September 2, 2020 ~ Planning Board Workshop

2020-09-02 · Planning Board · 1:53:04 · watch on YouTube →

A Durham Planning Board workshop held because no applications were pending, given over almost entirely to redrafting the town's home-based business ordinance. The board first disposed of the idea of an amnesty programme for long-standing unpermitted businesses: on the town planner George's research and advice from the Maine Municipal Association, members concluded that enforcement rests with the code officer and the select board as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, that a blanket amnesty is doubtful under Maine law, and that the board should draft nothing. It then worked line by line through the draft ordinance, settling size, employee, sign, traffic, parking and hazardous waste limits, and went through the list of nuisances one at a time, choosing to write standards tied to specific factors rather than a general nuisance clause. The odor standard was the one it could not resolve and sent back to the planner. The board declined to ban particular trades outright, agreed to rename the use a home occupation to match the state's language, added a fire and life safety requirement after public comment, and set the amendments toward the spring 2021 town meeting. It closed by discussing the two upcoming shoreland zoning public hearings and adjourned on a roll call.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:02
   Opening and purpose of the workshop

   The chair, Ann, welcomed the board to the September 2nd workshop, noting there were no applications to consider so the evening would continue work on home-based businesses and possibly get to forms. Since the last discussion the town planner, George, had circulated a memo on his findings, along with a revised draft that Ann had made further changes to.

2. 0:02
   Background on the amnesty question

   Ann (?) described the bigger-picture conversation about an amnesty programme for businesses that have operated in town for years without being properly licensed or permitted, whether deliberately or because they were given bad advice by a previous code officer. She noted the example that the town has itself given business to some of them, and that the code officer Bob had asked the board for guidance.

3. 0:02
   What the Maine Municipal Association advised

   George had reached out to MMA, which said it was unaware of anything similar anywhere, observed that the code enforcement officer and the board of selectmen hold the enforcement authority, and said the issue should be addressed outside the planning board arena. MMA (?) questioned whether blanket amnesty is appropriate under Maine law and suggested individual enforcement instead. Ann (?) said the suggestion of no action letters was one MMA frowns on, as do land use attorneys including herself, though settlements are another matter.

4. 0:02
   Enforcement as prosecutorial discretion

   Ann (?) argued the matter is not appropriate for an ordinance and would be very hard to draft. Whether the code officer writes up a business that has existed peacefully in Durham for twenty years is a function of prosecutorial discretion, as is whether the select board then takes any enforcement action, and under state law and case law that discretion lies with them rather than the planning board.

5. 5:22
   Question put to the board

   Ann (?) asked two things: whether anyone still wanted to pursue this as an ordinance, and if not whether anyone wanted to craft a memo or recommendation to the select board on how to handle it as part of their normal enforcement duties and how the board would recommend the code officer handle such cases in future.

6. 5:22
   Scale of the problem and case-by-case handling

   A member recalled a figure of 75 potential home-based businesses across the town and said going around imposing violations would be an extremely difficult task for code enforcement, with no clear timeframe or way of notifying people. His view was that until a violation becomes obvious and comes to the code officer's attention, nothing should happen, and that it should then be treated as a brand new application.

7. 5:22
   Comparison with setback violations

   The same member noted there have been building violations relating to setbacks in town where the selectmen voted to take no action and are now backtracking, having concluded that is not the way to handle it. He gave his own case as an example: forty years after building his house with proper permits, a remortgage title search found it was too close to the property line, and the selectmen fined him $100 to clear title.

8. 5:22
   Fairness objection acknowledged

   It was accepted that someone applying for a home-based business now may object that a neighbour has never had the same requirement imposed. The member's answer was that this is water over the dam and each case would have to be investigated on its own.

9. 10:36
   Where the amnesty idea came from

   Ann (?) explained the code officer had identified this as a significant concern and wanted a way to identify businesses in town and bring them into basic minimum compliance, though he already has enforcement tools and does not need an ordinance to do it. Heather had also given public comment on unpermitted businesses around town, not necessarily home-based, and whether they deserved a free pass having existed so long. Riverbend was raised as a recent case, though it had not been operating that long.

10. 10:36
    How the amnesty would have worked

    The concept discussed was a blanket programme under which a business that met set categories and voluntarily came forward to say it had been operating illegally for years would get a pass on the full ordinance standards provided it met some basics. Members agreed that without it the process for the next application would be identical to the one just handled, and that any consent agreement or decision whether to prosecute belongs to the code officer and select board rather than the planning board.

11. 10:36
    The board's limited role

    Members agreed the board does not do enforcement and only reviews applications that come to it. Ann (?) noted the select board could make it a priority to identify all businesses, do public education and outreach and bring everyone in for a consent agreement or conditional use, but said she thought the select board had other priorities at the time.

12. 15:44
    How the board would close out the amnesty question

    Ann (?) said she would report George's research and where the board came out, leaving it in the select board's and code officer's hands to prioritise as they see fit. Asked whether a vote was needed, she said no, because nothing was in front of the board and nothing was being approved.

13. 15:44
    The two open drafting questions

    Ann set out the two big-picture questions remaining in the draft: the nuisance standard, which matters more than usual because these applications will get code officer review rather than planning board review, and whether to compile a list of businesses that can never be home-based, such as an automobile garage or a dog kennel. She proposed running through the draft first and then taking nuisances and absolute prohibitions.

14. 15:44
    Comment relayed about Riverbend

    It was reported that Riverbend had gone to the selectmen and been told it was a planning board issue, with the suggestion that the procedure be identified in the ordinance and that complaint-based enforcement should require complaints in writing. Ann repeated that this is enforcement and the selectmen's jurisdiction, and said Riverbend could appeal the conditional use decision and then, depending on the outcome, pursue a consent agreement with the selectmen if it wished.

15. 20:47
    How the draft is marked up, and the two-tier structure

    Ann shared her screen, explaining that George's underlining marks changes from the current ordinance and her own additions are redlined. She recapped that George had originally set up a split between minor and major home-based businesses, but the board had decided against a three-tiered system in favour of two: either a use is a home-based business meeting a set of criteria and goes to the code officer, or it is a commercial business that follows the land use table. The land use table would allow code officer review and approval in every zone except resource protection.

16. 20:47
    Size limit

    The draft allows a home-based business to use no more than 50 percent of the floor area of all principal and accessory structures, up to a limit of 1,500 square feet, so that a house plus a garage are counted together. The board confirmed it was still comfortable with that.

17. 20:47
    Whether daycares should be exempt from the size limit

    The draft capped home daycare at 12 children or adults but exempted it from the floor area limits, and Ann could not reconstruct why. Heather (?) noted state regulations require 35 square feet per child, which for 12 children is well under 1,500 square feet, so the exemption made no practical difference.

18. 26:08
    Reasoning for keeping daycares within the limit

    Ann (?) argued the point of a home-based business is that it should still look and act like a home rather than a commercial or commercial-appearing operation, and that the easier standard is the trade-off for that. A very large daycare building serving only 12 children would defeat that, and anything larger can go through conditional use and meet those standards instead.

19. 26:08
    Employees, appearance and where standards belong

    The draft allows two employees to work simultaneously on the premises across all home-based businesses. Ann (?) explained her view that anything a business must meet belongs in the performance standards rather than the definition, and proposed moving language pulled from the old ordinance into the standards: that the use of the dwelling must be clearly incidental and subordinate to its residential use and must not alter the residential character of the structure or change the character of the lot.

20. 26:08
    Exterior effects

    No exterior display, storage of materials or other indication of a home-based business, with exceptions for outdoor activity areas for child and adult daycare, one unlit sign no greater than four square feet, and no more than two commercial vehicles parked overnight. Outdoor storage of equipment, materials and commercial dumpsters is allowed up to 1,500 square feet, screened from neighbours and access roads by fencing at least six feet high.

21. 26:08
    Traffic

    Vehicular traffic must not regularly exceed 40 daily trips, a vehicle coming and going counting as two trips. Ann removed the comparison to traffic generated by a residence, since 40 trips is roughly four times a residence, and removed the reference to the 10 daily trips of a typical single family dwelling, on the reasoning that only business trips should count and a household's own comings and goings would happen anyway.

22. 31:34
    Parking and the word occasional

    The draft allows no more than four parking spaces beyond those needed by the residents, except for child or adult daycare, which gets one space per non-resident employee and six drop-off spaces. Alan (?) objected to subjective descriptives such as no more than occasional short-term parking, saying he would not want people manipulating wording that is not specific enough. Ann (?) explained the intent was that nobody should see twenty cars parked next door all day, and the board agreed to leave the wording in place while thinking about it further.

23. 31:34
    Hazardous waste and the fallback to conditional use

    A home-based business must not generate hazardous waste beyond normal residential household quantities. Ann (?) added language stating that a business not meeting the section is treated as a commercial use and must meet the land use table requirements, to settle a disagreement with George, who had taken the view that anything not qualifying as a home-based business is prohibited. Her position is that a bakery with four employees is simply a bakery, which is probably a conditional use, and can still operate on residential property by going through that process.

24. 37:59
    The original nuisance clause and the problem with it

    George's draft barred a major home-based business from generating noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, dust, odors, heat, light, glare, electrical interference or other effects beyond levels common to a residential area at the property lines or the dwelling walls. The board's concern was how the code officer could judge that on an application on his own, when a planning board has several members and more information in front of it, and George had expressed his own concerns about asking a code officer to do it.

25. 37:59
    What neighbouring towns do

    Ann (?) read the comparisons George had gathered. Pownal bars objectionable circumstances beyond what is normally produced in the zoning district; Lisbon bars effects detectable beyond the limits of the property or above what is expected for the neighborhood; Auburn uses detectable to normal sensory perception at or beyond the property boundaries and adds a bar on interfering with radio or television reception; Freeport and Brunswick simply subject home occupations to the ordinance's other performance standards, Brunswick naming a few specifically.

26. 37:59
    Whether to have a nuisance standard at all

    Ann (?) said most surrounding towns have one and that she felt something was needed, because operating out of a home does not stop a business having a significant impact on neighbours. George had offered as an alternative or addition the option of prohibiting specific industries likely to be nuisances, such as a doggy daycare, a kennel, an automobile shop or a welding shop. A member said he was concerned about giving a free pass to any home-based business regardless of noise, odor and glare, and suggested making the nuisance standards more objective.

27. 43:06
    Choosing among George's three options

    George had offered three routes: include no nuisance standard, include a generalised one, or adopt standards related to specific nuisance factors. The board rejected the first outright and leaned to the third, with a member stressing that if specific standards are adopted they must cover all of the factors.

28. 43:06
    What standards the ordinance already contains

    Reviewing the existing ordinance, Ann found noise limits of 55 dB between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and 45 dB overnight, no glare standard, and an odor standard requiring that odors be detectable at the lot line after the air has been diluted with seven or more volumes of odor-free air, within 500 feet of the source lot line. Members observed that the town owns no equipment to measure this and joked about the code officer carrying odor-free air in a can. Ann concluded that most of these are addressed in the ordinance already and proposed going through them one at a time.

29. 43:06
    Compiling the list of nuisances

    The board agreed to first list all the nuisances it wanted to address and check whether anything was missing. Working from George's draft and the Pownal comparison, the list came to noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, dust, odors, heat, light, glare and electrical interference.

30. 48:19
    Whether landscaping and viewshed belong on the list

    A member asked whether landscaping or visual impact was covered. Ann pointed to the appearance provision barring any exterior display, storage of materials or other exterior indication of the business apart from the listed exceptions, so that in principle nothing else should need screening. A landscaping business's mulch pile would have to be within the 1,500 square feet and behind a fence, and a hair salon would have nothing outside but its sign.

31. 48:19
    Parking and glare

    Asked whether parking areas should be screened, Ann (?) noted parking is already capped at four spaces so there will be no large lot, though screening could be required if the board wanted. The member said his concern about cars coming and going was really about glare, which the board carried forward to the glare discussion. It was also observed that Durham's ordinance says little about landscaping, and that the move to site plan review had loosened the march through standards that strict conditional use had required.

32. 53:49
    Clarifying the screening question

    The exchange resolved with the understanding that everything to do with a home-based business is to be hidden or minimised from view except the items specifically listed. A member gave the examples of kennels at a doggy daycare or equipment at a car shop having to be hidden, and said that if that is covered broadly he was satisfied.

33. 53:49
    Noise

    Section 5.19 sets a maximum sound pressure level measured at least four feet above the ground at the property boundary, at 55 dB from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 45 dB overnight. Ann (?) offered context from a search: 60 dB is conversation in a restaurant or an air conditioning unit at 100 feet, 50 dB is a quiet suburb or conversation at home, so 55 sits between them. Members compared the limits with neighbouring towns, found them in line, and agreed to leave them as they are and simply cross-reference section 5.19.

34. 53:49
    How the drafting process will run

    Asked whether the board could simply change a decibel level, Ann (?) explained the process: the board drafts the ordinance as it thinks it should be, takes public comment on it, takes further public comment, and it then goes to town meeting where voters decide.

35. 59:30
    Vibration

    Section 5.29 bars normal operations from creating vibration beyond the lot boundary in excess of a charted figure that members said they could not relate to normal life. They concluded it was hard to imagine a home business generating significant vibration, that road construction is temporary rather than ongoing business, and that anything loud enough would breach the decibel limit first.

36. 59:30
    Smoke and dust

    There is no smoke standard as such; section 5.4 covers air emissions in terms of damage to health, soiling beyond property boundaries and state air emission standards. Drawing on Portland's practice with outdoor fires, Ann (?) proposed a simpler test, that visible smoke shall not cross the property line on a regular basis. For dust a member described living beside a DOT screening pile that coated her whole house without the dust being visibly seen to cross the line, so the wording was extended to cover a substantial or noticeable effect as well as visible crossing. Members noted state regulations exist for smoke and particulate matter that could also be referenced.

37. 59:30
    Fumes folded into odors

    Members agreed they could not distinguish fumes from odors in practice and that the two could be handled under odors alone.

38. 1:04:48
    Marijuana (?) raised as a future issue

    Ann relayed Heather's point about marijuana, saying that if town meeting votes to move forward with marijuana businesses the intention is a separate marijuana licensing ordinance that should address these questions. She flagged it as relevant to the later discussion of whether to bar certain industries from being home-based businesses.

39. 1:04:48
    Odors as the hardest standard

    Ann (?) said the existing standard is one the code officer could not realistically enforce. She gave the examples of people moving in above a barbecue restaurant and complaining about the smell, and of the old Portland breweries, and asked whether it is unreasonable for a neighbour to smell pie from a bakery. She set out three options: keep the existing standard, write a new one, or bar any odor crossing the property line.

40. 1:04:48
    The subjectivity of offensive

    Juliet (?) said the existing odor standard is unmeasurable and that the word she kept seeing in nearby ordinances was offensive, as in odors that are offensive or harmful by reason of their character, which she acknowledged is subjective. The board worked through how far that turns on personal taste, with pie, marijuana, manure spreading, dog waste and hair salon fumes all raised as examples, and a member noting that a farm spreading manure would be agriculture and outside the ordinance anyway.

41. 1:10:18
    Odor standard deferred

    Members agreed this was the toughest of the standards because it cannot be made objective. One suggested the offensive wording amounts to a reasonable person test that would catch most problems and push the rest to conditional use where a standard can be applied. Ann (?) said she would take a stab at drafting something and ask George whether other towns have anything more specific.

42. 1:10:18
    Heat

    Members could not think of a home business where heat would be a nuisance across a property line, noting anything that hot would produce smoke, noise or odor that the other standards would catch, and that heat does not appear in the conditional use or other standards either. The board dropped the heat standard.

43. 1:10:18
    Lighting

    The existing standard bars light placed in view of a public roadway with beams directed at the roadway of such brilliance as to impair vision, and bars lighting with a lumen output equal to or greater than a 200 watt mercury light from being directed toward the sky or adjacent properties. Members thought it adequate and connected it to dark sky requirements for shielded exterior bulbs.

44. 1:16:02
    Glare kept separate from lighting

    The board discussed whether glare could be folded into lighting. Ann (?) argued the existing lighting standard addresses light in view of public roadways and does not cover headlights, so a separate glare provision was needed, requiring parking and similar areas to be screened to avoid glare from vehicles and other sources on neighbouring properties and roadways. A member accepted keeping them separate.

45. 1:16:02
    Electrical interference

    Members were unsure what a home business could do to cause it, guessing at interference with radio, television, cell or cable reception. Ann (?) read Freeport's electromagnetic interference clause, barring any use that produces interference with the transmission or reception of electrical impulses beyond the lot lines including radio and television, subject to federal, state and local requirements. The board decided to include it in case it matters in future.

46. 1:16:02
    Landscaping (?) raised again

    A member returned to landscaping and viewshed, noting that screening appears in only one place in the draft, under outdoor storage. Ann (?) asked what else would need screening, given that signs and daycare play areas plainly should not be.

47. 1:21:31
    Why nothing further needs screening

    Ann's argument was that because no exterior display or storage of materials is permitted at all beyond the listed exceptions, the moment a property has landscaping piles outside its storage area it stops being a home-based business and becomes a conditional use, at which point the board can address screening and visual impact directly. The member accepted this but said she felt there could be things not yet thought of, and Brunswick's landscape maintenance provisions were looked at without settling anything. It was suggested that a general landscaping section may be a matter beyond home-based businesses.

48. 1:21:31
    Whether wording could be gamed

    Ann (?) acknowledged the concern that someone might argue an item is neither equipment nor materials but some other invented category, and said that is inevitable; the aim is to put in as much as possible without making the ordinance cumbersome, and anything beyond it gets kicked to the board as a conditional use.

49. 1:26:39
    Screening parking areas

    Ann (?) raised whether the four spaces, or eight for a daycare, should have to be screened or landscaped separately from the glare provision, saying she did not feel strongly. A member called it overreaching, another agreed, and the board moved on.

50. 1:26:39
    Whether to prohibit specific industries

    George had proposed barring inherently disruptive trades such as a dog kennel, an automotive garage and welding. A member questioned whether one individual welding is even a home-based business, and asked what the effect would be on the unidentified home-based businesses already operating in town.

51. 1:26:39
    Why the board declined to ban trades

    Members argued the nuisance standards would already catch welding or any bannable trade through noise, odor or vibration, making a list redundant and impossible to draw completely. A member warned that adopting a ban would put the code officer in the position of telling existing operators they must stop. Ann (?) added that lot size decides it in practice: welding on 50 acres with the house in the middle will not trouble anyone, while on a half-acre lot it will also fail the noise and other standards.

52. 1:31:45
    Shoreland zoning piece deferred

    The remaining part of George's memo dealt with home-based businesses in shoreland zoning, where he suggested keeping it to limited residential and reviewing those uses as a simple fix. The board decided to hold that conversation until George is present and Mike Morse (?) can be involved.

53. 1:31:45
    The definition

    The proposed definition is a business use performed or conducted within a dwelling or accessory structure by the residents of it, meeting the standards discussed. Ann (?) proposed removing the does not change the character language from the definition since it now sits in the performance standards.

54. 1:31:45
    Home occupation rather than home-based business

    A member pointed to the bottom of page two of George's memo, which raised whether the use should be called a home occupation rather than a home-based business, and asked whether there was any benefit to either. Ann (?) said she did not know why Durham calls it a home-based business and was content with home occupation, and members agreed it made sense to match the DEP's language and remove any argument about what counts. A note would be left for George about an inconsistent heading.

55. 1:36:55
    Public comment from Heather

    Heather (?) thanked the board, said she particularly appreciated the change in the definition, and raised safety standards for home-based businesses as something she had mentioned before and thought important if not already addressed. She also asked that whatever marijuana arrangement emerges be brought into this ordinance by amendment, as she expected it to apply.

56. 1:36:55
    Fire, explosive and access safety

    Prompted by Heather's comment and an earlier note from Alan, the board returned to fire and explosive hazards. Alan gave the example of a painter who stored materials in his garage which later caught fire. Heather (?) described having had to make her own driveway wide enough for traffic, snow removal and emergency vehicle access, and said increased business traffic makes that kind of consideration matter.

57. 1:42:08
    A fire and life safety standard instead of a prohibition

    Using a home painting business storing paints in the garage as the test case, the board agreed not to prohibit such a use but to require compliance with the applicable standards. Ann (?) proposed wrapping it into a requirement to meet all applicable fire and life safety standards, including but not limited to those on storage of flammable and combustible materials and site access, noting the state has adopted NFPA 1 and 101 which cover emergency vehicle access as well.

58. 1:42:08
    Next steps on the draft

    Ann (?) said she would clean up the draft and send it to the board and to George, with a public hearing aimed not at the coming town meeting but the one after, in spring of 2021. The two items left open were the odor standard and the shoreland zoning piece, both to be revisited once the draft comes back.

59. 1:42:08
    Upcoming shoreland zoning public hearings

    Ann (?) reported an email from Kevin and said the select board would vote the following week on when to hold the public hearings, with September 23rd in the evening and Saturday October 3rd as the proposed dates, held over Zoom. She had asked John Simino (?) to rejoin the board for that discussion because he shepherded the shoreland zoning amendments through, and he had tentatively agreed. The intention was to combine the board's hearings with the select board's ballot questions in the hope of drawing more attendance to both.

60. 1:42:08
    What the hearings can and cannot change

    Ann (?) said affected property owners would get specific mailings, a second set of notices after the first round, and that there is little flexibility because the amendments simply conform Durham's ordinance to the state's. The board's role would be listening, but mainly educating and explaining what the changes actually mean on the ground; at earlier public comment sessions residents had asked the town to pay for specific on-the-ground delineation, which she said is not possible without taxes going through the roof.

61. 1:47:23
    Secret ballot town meeting

    Ann (?) said the shoreland amendments would be voted on by secret ballot at town meeting, which would again be conducted by secret ballot because of the pandemic. She noted that if something did emerge from comment that the board wanted to change, it apparently still could.

62. 1:47:23
    Marijuana question on the ballot

    A separate public hearing would be held on whether the town wants the board to spend time drafting marijuana ordinances, split into four categories: retail, manufacturing, growing and testing. Ann (?) said the result would substantially govern the board's work, and said she hopes manufacturing does not go forward because things go boom when it is not done right and Durham has a volunteer fire department. If the town voted down manufacturing but approved cultivation, the board would work on a cultivation ordinance.

63. 1:47:23
    Other ballot questions and presentation

    Ann (?) said the remaining questions, including historic preservation and town manager, do not touch the board's work, and recommended members stay for the marijuana discussion but were free to drop off after that. She would work out with John Simino (?) and George how best to present the shoreland material, recalling that a presentation had previously been given at the town office.

64. 1:47:23
    Approach to the public

    A member said anything presented to the public is an opportunity for education and is much better received if the board puts itself in residents' shoes. Ann agreed that people are genuinely concerned about their property values and future use of their property, but said the board's hands are tied because the state has already imposed shoreland zoning and the rules already apply.

65. 1:47:23
    Motion to adjourn made

    With the hour approaching 8:30 and forms still unexamined, a member moved to adjourn.

66. 1:52:31
    No workshop in September

    Before taking the motion, Ann (?) said the board had made great progress on home-based businesses and that she had further material from Mike Morse (?) she had not yet read, which she regarded as phase two of the shoreland zoning work. Given the two public hearings and a regular meeting, she proposed not scheduling another ordinance workshop until October or November, and the board agreed.

67. 1:52:31
    Adjournment

    The motion to adjourn was seconded and carried on a roll call. Ann (?) thanked Heather for participating and Tammy for her support, and said she would email once the hearing dates were finalised.

What was decided

• 15:44
  The board will not draft an amnesty ordinance for long-standing unpermitted home-based businesses, and will not recommend an amnesty programme to the select board. Instead the chair will pass on the town planner's research and the board's reasoning, leaving enforcement to the code officer and the select board case by case. Reached as workshop consensus; the chair said explicitly that no vote was needed because nothing was in front of the board.outcome unclear
• 26:08
  Remove the provision exempting home child and adult daycare from the floor area limits, so that daycares are held to the same 50 percent and 1,500 square foot cap as other home-based businesses. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 31:34
  Keep the wording on no more than occasional short-term parking despite a member's objection that subjective descriptives invite manipulation, with members agreeing to think about it further. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 43:06
  Adopt standards tied to specific nuisance factors rather than either omitting a nuisance standard or relying on a generalised one, and work through the factors one at a time. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 53:49
  Leave the existing noise limits in section 5.19 unchanged, at 55 dB from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 45 dB from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., and cross-reference that section rather than write a new limit. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 59:30
  For smoke and dust, adopt a property line test rather than rely on the existing air emissions section: that visible smoke must not cross the property line on a regular basis, and that dust must not visibly cross the line or have a substantial or noticeable effect beyond it. Fumes to be folded into odors. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:10:18
  The odor standard was not settled. The board agreed the existing standard, which turns on dilution with odor-free air, is unenforceable, and that the word offensive used by nearby towns is subjective. The chair will attempt a draft and ask the town planner whether other towns have anything more specific.tabled
• 1:10:18
  Drop the heat standard entirely, on the reasoning that no plausible home business would produce heat that carries across a property line, and that anything hot enough would breach the smoke, noise or odor standards first. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:16:02
  Keep glare as a provision separate from lighting rather than combining them, requiring parking and similar areas to be screened to avoid glare from vehicles and other sources, and include Freeport's electromagnetic interference language in case it matters in future. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:26:39
  Do not add a separate screening or landscaping requirement for home-based business parking areas. A member called it overreaching and others agreed. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:26:39
  Do not prohibit specific trades such as kennels, automotive garages or welding from operating as home-based businesses, relying on the nuisance standards instead, which members judged would catch the same problems without penalising existing operators. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:31:45
  Defer the treatment of home-based businesses within shoreland zoning until the town planner is present and Mike Morse (?) can be involved.tabled
• 1:31:45
  Rename the use a home occupation rather than a home-based business, to match the DEP's language and remove any argument over what qualifies. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:42:08
  Rather than prohibit businesses that store flammable materials, require compliance with all applicable fire and life safety standards, including but not limited to those addressing storage of flammable and combustible materials and site access. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:42:08
  Aim the home-based business amendments at a public hearing ahead of the spring 2021 town meeting rather than the coming one, with the chair to clean up the draft and circulate it to the board and the town planner. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:52:31
  Hold no further ordinance workshop in September, given the two public hearings and a regular meeting already scheduled, and wait until October or November. Reached as workshop consensus; no motion was made and no vote was taken.outcome unclear
• 1:52:31
  Adjourn the workshop. Moved, seconded and carried on a roll call, with Wes, Alan, Juliet and Ann each voting yes.passed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 5:22
  A figure of 75 potential home-based businesses across Durham was raised, most of them never permitted. The board concluded it has no role here at all: enforcement is a matter of prosecutorial discretion belonging to the code officer and the select board, the Maine Municipal Association knew of no comparable amnesty programme anywhere and questioned whether a blanket amnesty is even lawful in Maine, and so nothing will be drafted.
• 43:06
  Durham's existing odor standard requires that odors be detectable at the lot line after the air has been diluted with seven or more volumes of odor-free air. Board members pointed out the town owns neither the odor-free air nor the instrument this would need, making the standard unenforceable in practice, and it was the one nuisance factor the board could not resolve.
• 1:42:08
  Public hearings on the shoreland zoning amendments were proposed for the evening of September 23rd and Saturday October 3rd, over Zoom, with the select board due to finalise the dates the following week and affected property owners to receive a second round of mailed notices. The chair said the amendments merely conform Durham's ordinance to state law, so there is little the board can change in response to comment.
• 1:47:23
  A separate public hearing will ask whether the town wants the planning board to draft marijuana ordinances, split into four questions covering retail, manufacturing, growing and testing. The chair said she hopes manufacturing is not approved, because it carries an explosion risk and Durham has a volunteer fire department.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 2 passages of motion language, against 17 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2020-05-06 Planning Board2021-02-03 Planning Board →All meetings