board supports the idea of just focusing on that initially doesn't say that the town can't expand beyond that but there are some real opportunities there to focus on at this point in time. Okay. So, it'll be fixed to South Durham and

it's the area basically uh east of Hollowwell Road, south of the power line along Brown Road um over it's all that area where you get all those route that's is one of the big issues there. Okay. Those those are prime for future solar farms. Okay. Um and then this is going to roll into the comp plan. Yes. Update, right? And again, this can be a a nucleus or template for future economic development efforts. Okay, thank you. Good question. Any other questions for George on that one?

If not, let's move on to um uh residents comments, public comments. Anybody have a question, comment that's not on tonight's agenda? Chief, I'm good. Thank you. You're welcome. Non-residents Seeing none, we'll move on to continuing business. A public hearing on proposed bulky waste company at 20 Soer Road Met 4, lot 97. Public comment will be taken. Um, so where we were, come on up and please state your name and your affiliation with the address and affiliation with the project.

Uh, yeah, my name is Matthew Moore House. That's M O R H O U S. I'm a owner of Pulky Ways Pickup. I'm a resident at 1026 Hollow Road here. Okay. Okay. So, before we can go on, last meeting we stopped uh early because you had not notified all the appropriate folks. So, correct. And have you done it? Do you have something to show us? Yes, sir. And by the way, just we don't like to do this in the meeting. So, it would have been a whole heck of a lot better if you had gotten it to us earlier. But let's go ahead and see what you got. Well, yeah. Well, from my understanding, we didn't get to start the meeting last time, but it didn't notified the

Gotcha. The expectation is all the stuff you're going to give us tonight would have been handed off to the town planner before tonight. Okay. That's what I'm trying to say. But okay, go. Well, my apologies. I can simply make copies and facilitate whatever you guys Let's see what we need first. I think the first step is is evidence that you notified everybody. Yeah. certified mail for the people that were not notified and then signed applications or the notice. If you would hand those to Mr. Shabar, give him a second. George, if you would peruse them quickly uh to see if we've got what we need to get started.

Yeah, I I'm I really can't check to verify, but I will just assume that they are the correct. Okay, works for me. Okay, so the next step then is if you would give us Are we Everybody else Okay, we're going to assume that all the address has been notified. Yep. Okay, got the I mean if not we can stop here. I'm asking.

So it's a really good point. This piece is not in our ordinance as far as submission timeline ahead, right? And so I want to talk about that later when we get into that piece of the update for the ordinance, but right now there's nothing in our ordinance that talks about timeline. So although it does stink, it would be great to have more time. Um there's nothing in the ordinance, but I think as a board we can say if like if we feel like we need more time, I think we we can do that. And I'm asking if you're if we're comfortable moving forward at this point or we punt it down the road. We do not have a requirement like two weeks before as we did with the the original submission. Yeah,

that's a good point. Right. So, and there was that was a condition last time meeting. We did it was just the issue is If you would like, why don't you go ahead and proceed with the public hearing and I'll be checking. I won't be able to take notes at the same time, but I will do that. Okay. If you don't mind, I'll turn look at everybody else. Everybody else or if you don't mind too much. Yeah, if you don't mind. Um, in fairness, in the past, we've always asked that this be part of the application beforehand.

Yeah. And it wasn't. And so now they're fixing what what there's some other stuff that we asked for as well that we'll get to uh when we go down there. And if at any time we're not comfortable that we've got what we need or we don't have time to review it, we can stop. Actually, should we talk about the rest of the stuff that we asked for right now? We can see if he has it before we get any further. Okay.

So, there were two three total things that we asked for as I went back and looked at the notes and watched the movie today. One was the correct notification of um of Butters, one was a site plan, and then the third was proof that you have the authorization to to do all of this because I think you're working off of a purchase agreement. So, a copy of the purchase agreement, the deed of the property whose name is on the Have you bought it? Yes, sir. So, it's in Yep. Whatever. Yeah. Uh, while George is looking at that, I'll look at the D quickly. Okay.

I also think Yeah, we did ask for site plan or map site plan as well. There was there was a um something included in the application for that. No, there's a picture there was a photograph off the GIS or something that what we were asking for is where are the the dumpsters going to be? Where are you going to park? Well, in theory, they're not going to be anywhere cuz they're going to be out on the client's property, but they're going to be just there's like one or two of them that are going to be parked in that big lot. So, in theory, all one or two of them are not going to be on the property. Well, at any given point in time, there might be one or two, but that's that's it. There's nothing. But what we asked you to do was to provide this.

Correct. So, we notified the buyers. That's the deed. George has figured out if that's done. The deed's done. Now we're on to the site plan. Okay. And I don't did you provide or do you have with you? I was under the understanding that what was provided in the original application was okay when we didn't start last meeting. I was just under the impression of the deed that you wanted to see and the people. Okay. I was very I went back and looked at the movie.

Okay. It was clear. I I said at that time we wanted a site plan. It was in the minutes which were posted and it was in Mr. the barge's notes that we wanted the site plan showing this information. So, there were three different ways that information was was given. Okay. Well, my sorry about that, but I did not uh whatever is included in the application on that photo is that's what I have for your site plan. The butters have been notified.

Super. Thank you, George. Okay. Well, two out of three you've done what we asked you to do. And the third one, there is no doubt in my mind having done what I said today, looked at the movie, it was clear that I was asking for that and it came out more than once. Well, that's fine. I can get a site plan, sir. That's not a It's not a problem at all. Like I said, whatever you guys need to facilitate, it's not a problem. It's my first time going through this. I don't know. So, you got to help me help. I got to be educated on it.

Here's here's what I've got to say about that. We have an excellent town planner. So if you have questions or you're unsure, then could reach out to him well before the meeting and say, "Right, I've got these two things. I'll bring them to the meeting. Is that okay? What else do I Now I'm not telling you how to second or what you should do, but I mean to the board members, I don't think he's done what we asked him to do." Yeah. And I'm not trying to I'm not trying to drag this out. I'm looking around left and right. What are others?

Yeah, I can read from the minutes. the board advised the applicant to provide more details on the proposed location of dumpsters and to address the potential need for buffering. So, at a minimum, that's what we had asked before. Um, but I will also recall that I I was curious as to where the resource protection was. Um, so if you do create a site plan, I would like to see that line on the map as well. Oh, can I ask you resource protection from

it's a it's a zone. So it exists on a small part of I think just a small part of your property. So and Mr. Tars can help you. pretty much everything on the on the uh front right corner within 100 ft of the stream is the research protection, but none of the area that they're looking at is within that. I understand that, but I so would like to see it's on the property where

So, we're not asking for anything fancy, just either a survey that you bought it with or a good enough drawing that we can see the two houses, we can see the gar garage or shed or whatever is in the back. There's an open space in front of that that looks like it's gravel or paving. So, where where are you going to keep the dumpsters? And then uh Juliet has asked for the resource protection. And this is stuff we ask all the time. So, if there's any if you need any more clarity, then Mr. Tar can help you, you know, give you the GIS web page and all that other stuff. So, uh Brian to my left, do you have any comments? No, I think you covered it.

And this is something we ask everybody to do. This isn't unique to W, you know, waste dumpsters or anything else. The guy who got the non-conforming use or conditional use before you did it u and others have done it. So, we need you to do that. Is that what everybody agree with me that we ask him to come back? But maybe we should add a certain time. I mean, can we uh can I collect all that stuff and move forward with any other questions or concerns from folks that don't need to waste their time coming back here? It's it's very hard for the for the public or anybody else to uh have a discussion when they can't see it.

So, but I'll defer to Do we reschedule the public hearing? We'd have to. We still would need to do the public hearing if that's what we want to do. Um, I have another concern which is there's a clock once we accept this there's a clock that starts ticking and we have 60 days to approve approve or disapprove or it's automatically approved if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Tar, that is correct. So, we're under the clock. So, even though we do meet once a month, we only meet once a month. Can I suggest something? Um, would could we have more than one public hearing? There's people here today, I think, for the public hearing. You can have the public hearing documents have been submitted

and then the clock starts. Oh, once the public hearing is well once you determine that you have a complete which we don't have. Which we don't have. So we're still still got the 60 days. The clock hasn't started. It hasn't started because we haven't accepted it as a complete public hearing then it starts. But would it be helpful to hear? Yeah, but at this rate I don't want to start the clock. It's not starting until you send us what we need. which you so next meeting probably there's the two folks who I think are here for that reason or you what are your thoughts that would mean you'd have to come back the first Wednesday of November we're not that far it's okay

okay so I guess I'm playing hard ball be up front not because I don't like you seem like a nice guy not that we don't want your business but we were really clear in what we wanted and We said that the staff was there to assist if needed. Yep. Well, I apologize. I clearly misunderstood that. That's why if I thought I needed to help, I would have reached out, but I didn't. I thought I checked off all the boxes. I clearly bet I didn't. In our opinion, that's fine. So, thank you guys.

Sorry, one more thing. Do we want to lay out a a requirement for when we get the materials in advance of next meeting so we don't like a a week before versus getting it day of? It's already established, right? Well, no, there's no I mean, you could bring it in at the We would prefer obviously the more advanced notice, the better prepared we are on that. So, I would offer another suggestion. If you want to help the applicant, you could schedule an additional meeting, continue this meeting until separate from separate from our regular meeting. What's the possibility of uh in the middle of this month?

If we're open to doing that, we need to come up with meeting dates for uh hearings for the public meetings on the land use ordinance. So, in two weeks, I mean the the next three or four or five Wednesdays are available. So, um could we request that the materials are provided to us a week before Definitely we can. Okay. So I say we do that.

Here's my thought is that is that it's not the it's not my consensus but is the rest of the board if you want to do it in because we are going to meet. It will take probably an hour to go through the public comments and everything else. I'm talking about his thing. So do we use one of our, you know, Wednesdays in the future to uh to do that? Can we do both the same day? Yeah, we would. We would. It's just we wouldn't have as much time maybe, but we'd run out of time. I will make a motion that uh the applicant will provide all the information to us by the 8th of October, week from today.

A week from today. And we have a public hearing on the 15th. Is that doable? Yeah, I'm ready to roll. I'll get all that stuff. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Just another comment. Has the applicant received the comments from the public that we received via email? George, I think yes. Right. Yeah, they're online. You about the questions? Yeah. Yeah. Emails. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of the questions. Yeah. I I saw those, but I didn't I was waiting for a public comment to answer those. A lot of those were repetitive to be answered very easily. So, they'll be part of the public hearing.

I didn't give a written response to that. I didn't think that was necessary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, just come there's a whole there's two of them. I don't know. A bunch of bunch of questions. Yeah. Yeah. I saw the questions. Those are a lot of them. I mean, a lot of them are answered in the application, believe it or not. So, be prepared to say, you know, this is the application. So, the more prepared you are and I would just say that after you get us what the site plan that just confirm with Mr. Tar that. So, that's as of right now, that's what's needed for a week from today. Yes. Yes, the site plan. Yeah,

it's not looking for a formal site plan of construction is just a accurate drawing that shows where activities, vehicles, dumpsters, storage, what buildings are going to be used. Right now, you have a picture of the property and that's really the only information the board has to go by. Yeah. Just provide some parking show where the parking area is, where it's going to be parked, any storage, those sorts of information. Also, no. Yeah, I didn't. That's fine. Well, also, please add the resource protection um on there where that is. And also, if you're proposing any buffering, I don't know if you are or not, but if you are, it would be good to see. Okay. Resource protection.

Yeah, I'm seeing right on the map here on the G on the GIS that corner. We'll be with the property. It's right on the G. Okay. So, while that's going on, I have a motion and but no second, right? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion to post? The motion is to push to the requirement on the eth. The motion is to have all the necessary information provided to us by the 8th of October and we will reconvene have a public meeting on the 15th of October. 15th of October. So

since you all have come twice is there's a 15th of October work on your calendars. We'll figure it out. Okay. Okay. We don't have the information by the 8th push. We'll tell you that we're not doing it on the 15th. We'll do it at the next meeting. We'll be Yeah, we'll be all set. But thank you very much, guys. Any questions? Ask Mr. Box. I will certainly do so. I'm just going to get that site plan for tomorrow. Okay. Head up. We're good. All right. Good. Thank you. I have a motion.

Okay. A motion and a second. Uh do we have any further discussion? Seeing none, would you vote to uh according to that motion? Raise your hand. If you don't, would you raise your hand? So that's the first time I've ever not been nice. Uh yes, truly first time. U okay. So if we have a 4-1 charge that will do the dates that we discussed. So you voted against that? I voted against it. You didn't like pushing it. I thought we gave him plenty of opportunity. Oh, I see. Okay. I wanted

Yeah. No, no, that's a good question. I voted because I thought he had plenty of opportunity, but uh we do want to help the citizens. So, we've done that. Miss Roy, I believe it's your turn. So, the next one. So, for everybody's who's looking at the agenda, we passed over uh 6 A and six B. And we're now into and thank you for coming. Thank you very much. We'll see you in a couple weeks. Maybe we'll see you in a couple weeks. Thank you.

Uh okay. So this is new business request for approval of a maintenance agreement for Cedar Drive 7 lot six. No public comment will be taken. Um so before we get started and George uh Mr. want to ask you to just kind of give us a brief thing just kind of reminder this is for all we're looking at tonight is the maintenance agreement. So the design of the road uh the breakout of the road is not part of tonight's um work effort. So we'll vote yay or nay on the the maintenance agreement which is the planning board's responsibility.

So Roy, if you want to kick us off. Um, so we're just here to, well, I'm here to have the road agreement approved for Sorry, do you need to say your name? I'm Heather Roy. I live at um 77 Hollow Road. I'm here representing um a letter notifying us that you can represent them there. It was on the um request for the meeting,

the application. Okay. Yep. Um so we are proposing a um a road private road that goes from an existing public way. Um and this has been scrutinized by the road commissioner, the um code enforcement officer, the town planner, um and the surveyor. we've all worked together collectively to get this to where that it is to meet the necessary requirements that they all felt were necessary um in terms of road frontage for the lots etc. And um so you have that plan in front of you and I wasn't sure what the rules were about like the stamp seal and stuff so I made sure that you all had a copy but I brought the official

we don't need that we're good with what we got. Um, and so that is the template road agreement that was provided and we just made it so that it made sense with the road plan that we have here. Um, and I'm happy to answer questions. Uh, the key is not what you just discussed. The key is the maintenance treatment. That's all we're looking at. Yep.

So there's I think six, eight requirements that are supposed to be in a maintenance agreement which Mr. Thearge and maybe should have started with him, but Mr. the barge went down that list of out of the land use ordinance what the requirements are. So none of which are that. So the requirements are statement of ownership interest which they provided. Statement is on the this is on the actual maintenance agreement. Statement that subsequent lots are created must be parties to the maintenance agreement which is on there. Acknowledgement the town has no responsibility for maintenance which is on there. Statement that responsibilities transfer. All subsequent owners of the lots with planning board notification. That's on there. Requirement that all deeds for the lots reference the maintenance agreement which there is on the agreement. at the private ways an extension of existing road that's not must be offered to existing lot owners that's not the case authority place leans for non-payment that's the maintenance cost that's on there and requirements the maintenance going to be recorded and no building permits issued for new lots until that happens so basically they've met the requirements of our maintenance agreement

in my opinion I agree my humble opinion so having said that do I have a motion to approve So who second? Oh, second. Move and second. And any other discussion? Seeing none, if you agree, if if you accept, please raise. This is what happens when you get your homework done. Thank you. A cheap shot. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Maybe I wanted to hang it. No, I don't. Thank you. Okay. So, we're done. Thank you.

Can I just say one thing? I brought I think the ordinance says 10 copies and I'm sure that when you guys are reviewing your things, right, there are not 10. That's a proposal. I did it cuz it doesn't say to you, but I see a 10 copies and someone signed it. So, we got them. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you everybody. Just remember to vote for the changes to the land use ordinance. That'll be take taken reducing please. And I would love to stay but I'm sorry you're always you can watch it on TV tomorrow. Thank you.

Okay. So that's new business. Other business planning board discussion public review process for draft land use ordinance amendments will not be taken. George, do you want to go ahead and just kind of bring us up to speed? I mean you're getting a lot of lot of work done. I think you got some additional handouts. So

yeah, I do and I will go over there. But first, just to frame where we are is um we've prepared two sets of uh amendment sets within the policy and administrative uh changes that are being proposed. Again, this is going to be a separate warrant article containing all of this. And then the codification is going to be the main warrant article. Um, now we did we are including the codification piece in here simply for the public participation information process. But just remember they're going to be two warrant articles. One with the codification and then one with these uh policy and administrative changes. So, we've worked on those pretty much starting in June, uh, all the way through the summer. Uh, you you've got all the drafts in your packet. Uh, and what I've been doing over the last week is preparing these summary sheets. I did send to you all of the, uh, administrative change ones. I think there were like 10 of those. And, uh, what I have to share with you tonight, if you have any questions on those, I'd be happy to go over them. any suggestions for changes to theformational sheets. Um, and then we can go over the half a dozen policy issues tonight and we can kind of use the um the summary sheets, those those tables that are in there just to talk about it. Uh, make sure you're all up to speed with the policy proposals. Um, and then you need to discuss holding uh getting a schedule for the actual public information meetings. And I think what I had suggested and another thing to discuss is whether or not to hold two public information meetings and have the first one be the policy issues. Uh and I think you get you can get through that in one evening. um and then take public input on those because I think that if that's what people are going to want to talk about if anything and then the

follow-up meeting process decide if you wanted to make changes based on the public input and then go over the administrative changes or administrative updates which are more mechanical not know policy changes. So that's kind of my framework for the whole thing. Okay. Um any questions that there's been a lot of work by all of us you and and George on this. So um I think did you want to hand out your deals for hand? If you want to go there next I can.

Yeah we need to go there sooner or later. Um but any comments on the stuff that uh George has done either the 139 plus uh or the the minor policy changes. So, uh, we have, I guess, if there's something that we want to change before it goes out to the public, uh, now's the time to do it. Uh, there's also an opportunity after the public has comment to respond to their comments, uh, and or add our, uh, anything that we've thought of since then. So, um,

I do have a couple comments. Um, maybe we focus on the codification section first and then we do the policy and admin afterwards just to kind of separate. Maybe just a thought. Okay. I've got a couple on the clarification. Okay. Um, one is number 17. Um, wondering how we are defining floodway lines. Um, can you give us the reference in the packet page is it article 17 or it's question 17 right there on page what? Oh uh question 17 section 19.85 85. Does that help or No, it's

the right hand corner of the p of the page. There should be a page bottom right. No, I'm looking at She's looking at you're looking at the article. It may not be on that. It's only It's very It's very soon. Are you from the packet or No, I don't know. I'm I said question 17. Is that Yes, question 17. Okay. So, on the packet, this is on page 68 of the packet for everybody else. Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm sorry. I wasn't in a packet. So, page 68, George, I think. Yep. Okay. 17. This one right here. Floodway has to do with floodway. Floodway coachment wise. Yep.

Okay. So, one of the principles that they've looked at and most CO people do is if you have a term that's in your definitions, but it's not used anywhere in the ordinance. Yeah. What is the purpose of understood? But I guess I I guess I'm I'm wondering if we're not using this, what are we using? in our ordinance to define the floodway line. It will be whatever is in the state model that FEMA administers. Okay. Uh there is actually I'm trying to think flood plane.

Well, there is a there is in our ordinance a flood management article. Okay. Yeah. That's based on the uh state used to be the state planning office had a model ordinance like shorelane zoning and so in order to qualify for the national flood insurance program you have to have an ordinance that controls development in the flood plane. Yeah. So it has elevation uh reference points. It has all that technical information. So

okay. So what's defined? So what they are doing what they are going to do what we've already done is they've gone through and you notice in uh that's in the definitions but if you jump over to uh article [Music] uh on page 78 of the packet you'll see flood plane management which question is it uh it starts with question 104. Okay.

Okay. So you'll see they've gone through the flood plane management regulations and compared it to the state model which we're required to meet in order to qualify for the national flood insurance program. So you can see they've gone through and updated everything. Okay. And they've pretty much you have to go by that water. Okay. So in other words, it's we're we're defining it somehow and as it should be in our ordinance, but it's just not using different ter it's probably using different terminology. I'm okay with that. Good. Thank you. And then one more on cification number 54. Um just curious page 73. George,

this is good that she's looking through. I really like that. Make sure it's right. Um so this says clarify which board reviews groundwater extraction. Um and so the the proposal is to change to the planning board reviews groundwater extraction. Um my question was how are we reviewing groundwater extraction? So this might be above and beyond this. It would be it would be a most likely a conditional use like if somebody wanted to start a water bottle operation and so right now the ordinance just says the board.

Yeah. Oh no, I know I understand that. I guess this goes above and beyond. It's like how are we looking at this? We get the data and then what? We we've talked about this before. We have it in our ordinance, but what are we doing? Like how are we able to and and this maybe next time let's like put the put this down for next review, right? Like looking at for Yeah. I think the whole groundwater ordinance could be looked at. Groundwater regulations. Yeah, you know, you have the uh mobile home park has a public public well, the schools have a public well. You have to review projects and notify them any project within 1500 ft of the school. Yeah.

To tell them something. So obviously, you know, the aquifers in this town provide everybody with water, right? But what about like when we are running into situations where people are running out of water on their wells and there's a subdivision being proposed next door? do anything. Yeah. So, as part of the subdivision review process that can and should be looked at. Yeah. So, that if uh you know right now you got a drought situation, so it's not necessarily development that's draw that's drawing it down. They have a shallow well.

So, but and we saw this on the day road subdivision. They had a hydraologist look at and buoy hill basically look at the whole wershed that's on the project. They look at the infiltration rates, the rainfall rates, and they look at wells in the area to see how deep they are and what flows they have. And really with the low density development that you have, it's really not an issue. It's uh out in Montana where I work, they did they did 1,000 watt subdivisions

and dropped the water table 20 ft by sucking well out for the whole big community. That's what what it's really designed to deal with. I just bring it up because if it's in the code that we do this, but I was thinking about like what are we really doing? So for the future, it would seem to be kind of project specific. Yeah.

If any project comes up, you know, could be a conditional use review for any number of things. uh anything from being a we're going to do water bottling to someone is using has water intensive use like some of the economic development district potential agricultural green houses and stuff that use a lot of water. Uh this just provides how you do those studies and who who use it and right now the the language is in there and it just says the board but it doesn't say which so we're saying the plan. Okay, great. Thank you so much. That's it for configation.

Any anything other questions on the magic 139. Um okay. Uh then I guess we're in the minor policies is the next topic to be had. Um so okay. So what I propose to do just to make this manageable in terms of you're absorbing the information is is taking them one at a time.

Work for me. So the first one is back lots and private ways. And again I think what we can do is use that comparison table just to say look if if you can absorb it in this fashion then hopefully the public can too. You want to pile them up here. I'll hand them walking around. I need the exercise. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. So, what I've done on all of these is basically prepared a charter that says here's what here's what the town is doing right now in the ordinance and here's what's being proposed. So, for back lots and private ways which we've been discussing for years now, this system that is in place in the ordinance where the code officer and the um road commissioner review the plan and the planning board only gets to look at the maintenance agreement. doesn't really make any sense to have this bifurcation. So, most towns treat those types of private roads outside of subdivisions that are being built pretty much to serve lots that bypass the subdivision review process because they're exempt. You could have over time 10 lots on these things. And in some cases, there have been that where every five years they can add another lot without ever getting a subscri. So, this provides at least town and view of the road itself. And so the the current regulations mix backs with private ways. And it even says private way in there, but it calls it multiple backlog. So it's just very confusing. Code officers have inconsistently applied the regulations because they're so confusing. So you've had some code officers that are approving uh two acre lots on these things and other code officers that are approving five acre lots because the language is so confusing. So what this proposes to do is separate out single back plot access which will stay up in five acres approved by the code officer and instead of having to build a 20 foot wide road to serve one house, it'll allow a 16 ft driveway that will be reviewed by the fire chief before building permits issued to make sure that he can service that house with his equipment, his

vehicles. So uh then private ways will be moved out of that article section into uh what is currently roads and that will be re retitled and reframed to be private way and that will have everything in there that's needed in the review process for one of these private roads serving non-subdivision lots which will have the the road plan, the maintenance agreement, the review process. It will all be right in that one section and there is a draft in your packet of what will be included in that. So that's basically and this explains that hopefully somewhat clearly

it's very clear. My only comment here is is um we're showing the changes. Yeah, the idea is to show the changes. two of these there's no changes like maintenance agreement we're not changing and we're not changing single backlog I understand why they're in here because they're related so you think those should come out I I mean I don't know just say change or or I mean it's yeah I guess my thought is the less busy these are

the better if we're not changing single backlog is why would you say get rid of it same with maintenance agreement If someone questions, so what about maintenance agreement? Well, then we can say it's no changes there. Well, then the other argument may be once it's presented, somebody's going to say, what about the single backlog? Well, why haven't you stated it? Well, we talked about it, but there was no change, but you know, it could go either way. I mean, I'm sure that you're right. I it it makes sense. I just wonder if the less

and this doesn't this doesn't identify every single text change. What it does is it tries to summarize. Here's the system that's currently in place. Here's the system that will be in place after. Okay. That's why it's intended to communicate. Okay. I mean with saying it that way it's kind of should include all questions up front. So we've had so much discussion on backlogs over the last few years. It just well I'm okay with that. First off, I like the fact we're going to a 16 ft road. I think that's probably overdue. The other question I have I'll just throw out there is why is a single back lot five and a multiple back lot too?

What is the Well, again, what we're back lots are like a a species and they're intended most towns do this so that you don't you can you got some back land and you can access it without going through subdivision. And part of what that does is it takes the pressure off land for development. No, I understand that. But it was

Yeah. So in any case, but to get it accepted again in the past, the whole housing zoning situation is changing. The towns wanted to require those to be 5 acres. And what happened was they they squeezed the private way parts in there. And so those also got subjected to the five acre lots which I don't think was ever needed 10. Maybe it was but in any case most towns have that completely separate back lots. Five five acres if that's what the town wants to require. Some towns don't. Sometimes would allow a twoacre lot.

Well that's my question is what's having said all of that what's wrong with two acres? Well, there's nothing wrong other than it would be a bigger policy change than what's being discussed here. What's being discussed here is not to change that policy, but simply to change the process in which the policy is being I understand that, but we're doing it we're changing the and I'm I'm asking this. It's we've heard complaints I've heard complaints is I got to give up five acres and I got to put a 22 foot road in. I just can't do that. I'm not sure what's magic about because multiple we say two lot two acres is fine.

So So we're saying two acres is good unless you only got one. That's what I'm talking that would be a that would be a bigger policy shift than a minor policy shift. A minor policy shift is just clarifying the language and and putting the approval process from this circular not to treadmill. That's a minor policy. I think basically eliminating five acre lot back lot I think that's a bigger policy but if that's what you want to propose thought that's I'm just throwing it out there for

I kind of like it the way it is but I can you know because previously we did have five acres for multiple back lots well it was confusing yeah it was two and five well it was it wasn't clearly it wasn't clear it wasn't clear so code officers If they wanted to help the they were sympathetic to the property owner, they'd interpreted this is a private road and you could do two acres and it wasn't consistent. The current code officer is getting the legal payments. They should be five acres, but two code officers from now they may go back to Wait, wait, wait. They got the Oh, with a single or multiple? Multiple, too. So, you got a We have a legal opinion that the multiple should be five acres. Yes.

Unless we change it here. Well, then why are we Because I don't think that was the intent. Well, I mean, yes and no. If we're if we're doing all this work, we might want I didn't know that that the legal we got a legal opinion that says it should be five that fits the single back lot of five acres. Well, they get that illegal opinion because that was their interpretation. No, because the road commissioner was saying one thing, the code officer was seeing something else. And the code road commissioner who has been the code officer in the past has approved two acre lots on private road private ways. So it's hard for them to now say to somebody, oh no, you can't have it. I did it for them, but I can't do it for you.

Well, and it's because the language in the ordinance is Well, that's I guess so what if I'm trying to understand this, the lawyer looked at it and said, well, the language is confusing. Go with five. There's no legal basis that it has to be five. No, I think they said they do interpret that language. Their opinion is it has it has to be five acres. What the way exist today? Well, then I would argue that let's I would say let's do this but change that multiple backups five. Why? I mean again we're I mean if we're just going to come out and say we don't want development,

why what's special about five acres? Well, with two I think you're right. Why would a single back lot be five and multiple two? I'm going the other way. I'm saying let's go with two. I know you are. Part of my reason part of the reason why you would go to two is because of the cost of building that road. You're going to need more lots in order to to justify the cost of it, make it cost effective. So, that's one reason for having two acres. If you go with multiple lots, a single back lot, five acres, you've just got a driveway. um two feet per multiple.

So that I'm leaning towards too because we've had families come in to subdivide and the five acres does a lot of you know it sometimes they have it sometimes is a challenge but it does then to get five acres so you got five acres and you got to go five acres so now you made the road longer to go five acres to make and I'm just not sure that's a that's a cost. it drives up the costs dramatically.

And so I I tend to lean towards two acres and we can uh but I'm open to u it may or may not come up when we get into this and again on any of these issues if it just gets too sticky pun it and we'll treat it as a major policy issue in the future. But should we consider the legal opinion? So if but if we make this change to two acres then the their legal opinion would be fine too.

Oh yeah the language of the ordinance I think. Yeah. What she's saying is the stronger verbiage calls for five. The weaker verbiage calls for two. If you eliminate and very generic, but if you eliminate any reference to five very clearly say to then there's not a legal but when when we've ever looked at back laws it's always it's say family that wants to keep the family close and for making it cost effective for them less expensive is keeping it to the two acre. Yeah. So I I would I would recommend staying in the two acre. That would be my destination.

And and I could that raised the question, do we do we the driveway with also is an impact on cost. So our chief's here, so maybe we'll ask him. Uh not much of the spot, but I was expecting it. Certainly.

Yeah. Well, I know I know that there was certainly over close to where I live, there was a back lot is a back lot that is being the road was the driveway was put in and they thought that it was only supposed to be I think it thought it was 12 ft but then now they had to expand it because of the existing ordinance being 20 ft. So that is a quite an expense an increase in expense for that individual for that and it's a family

and that's mostly what it's been since I've been here somebody wants to build a compound I don't have your experience or or Juliet's so chief your thoughts on if it's one house 16's good if it's uh three houses what are your thoughts about a 16 ft uh

before Before you answer, I will tell you that in the in the development business, because we're way ahead of schedule here, uh a a town planner once told me, he said, "I'm trying to convince the on a culde-sac, the lengthy culde-sac with the turnaround." He said, "I'm trying to convince the fire department that fire trucks have reverse in their uh transmission." So, having said that, Chief, what what are your thoughts? So, I I can't come up with every scenario, right? I can only talk about driveways. So, not a road driveway.

Currently, it's 20. We've talked about 16, which is really compromise for the fire department and public safety cuz 16 in Maine in the winter is 12, right, with snow and and banking and whatnot. I mean, we have I have to think of this stuff, right? So, my trucks are 8 ft wide. Pumper trucks and ladder trucks are eight. So in the winter when you have 12, I can't get two simultaneously uh to pass each other. When you have a water supply or a fire, you need trucks to pass each other or lay in lay in a hose if you will. Yes, all our trucks have reverse. But that being said, um I'm only joking.

First in, last out, right? I mean, they lay a hose in and do what we can, whether that's a ladder or an engine. But 16 is a compromise for the fire department. And that's for safety. I I may need to get an ambulance past the fire truck. When you set up the jack spread of our ladder truck, that is 16 ft. So if you were to set up a ladder truck, you can short jack it, if you will, to work off of one side. You can, it doesn't have to be all 16, you know, ladders, eight, four on each for the outriggers. So I'm already at a compromise in a nice summer day on an approved driveway at 16. Okay. Right. It's a lot of information. We have no trucks and we do need to get down and back right for the next emergency. So, it's not only that one.

I appreciate that. So, are you comfortable with 16 for a single uh lot? Yes, we can we can manage 16 on a on whatever you come up with, but as far as driveways, we can manage a 16.

Would a 20 on a multiple lots would a 20 foot drive work? That that's an you know a question. For the fire department, more is more. So yes, on more houses, more laws, a 20 would work because some people are exiting while we're going in, right? So there's that you need with more houses, there's more protection, however close they are. I mean, there's more aspects to it. Uh wildland fires that we found out this year, more resources, all of it. If that's what you deem necessary, I would take 20 on three laws because it helps the fire department.

Well, here's 22 is in the ordinance now. I wonder was there a reason? Actually, I think or is it 20? I think it should be 20. Oh, I think I think public is 22 from the old ordinance which we're going to change. So, I think that was your question, right? Exactly. Can we live for this? It should be. Can you live with 20? Yes, sir. Cuz it's already 20 in the ordinance. It's already 20. So, we're not changing that. So, we just we just it's actually 20 and 20. 20. I'll change it to 20 and 20. Okay. And you're good with that? And again, that has two foot shoulders as well. So, okay. And thank you for being here.

You're welcome. Okay. Any other questions on u on this? Do we just we just covered more? Do you have any comments from the road commissioner or CEO on this? Uh I have provi I provided the doc the uh texts. I just finished these today. So and I did give them to the code officer. So yeah. So obviously they're good question. Their their opinions are are very valid. Key. Okay. Any other and we did work as a staff and I went over this with them before we did this. I appreciate that. What were you going to say?

I I do have a question for George. Were we going to take the onus off the fire chief to sign off on that driveway and just take the road commissioner's signature? Can we talk about that? Change that. So, I did talk about Oh, I'm not I'm not trained to look at culverts, to look at, you know, I can measure, but to look at pitch. Can I clarify? That's not the purpose of this. purpose of this is to say you can you can have your fire truck can get that's all this is but I guess as long as we're signature as long as we're talking we do somewhere talk about the fire chief the private roads

right but that's just the fire chief's written approval for the fire chief that the building is accessible to the emergency equipment period you're not reviewing engineering or anything else are you because isn't there somewhere in here that's all running together where we your recommendation is the planning board approve all private roads. That's different. We're talking about a single backlot access. No, no, I understand what we're talking about here. But what chief's saying is I don't want to I don't want to approve engineering plans. No, he's saying and the only the only thing that says in there that the fire chief approval is on a single back lot access.

Okay. the driveway. Make sure that that 16 foot wide driveway isn't going up a steep grade or something to the point where it's too narrow for him to get in there. If it is, he can say no on it. You're good with that? Yes. Okay. Any other questions about this? Okay. We don't. This is just processing. Yeah. Yeah. But what I'd like to do next, George, is do fire protection assistance since she's here. Oh, sure. Yeah. That that way we can get rid of Oh, I got a comment on that one. Okay. So, she has a comment. So, we can

It's not a very big comment at all. Just a little typo. I think this is a simple one. Fire chief is uncomfortable with water systems. Oh. Oh, it is. It took out my typo. We did. I think so. Well, the title was probably the uh the other thing. Well, no. Isn't this this is all that we're like this is what we're submitting. No, this is just Oh, this is just a summary. So, if you see on the bottom it says what we want to hear from you for that, you know, get the public Yeah. there, you know, to comment on that. So, this one, George, if you want

Okay. summary. Right now in the ordinance, any subdivision is approved under state law as well as local ordinance, they have to have a water supply for fire protection purposes. Durham's current standards allow a developer with three options. First option is a underground, typically an underground system. Uh 30,000 gallons is typical. Um and then the second option is to have and they have to have a certain volume of capacity for how 30 is the base and then I think it's two per house beyond that or something. Then uh they can put in a fire pond with uh 280,000 gallons freeboard. Uh and then they can reduce the water volume of either of those with uh fire chief approval of of sprinklers. And there's been a discussion in the past whether eliminating the pond completely is a reduction or an elimination. And I think where we came up was saying no, you can't just do sprinklers. Uh that was done in the past, but uh that's where we are right now. So chief contacted me as part of our staff process and indicated that they're really not satisfied with underground systems because they've had very poor performance. uh in his memo I think I circulated that to you uh leakage you know cracking from frost uh and then filling 30,000 gallons capacity in the beginning is a challenge and then whenever they have a fire and drain it they've got to refill it so for all those reasons the fire chief has asked that that be eliminated

okay so the proposal there's no sistns allowed correct um and I will asked can we eliminate can we not can we make it an either or so dry pond stream dry pond uh so fire ponds dry hydrant or or resident sprinklers not a combination thereof if if can are you comfortable with just sprinklers in lie of the combination reducing the fire pond.

Yes, we could we could manage that if that's what you all deem. Um Well, I guess I'm asking what do you

Well, p prior to my arrival, one development, and I've been here four years now, more than that. Uh one development was started, so I didn't sign off on it. They went with sprinklers as an example. They went with sprinklers, uh and they're continuing and they weren't required to do a fire pond, also known as a dry hydrant. recently and down the road from them within a mile or so was an existing dry hydrant. So for us, we could easily shuttle water within a mile's distance on a development that already had sprinklers. We know as a fire department, sprinklers will keep most fires in check. 90% of them are extinguished with one head, that type of stuff. So we're a big proponent of sprinklers. I could easily enjoy not having the double dual requirement of sprinklers and a fire pond that's reduced if somebody wanted to put sprinklers and and just so you know, I've talked to several recently large developers in town that are currently developing personal, you know, phone calls on on sprinklers and how they feel. So, I'm sure you'll take public comment, but but I have reached out, not just my opinion for fire protection. Um, everyone gets a chance to, you know, um, air their side, if you will. I could enjoy, yes, just signing off on sprinklers for residential

sprinklers alone. Sprinklers alone. So, we should change the and to an or. Well, that's Yeah, I mean, that's Chief's okay with it. I'm good. You know, there's and I'm okay with it, but the other four thoughts on on thinking it should be or. Okay. So, the residential sprinkles alone would be sufficient cuz there's going to be a 10 or $15,000 increase to the building cost, I would think. Yes. Reduction in insurance, but upfront cost. Yes. 10 to 15,000. Exactly what I'm told on a residential.

Now, there's other things on the back side. I'm actually working with the state fire marshall. They're under a a 30-day for those. So it's not a prolonged um period of application or waiting for permits. Once they pull a permit at the state level on the site, they can start that process and then our codes officer is comfortable uh with going in and inspecting those. I don't even have to inspect them. The codes Allen does. Is there any ongoing inspection requirement on sprinkler systems? I know in like commercial buildings come in on a yearly basis to make sure the sprinklers work.

Correct. So no, not for residential. So you are it is a homeowner's responsibility to to either have upkeep and and we're not even talking about everything. So they have pumps, right? Jockey pumps in order to do it. Uh currently the code doesn't even tell them that they have to have a backup power to the jockey pump the pump because if they lost power and no generator then their sprinkler system wouldn't work. And then again that's a that's a state code. Yeah. You're talking about building code or fire code. Other thoughts on So you would be okay with just a fire pond or just a dry hydrant, not a sprinkler, not the combination of the two. Like we're saying if we say or

this is either a fire pond or a dry hydrant or sprinklers. So let me educate first. We're talking about eliminating at least the sistern option. Yes. So that was that was one. That's so fire pond also known as dry hydrate. So that's what I was learning. That's the same thing. So a dry hydrant it probably not is not it's the fire technical term. That's the pipe that comes out of the ground. Yes. To to feed us. We can pull a draft. We can pull that water out. That's a dry hydrant. Usually a PVC

um special series of the PVC, not just regular plumbing also. So that's a dry hydrant connected to a fire pond. So we're saying then what you're telling me is a fire pond and dry hydrant are like the same. Well, yes and no because there's a dry hydrant can also be put on the brook or yes, which we do have. But the way we say this, we say fire ponds, dry hydrant on an existing pond or stream and residential sprinklers. So that's three things, right? They develop the fire pond. It's a net new obviously. So it would be fire dry hydrant on an existing pond or stream. develop the fire pond.

Well, no, because the word existing. So, if you're putting in a development, one of your options is to go to an existing pond or stream that the chief says is close enough and put in a dry hydrant. You Oh, so you're saying there's already one existing stream, but not Yeah. Or or not. So, if there was a fire pond or a pond, like my house, there's a pond and no dry. So if I want to put it in development, I could I this would allow me to go to that existing pond assuming it meets all the requirements and put in a dry hydrant. Understood.

So I think what we need the language is a new somehow new pond with a dry hydrant or you can go to an old pond stream existing one with and put one in or you can use residential but you're good with ore and all those. Okay. And and just know we have tasked recently with a hydraulic calculation from a hydraologist that we determined needed to be done uh at the developer's cost and they're talking about average rainfall, average evaporation, um you know, runoff, all that. That was Deer Creek, right? Didn't we?

It was De Creek. It is their dream. They certainly did all that and came up with a fantastic fire pond connected with a dry hydrant. Yep. Very pleased with their progress. Good. Just for my curiosity, has that held up during this drought? It has. I actually just took pictures recently. How deep is that? I don't know the depth because um but there is because of the odd shape of it, you know what I mean? Not really a swimming pool exact. It's sort of a bowl. Mhm.

Um but hydraologists signed off on minimum I I think the minimum was 130,000 gallons something like that off the top of my head plus 10 to 30 per household type of thing. Like I said I took pictures in the freeboard water level was down 2 3 feet just last week but it was still holding 100,000 gallons. And for us we can do the water calculations of a single house on fire um type of thing. I I think he's putting in what a dozen 13 in there. Um 13 right now. So yeah, we calculated fire flow on his biggest house. So does that have a dry hydrant on it? It does. Yes. Okay.

Yep. That's been certified by the fire department. We pumped it, tested it, um talked to the developer about that he's added protection, you know, so snowplow can't damage it if you know. So, just be aware unless there's an existing pond, you're not going to get any more fire ponds if you do that. Well, do what? If you allow if you allow sprinklers uh as because the developer the developer doesn't have to pay for it. That's what I'm saying is like I want to make sure we're okay with quite a change.

You will not get any more fire ponds. So we we did talk about that aspect um that a fire pond was put in on that develop just as an example right de crossing um which actually protects the neighboring communities. It protects hallow you know that would be the closest to a good we have one here but uh if you head down hallow it would protect it. There is one on Patriot Way, but um so the give and take is that that George talks about is requiring others in other parts of town. It might protect the surrounding establishments. It might change it.

Well, I guess my thought is yes, I don't agree with you 100%, George. The way the reason I say that is a developer's got to be able to sell that lot. So, if a builder doesn't doesn't want sprinklers, he's got to find a BR builder who will put an extra 10 whatever is 10 $15,000 into sprinklers if he has no fire pond. And so there they people will still Bway Hill is a perfect example. There's no fire pond. It's all sprinklers. There's some others. So I'm not sure that that we are saying you know develop developer uh you're not going to get a builder to do that. There is an argument which I'm you're talking about a regional use for a fire pod which means that we're asking that new developer to to cover the sins of his of his predecessors is how I look at it because what you're saying is that because there's no other fire ponds along Halo Deer Creek or whomever you've got to to do that. So I still I like the idea.

You could do a combination of saying uh sprinklers if there is a existing fire pond within a mile. Why you're saying maybe I misunderstood it. You can do a sprinkler if there's an you're discussing the policy of just not requiring fire ponds just allow in a new development allowing sprinklers developments. So, as I said, my sense is because the developer will not have to pay for a fire pond at 150,000, whatever it's going to be, uh they would and they won't have to pay for anything for fire protection. It'll be all on people who build the houses. That's going to push this all the way almost all the way to no fire pond being built.

It'll be res Well, two things. Developers never do something for free. So the deer now deer creek developer and builder are the same. Who has to pay for it? The builder's going to come in and pay pay for the sprinkler. Exactly. And so the pond will be cheap. But why is that mean it's going to be paid for right away?

Yeah. It's getting okay. The developer can will sell the lot cheaper supposedly to the builder, but the builder's got an added house cost. So the builder says, "What does my loss cost me?" And the owner says, "Uh, roads, fire pond, whatever it may be, land cost, but there's no there's no fire pond." So, the builder says, "Well, I got to now add $10,000 or $15,000 to the house." So, he's going to build it. Yeah, you're right. I don't know if I'm a developer developer that I'm going to go through the hydraologic study and do all those other kinds of things, but that how those houses still have fire protection because the builder is going to do it. And if they re, you know, if they refuse to do it, then the builder can't sell the lots and they'll go dig a hole somewhere to do that.

As long as we're okay, you're okay with like a house is completely the same protection with sprinklers or with a pond, then that for me that's that's enough, I guess. Yeah. If there was I mean there's got to be benefit I think for having both. Of course there is. But like you're we're you're saying that you the fire chief you're okay with one or the other. Yes. Okay. Without you as the fire chief. So it's not about the economics. It's not about the builder developer.

If if I can protect a brand new house that that is very expensive now in Durham and larger, right? We're not building thousand, you know, square foot houses anymore. Uh, with a sprinkler, that helps us. It keeps the fire in check. It It really helps. Even if there's no backup power for the pump, like you stated, you'd be okay with that. Yep. Okay. Because that's that's the building code, you know, later on down the line. Sort of out of my hands, out of hands. Really,

it's all a matter of probability, right? So, I'm good with the the either or uh you know, one of those three options. So, I guess a new fire pond with the dry hydrant go down the road to an existing one that chief says is close enough, which I think you get a say in all this, right? I mean, I I have there is leeway. Even though you're trying to make it black and white, there is leeway. Um, what what I was saying is that if I were to put it in development, I say, you know, there's a there's a pond, you know, just down the road. As a fire chief, you can say, "Yeah, but but that's too far away or I can't get to that or whatever it may."

Yes. And I do I do need that leeway because we're very intimate. I'll give you an example. Brianna Drive has a dry hydrant fire pond um that dries up in August. Certainly in drought conditions, it before my time. It wasn't built deep enough. It's on bedrock. It dries up. Yeah. So, somebody could say a developer in that area. Oh, well, there's one on Brianna Drive almost set. The fire chief does have to have that

that uh leeway of saying, well, that that one doesn't count. And I know it's a dry hybrid, but it dries up. And this drought is is very significant. And we've lost dry hydrates. So there's one on Swamp Road, but a couple of storms ago, uh, the intake was covered with feet and feet of sand, you know, after we had some of those 5 in storms. Um, which makes it difficult because to go in there in an excavator, you need DP, right? I mean, there's more to it than the John. Sorry, you're not Are we saying that uh a subdivision can be built without a fire pond and just say there's a fire pond? Like

that's the way this is. Well, within Yes, that's what this says if I read this correctly. So, a fire pond, which which I take as a new one. We may change that or a dry hydrant on an existing pond or stream. Now that it doesn't say it there because it's just a summary, but that's indicating it's on the property. Yeah. Oh, okay. So, it's not they are going to need one. If they go the pond route, they need one on their property. Something on their property. It's okay if it's already there. If it's not, they need Deer Creek. Deer Creek has a stream running through the middle of it. Right. So, they use that. There's a deep hole there.

Yeah. Yeah. But I guess what we're not going to say he can't say they can't say oh I want to use that one half a mile away. We're not saying that. Okay. That I misread that then. So yes. So those are you either have access to one. Um we'll write it up for they can do any of the three. Yep. Just one. And see what the public says. Yep. I I agree with that. Can we confirm that the storage capacity is 120,000 gallons? Is that correct? That's a start. Yes. kind of has a number of houses or what what besides it? Well, development. So, three houses starts at 120. So, 13 might be bigger. Uh for fire pond, I think it's

why I asked cuz I think you said something different, George. But in here it says 120. It was 120 to start. More more, but it's kind of vague. Like, well, more I know what more means, but I think that's a start. And then it was per house. I think it was 10,000. Well, for systems that is the case, but the water storage capacity says fire ponds shall have a capacity of 120,000 gallons or more. Yes. Or more. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, it starts at 120. But that's one. That's the base. That's minimum for 13. No, that was the minimum for three development. Does it say that in here? Okay. We look at the language. Do we say that?

No, I don't think we have testing. That's what Chief Chief went out and actually I I remember somebody designed it. I was our engineer of somebody. Um I do think we should have a caveat that says as you know with approval of review by the fire chief so that we know. Okay. So here's the language. You you say how you interpret it. Water storage capacity for underground storage tanks. A minimum storage capacity of 10,000 gallons shall be provided for a subdivision. That's a sister underground. Yes. Additional storage of 2,000 gallons per lot or principal building shall be provided. Period. Crossed out. We crossed out.

Just but just what what's in there now? We're trying to say we're just trying to establish. Okay. Then there's a new sentence. Fire pond shall have a capacity of 120,000 gallons or more. Yeah. I don't I don't interpret that to say that you have that's the base and then you add 2,00 or that only applies to this is just saying 120. Yeah. 120 or more. So if they've got 130 that's good if they got 120. But I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't anywhere in here they can have 13 lots with 120. Correct. They can have four at 120. That's how I Yeah. Yeah. I guess the assumption you're only burning down one at a time. Um

you guys wild card situation. Yeah. But sister is 10,000 and then 2,000. Yeah. And that goes Yeah. I got you. I just wanted to I I'm good with this. I think I there's a way to somewhere in this that you know with the approval of the fire chief or whatever it may be if they and I guess is that necessary, Chief? If they come in and show you a design uh like Deer Creek did, they came up with a good design that's obviously working. You approve that, right? Do you want to approve that? Do you want to prove that it's residential? Say to me if it's a residential sprinkler is I don't know if your approval is required.

No. And I don't see so on a residential sprinkler. I I don't see a permit and the town doesn't get a fee for that. I don't review it and there's no fee for that. The codes officer of the town currently Adams, but the codes officer reviews it and that's at the state level as far as them pulling the permit for a house for a house sprinkler residential sprinkler just sprinkler. So it's being there has been there is an approval. There is there is an established procedural currently for sprinklers. I did just have one quick typo. Um under water storage capacity the first word for Is this in the

Sorry, it's in the It's in the ordinance the language amendments. Yeah, I think we need to remove that first word. Can we on the on the typos? Can we just tie those up and send them to George in the email? Yeah, it's just easier to just Yeah, I don't have many typos. I don't have too many. Yeah, just that first word four under number three, I think. I mean two. Where are we? Number two under sufficient water standard. Strike out. Start with the word underground. know the word quarter. Yeah. Okay. As always an English teacher while I'm here. I'd love to as long as you're here too.

Um continue. So I appreciate the system the removal of the system. It just doesn't work for the fire department or the homeowner really. It just doesn't. So then then it's up to you. Can we do sprinkler? Can we do fire retention fire pond? You know the dry height? We can certainly work with all. Okay, that that's good and very helpful. Thank you. No, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Is there anything else that we'd like to give Chief that on any of these other things that are chief I I will give you 3 to three the bottom of the six if if anyone What did you say? 3 to three bottom of the six if you know. Oh, you were also Yeah.

No, no, no. Getting back to development. This is important. Yeah. the chief brought this up, but but you know, regarding insurance, right? Like, yes, yes, the the cost is going to be uh conveyed over to the builder or the homeowner who buys the property, but I think there's something to consider regarding uh insurance costs that may benefit the homeowner with a sprinkler system as opposed to a fire. I would I would agree on paper. Sure. And my second comment is about on maintenance. So, if a fire pond is part of a development, um who's required to make sure that that HOA I think we've been making

what what we have one here on Route 9 that's part of the um sawmill or the Yes. that that it's not a HOA main woodlands, right? So, so the chief pointed out earlier that he went out and he looked at one in particular, but is it the chief's job to go out and look at all these fire ponds to make sure that they're holding water? Number one. Number two, who is responsible to make sure that those water levels are are sustained? Chief, I I would bet the code enforcement at best if he knows about them. But do you go out and do annual inspections? Dry.

So the fire department does currently we have roughly 25 dry hydrants in town across the 39 square miles. We do try to touch every one of them every year um and fix what we can as a fire department. In the past you you'll have to know there was a line item in the fire department to sort of replace some of them with public works. I think sometimes that if they're close to a driveway or road, we'll find in the spring that we can't pull a draft. We can't suck that water because the pipes been cracked. So any air leakage, we we can't do it. So it comes very difficult like again swamp road, we just can't go in there because it's on the stream um and fix it. Uh sometimes on private property, which you allude to HOAs, it's up to them. So, I'm currently dealing with several HOAs in town to try to get them to fix it. Dredge over years, 5 to 10 years, you know, natural leaves, sedimentation, all that will start to fill it in. Sometimes they can have erosion. Um, and then the other problem, and George knows this, one HOA in town, um, I believe it's like, uh, Eagle Point Road, it is defunct. So, there used to be a dry hydrant at the end of I believe Eagle Point down towards the river that is definitely cracked out of service. Uh, and there's no HOA that's recognized for us to go after.

So, what are the repercussions? I'm not sure we're asking these questions. Well, do enforcement. It's an old It's an old development. Yes. Yes. The inherited. So the new the discussion would have had I'll speak for George is when you establish an HOA uh George definitely has in the the writing uh communication of it that you will the HO will be responsible uh for the fire pond and associated cost dry hydrant and whatnot. And then for an enforcement, uh the town legally could go after the HOA um for enforcement or cost. Like if the town fix it, thus the fire department, we we could bill them.

Okay. Ground and lake, you're having some issues currently with some inherited inherited ones. Nothing that in the last four years that we've done new, but inherited ones. Sounds like the verbiage wasn't included in the HOA. It it it might not or or it was defaulted. Yes. So that

I'm going to go totally off base here or anything, but you have so if I'm in a house next to a defunct fire hydrant pond, fire pond, and my insurance company thinks that I'm within so many feet, this operating fire pond, and my house catches on fire, and these guys can't put it out because there's no water there. like your insurance just went up. Well, they might deny the claim. That's

Well, I mean, I think it's a lot of if it's and a challenge the town has with enforcement. It's like somebody just decides to throw a whole bunch of junk cars in their yard or they're doing other things. The town can then you can enforce things over time and painfully. I mean, talking about junk cars, we're talking right now about a fire, but I mean it's the same enforcement thing. I think the town I don't I guess the question is and we probably do need to move on is you they the homeowner needs to tell the town that I have a problem or go to their homeowner association and say just like roads going bad we've got to fix this.

Okay. So then chief, CEO, role commissioner sees this issue, they approach the property owner or whoever responsible and they don't react quickly. What it's going to be a clock on it if after so much time the town fixes it and bills you and too bad you didn't do that. Fair. I mean the town the town has some authority but it it isn't the time the frame that you're looking at. I think it's probably a very slow process like Eagle Point is probably going to drag on for quite a while. That that could the ones we can fix. We can fix. When you say fix, you mean fix the pipe that's broken. You're not talking about filling in the

No, filling in. And again, I give you the history that was given to me because it does matter, right? Because it's past practice. They were dredging. So, they would dredge one or two pawns a year. town was the town at town cost. Well, I mean to what George pointed out before, these things are benefiting. These ponds are town. Exactly. So, it's even though it is a subdivision's fire pond, correct? You are. Well, I think we're that's getting well above our pay grade now. You're talking about budget committee and the select board, everything, but I can understand why the fire department is was the lead maintaining those in some situations and it was appreciated. But I think we need to kind of move on because Can we bring it back, please?

What's that? Can we bring it back? What? I just wanted to bring up the point of maintenance. That's what the hell's lost. So, I'm good. I mean, if we want to continue the discussion, I'm just not sure there's anything we can do as a plan. I say that as a planning board. We got three more topics. Yeah. I was wondering, is there anything um regarding campgrounds that we need the fire chief for? Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. Are there any other topics? His office chief is here and and kindly giving us his time. Is there something that you've looked at campgrounds and trailer parks and all that kind of stuff? You and George and Calvin have been working on this.

Yes. I I I believe there was last year request for an expansion. The leisure center. All all we're proposing now is to get the uh duplicated process of town planning board looks at it from a site plan review with no standards to go by. State does a complete review of engineering. We're not going to duplicate what the state does. That's the only Well, I think yeah, campgrounds is one, but I guess I would ask George and Kelvin and Allen and and maybe they're doing this to go through. We've got a whole bunch of things we're working on. Yeah, I I Okay, you've been working on those. Okay. And we're getting you're getting feedback. Yep. That was your question.

That was my Yeah, just because you could go if you were just George sat all department heads down and we were in there for hours uh in our own respective lanes going over whatever changes, proposals, all of it. Um and we were given our opportunity. Excellent. I appreciate you all working together. So now would you please leave? You'll enjoy the game. Thanks, Chief. I really do appreciate I know you. No, look, I appreciate the time and the opportunity. Get the reverse fix, would you? All right, we'll work on the reverse and probably more money, right, to buy a new fire truck with reverse. Okay,

subdivision road buffers. We talked about this and basically right now you have to put a 50ft buffer between the subdivision and the existing road. you don't have to put any buffer between the uh the new subdivision road and the neighbors. And we discussed this and you ended up asking for discretionary authority rather than automatic. Yep. So that's all that tracks. Yep. Is that good?

Okay. Next one is uh noise standards. This one's a little bit more complicated. So currently you have basically a residential standard across the board and this town has a lot of mixed uses of small businesses and light manufacturing agriculture which generates higher noise levels than typical residences.

I think I need one I'll get back to you. So what this and the other issue with noise is that uh it's one of those areas where you have to have a qualified expert to do a study. It's kind of like a hydraology of a fire pond. So you can't just have someone out there with their phone saying, "Oh, it's just it's this many decibb." Um you have to do a a thorough study under certain conditions. So for example, this specifies that there can't be any rain rain falling because that rain is going to make noise that's going to skew the results. U so this specifies three classes um and it changes slightly the daytime nighttime frame. So this again walks down through what are the changes. So it deals with the daytime, nighttime hours, the sound pressure limits. Uh differentiating between residential, agricultural and commercial uh measurement method is more specific. Uh this includes a impulsive or intermittent and the town attorney suggested the number 75 dB. uh for just periodic noises, uh construction time, noise generation, cuz somebody can be out there setting up on the job site not making noise, but running power equipment and everything else can't start until uh 7 a.m. instead of 6:30. Now, uh studies again, uh when would a noise study, a formal noise study, would an expert be required? If the town is going to take somebody to court or if there's conditional use review and you identify noise as an issue like the sawmill, then you can require and you should require a qualified acoustical study. In that case, all you did was they said, "Oh, the machine generates 70 75 dB." No, there was no there was no technical

review of that to determine whether that's accurate or not. So in the future you this will give much more specificity. Uh then this includes suggested mitigation measures and then just expands the exemptions. So that's two George one is um who decide for not conditional use. Yeah. um who decides how what is the criteria for deciding that on whether to do a sound study or not whether to do a sound study and then I guess

you would not require the folks that were in here earlier tonight to do a sound study with a qualified expert but the sawmill anytime that is an issue where you're saying we feel like we need to limit the property rights here in terms of what they proposing to do because of the sound impact impacts it's going to have. So if you're going to put limits on a property owner of their property rights, you should back that with scientific evidence. And who pays? They will pay for it. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. My other comment, it's not really a question, is I am concerned about exemptions. I don't know if we have a special event permit and I definitely don't think we need to think very carefully about fireworks. So like my neighbor a couple houses down does a huge Fourth of July fireworks which is extremely well intended by the it's the only it's the only thing that's going on in the town.

There is no permit for that. So I don't want to add a how do we say if you want to and his his neighbor the other side of him shoots fireworks or somebody's you know one of those wedding venues wants to fire fireworks or do I what I guess my concern is I don't think we have a permit at the town now and I don't want to impinge on you know fireworks because I think we follow the state law this came up when

when I was at a town subboard meeting and they basically said we call the town which has hours and some other stuff. So I don't want to I guess that's my comment is I don't want this somebody come in and say oh you know this guy's going to have a fireworks on the 4th of July. Where's his permit? I don't want

Let me clarify. This does not say you have to get a permit. This says you are exempt from these noise regulations if you have a permit. So to do fireworks if if the t if they have a special permit if they have a conditional use approval to do a farm fair for example at repanova and they want to do fireworks they're exempt. So to claim to claim the exemption doesn't this doesn't say you have to do it you have to have a permit. It just says to claim the exemption from the noise regulations you have to have one of the ways you get that is by having a permit.

Yeah. But if you don't do that I mean if forget emergency vehicle you last autumn. So special events with town approval and temporary activities with special permits. So to me, if if I want to be a pain in the butt on this, I'm going to say, "You're having a special event because there's a band, there's fireworks, there's a couple hundred people there. Somebody could do and I know some of my neighbors who would do this. That's a special event. He doesn't have a permit. Shut them down." But but they wouldn't be shut down because of the noise regulation. They'd be shut down because they have don't have a permit. if a permit is required. The biggest challenge is that what people don't like fireworks

is because of the noise and I understand they have horses, they have dogs, they have babies. So that's why they fight when they fight fireworks, they they fight fireworks. I don't think that's clear here. I think okay, but let's let's look at it from a different angle. If you took away the exemptions, they're going to be subject right to these noise regulations. I'm asking to exempt fireworks somehow displays to say follow the Yeah, I get you. If somebody's having

I don't know what it may be, a wedding or whatever special event would be, they have to and first then we find out does the town have a special permit. I'm not sure they do. I've never seen one at the come up on the TV for select board. So, is there such a thing as a you know these permits that they're talking about? But I definitely don't want fireworks being being required to get a permit at least for noise. I think this is where it's saving us. This is just for noise. I understand that, but it's No, no, I'm I'm with you. I because I think that perhaps even for fire perhaps fireworks could be I mean, right now they don't have to.

And what my concern is we're now going to apply noise standards to them. you know, it's it's not the, you know, people I mean, people park for a mile on the on Stackpole Road um and I can sit in my yard and watch it. But that that's my concern is and using the no because that's what annoys people is the noise. It's not the it's not the color, it's the noise. But there there is a state law for fireworks. Yes. So we have to abide by the I agree 100%. Yes.

That's what I'm saying is that already exists. I don't want somebody to come in and say that fireworks display is a special event. Uh and the person arguing that it's fourth of July and this the state requirements are I think it's 4th of July and it's New Year's and all that they're following that requirement of the state law. as long as that overrules this comments because there will people who will take this and say that's that is that's my concern and and there I guarantee you there are people who are mad enough about fireworks and that fireworks in the display who will find look for a right now they can do that on the ordinance because there is no exception right now

right they've been doing it for years yeah it's just getting bigger and bigger but if you want to add a specific example I don't I don't know if we should because of what Allan just said, there is a state thing that we don't know like we don't we we should look into maybe our legal person can we've already the fireworks has come up and I know I've been to select board meetings about this in the past and because there is a state fireworks requirement basically select men adopted that and we're not going to have one within the town. Yeah. And I just want to make sure that that there's not a loophole or somebody can say uh

they would they would have to go to the state and challenge the state would they cuz the town because we don't have anything. No, but we my thoughtful concern is we do if we do this. Well, should we add any exemptions and superseding exemptions from state level something like that? I just could be others besides I mean I just think that's I don't think we need to spend an attorney but that is a concern I've got guys that people every year they go to the select board and complain about fireworks and what are you going to do about it and that and the select board says well we follow this this rule but I don't want somebody to say well you know that party with a couple hundred people in a band and fireworks is is a special activity I know

I mean I look forward to make a motion somebody could make a motion to add fireworks to I don't think that's a smart idea. No, you can vote against it. Okay. I just don't think we should do that just out of the whim. Like I agree if it's an issue we do, but somebody's looking at this and before we decide to do that, we can do that as we move toward the public. It'd be good to take public comments. Yeah, I I'm will I will make a motion that somewhere in here that fireworks are exempt as long as they follow the state law. I don't think we're making motions on that. I don't think we're making motions. No, we're not. I'm just trying to comment. I'm trying. Well, well, what what trips a permit for fireworks?

I don't know. That's what I'm saying. Like, we don't know. We don't Well, there's nothing now. I would think it'd be bio suppression. Probably. Well, there's no there's no permit for fireworks. Probably to do a professional display would have to He's not doing a professional.

No, no. What I'm just saying, you're asking when a permit would be required. Probably Portland Fireworks or something like that would be safe. Well, importantly to me. Yeah. So, I think there's people out there and and I'm not I guess not I'm criticizing no extent, but I understand their concerns, but you know, they have they there are people who come every year and say we got to ban fireworks, we got to ban fireworks, we shouldn't have fireworks, or they should be limited to uh 3 in the afternoon or whatever. And I don't I would like to make sure that this doesn't somehow um mean that you the town has to create a permit for fireworks.

So it says that a a permit from the commissioner of public safety is required for um for fireworks displays in Maine. Is that the state law? That's this is AI. But um again like I I don't know. I'd want to look into this further. This would have been a great question for the 5G, but I I just I don't want to add this if we don't need to. Like I think it's silly. I I would be okay with like potentially adding it if we find out we need to add it. But I don't want to add this. Well, we won't find out till we need it till somebody is

No, no, no. What I'm saying is if this covers it already, they do need a permit. They don't I don't think I don't think that the town is if they do. They don't need one from the town. No, this is a state permit. The commissioner of public safety is required for all fireworks displays. Yeah, I guess would depend on how you define that. Yes, the fireworks displays. Exactly. It's a huge It's, you know, like expanding every year from my understand. Well, you know, I will be very upset if I can't watch fireworks. I will come hunting you people and I guarantee you there there are people I'm not going to prohibit you from watching fireworks. Will you come up to sit on my patio? Come to the plane. The rest of them can't cuz they don't they don't they don't fire the patio don't.

Okay, moving on. This could be a simple question to the chief. Yeah. Great. And then see what he said. And I think it's up for public comment also. And if somebody thinks that the right public comment waits permit and somebody should say it requires a state permit and let their owner or Yes. display your display. Get that perfect. So, one more thing about about um noise is we talked a bit about a bit ago about increasing the DBs. Yeah. The decibb. And I can't recall why. So, we this is what that's doing, right? That's increasing decibb

for agricultural and commercial and intermittent. Yeah. Yeah, it was 55 and now we're up to Well, 75 is just for like an intermittent thing. That was the town attorney's uh number. Did we Did we all decide or discuss that and and agree to that increase? Like that's what we're talking about tonight. So, does anybody have any questions on I don't think we ever I remember talking about it and there was a discussion about the attorney was George said 75. I'm I guess I'm good if that's what we want to

Well, I remember that the um proposed best um development said that they could not meet our CD levels and they suggested I feel like that's where it came from. I think so, too. But is everyone okay with that? That means yeah I think right now you know the I don't know that we may have a standard that could be enforced if we wanted to maybe whether it be a sawmill or some other things there's probably six as I understand it 55 is not very much. So in a residential I mean some of these leaf blowers putting out more than 55 dB they they probably need to tone it down a little bit but uh

well what's commercial? We don't have commercial. Commercial is the use, right? Yeah. The commercial would be the sawmill. The sawmill can be in a residential area. No, no, that that was that was my mistake. This is when it says residential because George had a discussion earlier. What what George is referring to on residential is that's me in my house. And agricultural is a farmer making noise the noise he makes. Yes. And commercial is a commercial use. Yes. So it's not a commercial zone. Well, I know, but the commercial can be in the middle of the houses. Can be. Yes. Correct. I got you. I'm sorry. Now, that commercial will have to go through a conditional use review. Yep.

And these sound standards will be applied if sound is an issue. You can require an acoustical study, but this will be the target that they shoot full. Right. But we're increasing it from 55 to 75 to make it I mean, sorry to 60. Yeah. Because 55 is not reasonable for And well, and on a commercial use, if somebody wants to put it into a in my mind, they come in for a non-conditional use in a heavily residential area and they want to go to 65, we can turn them down and say that's not appropriate in this site or require mitigation mentioned in here. Exactly. So the level doesn't bother me because we do have the ability to say no or here's what you've got to do.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think I remember now like just ambient noise can can get almost to that level. So I think I Yeah. I just think the only minor change is I I would define impulsive intervent.

Any other questions on noise comments? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, the last one is uh last one. Yeah. Uh affordable housing. The ones that Oh, this is just policy, isn't it? We haven't even Yeah. Well, we're running out of time. So,

okay. So, here's a here's a decision point for you folks. There's actually three separate issues here. One is tiny homes, actually four. One is accessory apartments. one is individual sighting of mobile homes on lots outside of mobile home parks and then mobile home parks. Um, pretty much what all of this is doing is bringing the town into compliance with state law on these somewhat related topics. This is what LD 2003 and 1829 are driving at. The manufactured housing industry has been pounding the state for decades to get towns to not restrict mobile home parks and individual sighting of manufactured housing. Uh and pendulum is shifting even more toward uh clamping down on town's ability to regulate these things. So everything that's proposed in these draft amendments brings the town into compliance with these rel somewhat related laws. So the question becomes the town can't change anything in this. It's all mandated by state law. Do you are you comfortable with putting those together under that framework

or do you want to go out and present to the public every one of these individuals on top of state requirements. These are all state requirements. That's all I would say. That's my vote, right? This is the state driving list. There's nothing the town can do different. But I think we need to present them as this package that you've got right here. Yes. So that people This was just This was just in the cification. Y wasn't even going to be right. Right. Right. Because you can't change it. But what you decided to do was pull it out and at least present it to the public as policy. and and they they can sit there and discuss it and complain, but again, it's it's kind of like we've done with affordable housing in the past, which is

so the changes will be tiny homes have to be allowed as an individual house. They have to be allowed as a accessory dwelling unit, standalone. Accessory apartments like a somebody converting a garage, that's a standalone. Currently, it has to be either within a barn or like on top of a garage. This says no, it can be state law says it can be a completely standalone unit. Um, mobile homes on individual lots. The town like many communities had higher restrictions than the state had to be at least 14t wide with a 312 pitch roof. The state has clamped down on that. If it meets the manufactured housing standards, it's acceptable on individual lots. U mobile home park size. Currently, Durham requires a minimum of 20 acres and each individual mobile home site has to have at least an acre and uh 200 feet of frontage within the park. That can't fly anymore with the state. Maximum is uh what did I put here? 20,000 square feet and 100 feet wide on the septic system and also you cannot cap it at 20 acres. It's uh whatever is needed for the park itself and any of its buffers and right away and everything else. So this is all again and you cannot make the them build a subdivision road in in a mobile home park. They can basically have a commercial driveway 20 feet wide. And finally, you cannot make them have underground utilities. You must allow them to be above ground.

So these are all mandated by the state. Okay. Great. Okay. So that's the stuff and thank you for doing that, George. Um, so we've kind of got to get to u when you know the next step of how do we want to break this up and wait sorry we were we starting to talk about process for the meetings meetings but what about the rest of the stuff is I have some comments like does anyone else have any other comments on the other items that we didn't talk about the administrative stuff can I just run them through you George okay um the zone assigning boundary one. Yeah.

Um, no concerns or questions with what you typed up the the changes there, but I do think that this is going to bring attention to this item.

Um, and it's going to be now in the planning board's court versus the appeals. So, um, we don't have to figure this out now, but in the future, probably near future, we should understand how how do we do this? what does it take to review a zoning district boundary, right? If someone comes in, you know, what does that look like? That process. So, just comment there. Another one is um campgrounds. Um kind of flew by that link. Um we talked about changing the timeline that people could stay at a campground. Are we Yes, that's still in there. So, we are proposing the change there. No, we're not.

No, still in there. You want to put you wanted to have limits against year round, right? You extended it from I think September 15th to October. But you still have no uh no year round camping. So no changes with the timeline there in Okay. Other than fixing the October 15th versus September 15th. Okay. Yeah. Um and then one more. No, two more. Sorry. Um planning board deadlines. We talked about about this a little bit today. Um what we're changing is requesting for the meeting deadline to be have more time. Yeah. Three weeks versus two weeks. Okay. For submissions and 10 five copies versus 10 copies.

Yes. Yes. And so it's from when they submit the materials to when the meeting is. Yeah. Right. Do you want to put in a resubmission? I was wondering because we need that. Yeah. Um, and this is a resubmission, right? They're already in application status. So, I would be I mean, we told him one week tonight, but I don't I don't know what you all think, one week, two weeks ahead of the meeting. I would almost use the same timeline that it's three week there's a there's a submission. In other places I've worked, there's Yeah,

there's this is the date of the meeting. we back off this amount for, you know, submissions and whether you're coming back with reubmissions or whatever because it could be a really complicated resubmission. It could be. And so we need George all the time and us all the time. Um, and kind of stop taking things at the meeting if it's a very simple here's the D. They didn't have it last time, but complicated site plans or whatever. So I would just say it's three weeks before the meeting, submission or resubmission. We're just trying to help him out basically. Well, so what that will do, I understand why we would do it, but

what that will do is if we only have once a month meetings, they're not going to many times not be able to submit within a week. So they'll be pushed out two months. I understand why, but it'll be I mean a week would be fine to at least get it a week before the meeting for the res. That's what I was Yeah. I would go with two weeks because I think it may two weeks for a regularly scheduled meeting but in this case so three weeks for a new submission and two weeks for resubmission

because the impact more on I would like to to see us getting them before the meeting you know and you've done a good job of that most of the people have done a good job of that not everybody has but if they get it to you a week before you're not going to get it to to us till the next week because you're not working Right. That's my concern. I think it has to be two weeks because that gives you time to prep it and get it put it up on and not just us but everybody else is going to want to see the and the consultant if there's and there's a consultant there. So three weeks for submissions, two weeks for resubmissions. Yes. Got it. Great. My last comment is there legal are there legal requirements for that?

You put it in the ordinance. There's no state legal requirements. Okay. Yeah, my last comment is the proof of payment. I was just curious if we're asking we're putting the owner on the applicant, which I'm okay with, but can the town not provide that? Like, don't doesn't the town have You can get the assessor's office to confirm it. Yeah, I don't think we want to have I try to take things off the town is my thought. And you know, I got my tax receipt when I paid it the other day. And I think people should if that is the taxes, they should just bring it in. And

yeah. So what that would look like is say I'm applying for something. I have a mortgage and it's tied into my mortgage. I would just provide a proof of that. Yeah. You get that from the tax collector. Yeah. Or from I think just taxes, right, is what we're looking for. Or maybe if they owe them a fine or something like that. But I don't know. At least my thought was it's not about uh but if they've got tax leans. No, no, I'm not saying mortgage. I'm saying taxes. But the way I pay my taxes. Yeah. So like I'm just trying to figure out how people are going to show us this. I doesn't matter what your mortgage company's doing. It's what they have on town. Ask the town collector something.

Yeah. So So go to the town collector and ask. Okay. Yeah. I mean I I think we need to put stuff on the onus of the Okay. the applicant. That's fine. Yeah. Thank you. That's it. Anyone else? Okay. Now, let's talk process. So, we're talking at least two meetings and my thought would be two plus I'm not sure we get through all of this. I mean, we were an hour plus here talking about four things tonight. My concern is that two meetings enough when we're opening it up to discussion with a whole bunch of people. What's the timeline? When do we have to have these two meetings by?

Uh I guess by the end of the year. Yeah, we're trying to fit them in before the holidays. Okay. To get too crazy. And George, you're presenting on these will be there, but you're leading the I'll do the present as the u subject matter expert. I'll just do the presentations. Yeah. And I think well we could talk about that but I don't we don't have to go through it on this one. We're changing a to or something. Obviously it's the big the big stuff. Okay. So two say at least two with at least two and maybe and then see where you are.

Yeah that's that was my thought is that if we don't get there because some of these we may call minor policy changes but some of them are going to be u contentious. remember my first town meeting was we wanted to go to 16 foot of private way and it got completely blown out of the saddle and so there are people who are are emotional on both sides of the width of that gun. So, um, and if it goes there, punt it. Yeah, exactly. Like, like goes there, punt it. Well, I think next topic we've heard like hear it, right? Listen, take notes, go to the next controversial, let's just keep it out of this one and deal with it.

Yeah. And I don't know that we have to the topic. I think we just need to come back and say what you don't want. You know, we're saying these are minored policy issues. They shouldn't be controversial. If they are controversial, they're not minor policy issues. Yeah, that's a good point. Well, and I think it depends on how controversial. There will always be somebody who's going to come up and not like something. So, I don't know that we pull a good idea just because one, you know, well, I don't know. Remember, all of these are in one warrant.

Yeah. But I'm talking about one one person, you know. So, if you remember, there was a guy who came was very concerned about duplexes. Yes. and he was very outspoken about duplexes get it passed pretty overwhelmingly. So I think it's our job and the selector board's job to say, you know what, there are people who are upset about this, but we think we can still get it through or we have we we tweak it. We come back later and say, you know, what about this? Because you can pull it up until the last minute. You just have to rewrite the article. We'll take a take a temperature check. That's good. That's it. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, uh,

so maybe what we do is maybe try and get a meeting like if we need two, maybe three before the end of the year, once one a month. Well, we've scheduled one for the 15th, you know, uh because we're going to use um part of that for uh Oh, right. So, we are having one of these on the 15. We are. Okay. I Yeah, I don't think we want to. We should. As long as we're coming together, let's get something up on October 15th and then maybe one in November and then see if we need one in December. You're mark the third Wednesday. Do we want to wait that can we just do them?

George, how quickly you need to turn stuff around? I may be rushing this. I mean, how get that website set up? And and the other issue is you don't want to have schedule public meeting too short, too close out because you won't be able to get the word out. So that'll be kind of a waste. Well, right now we've got to get the word out before the 15th of October. We're just coming posted for the for the Yeah. Get it on the web meeting, but to banner the whole thing, that's tight. That's a to No, I agree.

So I guess what are we we do, you're right. We do want to get you out. There's a couple of town blasts and there's a couple there that's you know that we want to get it out there as far as we can because you're right absolutely right on enough notice we did a good job last year on selling this and having meetings and all that other stuff and that I think reduced the the pressure. So I mean we can do the 15th now for just

Yeah. And just be aware the town manager has try is probably going to reserve this room and he's circulating for the regional all of the non Portland area towns are going to come here and meet and he gave me the dates today that they're holding open are the 22nd, 29th and November 13th. They don't they're only going to use one of those for for what? They're going to have a regional meeting of all the towns. Okay. In other words, we can't use it at the same time. Got it. Well, although potentially I put in our bid before that, but I I understand losing. Um, so the 15th, can we be ready to do something and maybe it's a part

Well, maybe it's the other way around. We talked about doing the policy first. Maybe we try and do the other That's an idea like do the uh administrative first or I don't know if we're talking, but yeah, the smaller ones. There's like graphical and grammatical errors. Yeah. Yeah. On the 15th. Yeah. So, what are we going to do on the 15th? Yeah. Because we could do that some controversial. Yeah. We don't do the contro what might be talked about, you know, even if we consider it minor, you could do that. I mean, you never Yeah. You never know.

You never know. So some part of this, you know, even if nothing other than you can spend an hour explaining conification and what it's going to look like because we've never talked about what the web page is going to look like. So, you know, people are going to want to know, well, I'm going to prove cotification. What's that going to do for me? And I don't know how to how to explain that. I mean, it maybe show mechan mechanic falls website or something like that. Well, I I wonder if like if we need to talk admin stuff and like logistics process, I say we do that like later. Like we focus on topics. That's that makes sense,

right? Like so what do we want to do on the 15th? Are we talking codification? Were we were we were going to generally bring that up at one of these meetings? Yeah, that's really one of the administrative things. It's not a policy. Right. Right. Right. So, we could talk about that. And what about the state ones that are being by the state?

Okay. The list is on page uh 41 of the packet in the staff notes on codification. There's the nine pol minor policies which I think we're going to lump. You're okay with lumping. seven, eight, and nine together. The manufactured and so what you what page is that George?

Uh page 41 of the packet down in the lower right hand corner you see the number one. Yeah. I just don't in any one meeting I'm concerned about dumping too much. Uh, I'd almost re recommend it be we start with three meetings. So, you're talking administrative changes. Yeah. Plus the complication, right? That's number one. Oh, okay. Yeah. The editorial changes. So, those 10 administrative changes. Yeah.

Is the state in here? It is, right? The state one. That's some policy. No, the um manufactured housing and all that. No, that's out. Oh, we brought it into policy. Yeah. So, I think that's workable. Okay. Because we've got pretty much everything ready to go on that. We could I set up to hopefully set up the website tomorrow afternoon. Possibly get see check with Kimberly about whether or not they could get it into the news blast this Friday. Does that go on Friday? Yeah. Yeah. I mean today's what? So if you tell her tomorrow Yeah. Uh and you know just that just hey here it is. You wouldn't be able to link I don't think stuff you don't have ready.

I'll get my handy AI assistant put together. Do you have a name for us? But if you say hey at um 6:30 at uh or do we just want to tell them 7:15 because we got to do this other thing first and that's going to be some period of time. Oh, dang. Yeah. I don't know. We do him last. I That's the other thing. We do the We do the codes the Oh, god. that first and then Well, why don't you set it for 7:30? We could take a break and and stuff. Actually, it's just the public hearing, isn't it? Or is it? No, it's public hearing and something for a decision. So, that's I don't know about doing that. These guys have not been overly well prepared,

right? And there's lots of questions. Yeah, I I think it's going to go an hour at least. We could just say you've got an hour. We can get through what we can and then push the remainder push to the next meeting. Well, but we moved it ahead, you know, created a special opportunity to keep it moving. And now we're saying we're not going to keep it moving. Well, we could. We have an hour, but if it goes beyond that Yeah. Um I I think you know the other thing that goes beyond that we're sitting with a bunch of people who want to get I I'd rather go first with this this stuff but could

you know if we don't get to him or we you know we run late getting to him or we just don't do we do him instead of him being bulky waste or whatever they call it there can and just be done with that. What if we just do it on a different day? No. Yeah, I'm thinking of a different meeting. You know, different meeting. It sounds Jerry has to, you know, we have to find out now what what the 22nd 29th and you know, I guess it could go into November. Um, I hate to start this month. We should or shouldn't. I think you should. We should. So, we just need to find out from

Can we just tell Jerry? Look at Jerry. We want the 29th. Yeah. You you please don't. Yeah. Let me let me talk to him about that tomorrow. Yeah. So, you're gonna scrub this for the 15th frame. I think we're not right. Yeah. I mean, we can use that time if there's any more questions we've come up with, which we're kind of beat these things to death, but I just don't think we're going to be able to get much done beyond Yeah. Do we have any other Can we just uh We won't have anything on that night. We won't have any other plan uh on the 15th on the 15th. Oh, right.

You're just going to do that. That's a continuation of this meeting. That that will take a good hour plus in my my mind. It could it could. Um and so we're talking about the 29th, right? Not the 22nd. Or the 29th, depending on which meeting they they are here. Okay. I can't be here on the 22nd, but that's okay. You guys go forth and conquer. have to watch. But I can be here on the 29th. I'll watch it. Yeah. I guess it would be good to know from Jerry soon rather than because it would be good to the sooner we get that out to people

that the better so people have a chance to read everything to to book the 29th because there's school stuff and there's other other things that people have going Wednesdays until this thing with with that came up with Jerry u Wednesdays have been fairly free I mean Monday you got Mondays in here and Thursdays and some others are pretty well taken, but Wednesdays seem to be a a good thing. So, if he could just pick a date or or if he says, "Hey, you pick a date." We probably check in with all of the people the managers around. Well, we need we need an answer. I'll tell him tomorrow.

I understand, but I mean it's it's we need an answer. And if he can't do it, we'll just say we'll take the 22nd. You take your time finding people. All right. And then now let's let's plan the November one. One, two. I think the better the the more you lay down now so that if there's something else that somebody wants to do on a Wednesday, you we've booked the date. So we're on there kind of deal. Um so the 5th is our meeting. So the 12th, the 26th I think is probably thanks before Thanksgiving. So people are probably on vacation. The 26th. The 26th

or 27th is Thanksgiving. Yeah. Yes. So 26th would be the night before. I'd recommend the 12th just in case like if we need more time after that we have it versus the 19th. But does that work for everybody? You're talking the 12th. November 12th. Works for me. Okay. So, November 12 and October 29th. So, that was that the first meeting that we're going to have. We're going to try to do it on October 22 or 29. I can't do a 29. You can't do the 29. I can't do but have the 22nd. Yeah. And then we'll see what Jerry says. If they if he nails down the other one, I'll I'll let you know.

Yeah. Just pick that. Whichever one they don't take. Yep. Exactly. That's a good point. And then just we'll read it in the bulletinary and send us an email. Um, yeah. Great. And then we'll see if we need another one. Cuz we'll probably And so then after that, after the November thing, we'll be George, you'll be wrapping this all up to get to the select board. Exactly. In January. Yeah. I will hopefully get them get it to them by their second December meeting and then they can process it in January and decide whether they want to put out to the town meeting the select board. Yeah.

Because we then have to fit in public hearings. Yeah. And um so you know I guess two public hearing or one depends on how complicated we think we might be able to do it. Yeah. But have we heard anything from agriculture about what you know? No. And I asked him, so here's the other part of this is that after the first of the year, sometime late January, early February, you're going to get a draft codified ordinance that has all of those changes, 139 changes put into it. So, you'll want to review that and we can still make changes to it. Okay?

We just tell them, "Change this." So you're going to need some processing time. So it be good to get this all in. And this is going to have the all of this is going to have the format of this ordinance. It's not going to have the format in ordinance because I think that would be very confusing. So the first warrant article will be put all of these changes into this ordinance, the old ordinance. Yeah. And then the second article will be to codify this ordinance with all those changes in it. So the first article passes all the policies are town approved policy administrative

second warrant passes then it then it becomes you put it in the format of the that's that's the warrant article says take all of those things that just passed and put them into this ordinance in this format. So that way people can as we're going through the spring people can be looking at here's what's changing in this ordinance which has always been there and then it's going to go into the new format and here's the new format with all the changes that have already been put into it. Just the technical

and we may want to have more because I'm thinking the things the state the state mandates would be a we still have to have a warrant article to approve those. Those are all those are going to be ones that are required right now. So that would be approved in the second warrant. No being approved in the first warrant but our second meeting. Yes. Our warrant article is going to incorporate required by state law on all those. It's all going to be it's all going to be in this. Okay. I got Yeah. Yeah. We just And as we're doing this, we'll find out how hard it is, how, you know, in terms of people understanding it. Yeah.

Because it's an awful lot and people who pay no attention to the town meeting, you know, we'll have to really work on presentation, I think. And that's all the more reason to keep any major policy changes out of this because if we could just keep pounding that drum off, look. Yeah. I think some of these this isn't a major policy.

Yeah. some and I I've looked at them again and I don't think anybody's going to care whether it's the appeals board that does it or we do it or you know the date that they submit to their packet. Those those kinds of things I I almost think we read them off and move on or say read these. It's the stuff we talked about tonight and some of the other uh things that that may or may not be an issue. Well, yeah. I mean, all of those items that you just brought up, John, are part of the codification, right? We're not reading all those out, are we? 139 of them. Oh, no. Well, I'm We're going to summarize what Give examples. Yeah. Give examples. Yeah. Exactly. No, we have it all available on the website.

Right. Right. We'll hand it. Yeah. Hand out. Maybe have packets available for There was a guy who used to come early on. I'm I'm dragging this out. I'm sorry. But man, he would sit there and argue English. Yeah. the the meeting we had over u changing road with us and and a couple others he came and and it's like man he was just really talking verbiage he must be your brother there's a lot of bad verbiage to talk about in this I can't remember it was but it was all it was like really I don't remember that that you may not have been there but he he came

asking Uh I don't know that I see what I'm saying. So have you seen your brother? I don't have Okay. Make a motion. Yes. Make a motion to adjourn. I'll second it. Moved and second. Any discussion? We're Raan, please. It is unanimous. George. All right. That was good. Thank you, George, for you. Yeah. Thank you, George. So much work. Fantastic. So much work went into that. Holy cow. to say he's not just a pretty face, is he? George is not just