TranscriptSeptember 2, 2020 ~ Planning Board Workshop

good to go. Great. Thank you. All right, everyone. So, welcome to the September 2nd workshop of the Durham Planning Board. Uh we didn't have any applications to consider tonight, so we're going to hold this as a workshop to continue our work on the homebased businesses and also um get to some more

fun forms if we get there. So, in between the last time we talked about homebased businesses and now, George sent us um a memo on his findings um on homebased businesses. Did everybody have a chance to read that? Yes. Okay. Uh and then he also

that we had been considering. Um and then I subsequently made a few additional changes that I thought reflected our conversations. Um and then I just just sent that on to everyone. I'm sorry it was so late getting to you. So, one of the

um I one of the bigger bigger picture conversations we've been having is about a a quote unquote amnesty program for businesses that have existed in town for quite a while um but were never properly licensed or permitted either

intentionally or because they got bad advice from um from a previous code officer or something like that. Uh you know the example was given that some have even um the business the town has given them business and and so the the conversation we started having and that Bob had really asked for was some guidance around these. One of the conversations we started having is what might an amnesty program look like and what else is out there for uh for a model? And so George did

some research for us and now I'm not finding a section, there there this is not something that's typically put in an ordinance. um trying to find section of his memo. You're talking about where he talks about MMA legal services and

Yeah, exactly. bottom of uh page six. Yeah, thank you. I just found that. So, basically, he reached out to MMA. They said they're unaware of it of anything similar. They did observe that the code enforcement officer and the board of selectmen have enforcement authority. Um so this issue should be addressed outside of the planning board arena. Um he also questioned whether offering blanket amnesty um was appropriate under main law. Instead individual enforcement um I can't believe he suggested no action letters because MMA frowns on them as does all other land use attorneys that I know, myself included.

but some basically sort of of settlements. So um so in that in that context and with that framework I don't think this is appropriate for an ordinance. um it would be really hard to draft and but I understand that there may be the desire to address something um and to do something coming out of here. So, I wonder if they're

to the board of selectmen addressing the problem and um and and raising the issue for them and possibly making some suggestions on how to handle this. But really under under state law and state case law, enforcement lies with a code officer and the board of selectments, certainly not us. And this is really an enforcement issue, right? So whether the code officer chooses to write up a business that's been existing for 20 years in the town of Durham peacefully is a function of prosecutorial discretion, right? And even if the code officer writes up that notice of violation, if the board of selectmen chooses not to take any enforcement action, that is the same thing. It's it's a function of prosecutorial discretion and that lies with them, not with us. Um,

and I think that's where it should lie uh on a case-byase basis. and the board has the authority under certain circumstances to to enter into consent agreements and and things like that. So my question for you all is number

one, is anyone still interested in pursuing this as an ordinance? And if not, is anyone interested in trying to craft a memo or a recommendation to the board of selectmen on how to handle this um as part of their normal enforcement duties and as you know basically as Bob's boss and how we would recommend that Bob handle them in the future. So what are what are folks thoughts?

think the number of 75 had come up, the potential is 75 uh homebased businesses throughout the town. And that would be an extremely difficult task for a code enforcement to go around and impose uh potential violations. And what's the time frame? And how do you notify people that we would even get to that point? So I until uh it's obvious that there is a violation, it comes to the CEO's attention, then they should address it at that time and treat it as if it was uh a brand new application. That that would be my take on it. uh

and unfortunately I don't know whether if everybody is aware there have been some uh building violations in in relationship to setbacks currently going on in town and a couple of instances the select men have voted to take no action but they're kind of backtracking on that now and figuring that is not the way to handle Now I just g give you an example. Uh I've been living in my house for 40 plus years and we went through the proper

permitting when we built the house and say 20 years after we had built the house, we went through for a remortgage and the title company found out that our house was too close to the property line. So they they bas they being the select men basically find me $100 so it would clear title. So those are some things that I think that they possibly uh could become a problem and that's they being the select men only they only have that ability to determine that from

what I have read and I believe that's in our ordinance already when it comes to penalties. think there should be something specific in an ordinance, but once something is determined, whether it be a neighbor that comes up and said, look, I know this has been going on for 20 years, but there is a violation here and it needs to be investigated.

and please correct me if I'm wrong, you don't think there should be an or this should be in an ordinance. And if I hear you, I think you're saying also maybe we shouldn't even have we shouldn't recommend to the selectmen an amnesty program and it should just be addressed as it's always been addressed if there's a complaint or if there's an issue or if it gets uncovered. Um then the selectman and the code officer deal with it on a case-byase basis.

Yeah, I I believe yes, that's what I Yeah, that's what I said. And I know there's going to be some people out there that if they're applying for a homebased business right now and say, "Well, I know my neighbor has. Why are you imposing that on me and my neighbor hasn't had that imposed on them?" That's water over the dam and we would have to investigate those as on a case-byase basis.

Yeah. Okay. I pretty much think the same. Um, and as far as recommendations, I mean, I think we we could do that, but we've also got a lot of other things to do as well. So, I don't know. Um, I don't know. I I don't know if we need to necessarily do that, I guess.

Okay. Julia, what's the background? What's the background again on this? Um I mean how many have come up to us recently like with this issue? Has there been one we just considered? Certainly Riverbend is one but they hadn't been operating for that long frankly. Um so I think we've had a few

okay that have probably come up. Um this was identified by Bob as a s as a significant concern of his. He wanted a way to identify businesses in town and get them into some basic minimum compliance. Um that being said, he has enforcement tools to do that

um and doesn't need an ordinance to do that. Um but I think he was thinking it would be helpful to have one. Um, and also Heather had given some public comment as well on the issue of unpermitted homebased businesses all around town. Not even necessarily homebased, but just unpermitted business all around town and whether they deserved basically a a free pass at some point because they had existed so long or whatever. So if we have another application like the one we just saw, what would be the

process? What are we recommending the process to be? Would it be different than what we just went through? Would it be a check in first with a select board and then come to us or are we So I I think the basic idea was is that the town would create this blanket amnesty program that said if you meet X Y and Z categories and you voluntarily come to us and say hey I've been operating illegally for 25 years um and you met the basic criteria you um you would get a free pass

use if you wouldn't all of the standards in our ordinance um such as you know you just have to meet some basics I think that's how it was originally discussed and if we just keep going like we're going. We we we would if if Riverside came back would be the same. So I mean the difference is the planning board only has the authority that we have right we don't get or anything like that we get to look at now separate from coming to us

out and they work on some sort of connect agreement or um and tricky pieces on that violation from Bob for example saying hey you got to go get a conditional use permit from the planning board they never apply and and Bob and the board of selectmen need to decide are we going to this? Are we going to sue them? Are we going to take them to court on an ADK with them? Are we going to ignore it? Are we not going to exercise our prosecutorial discretion in this case? But really, that's a decision that needs to be made on the court officer board of selection side. That's not in our jurisdiction. So, we would do exactly the same thing.

Yeah. For any application. So, I agree. it's not in our hands. Um, so I I agree to um what Allan and West both said. Um, I guess one other thing, complaint basis? it's not us. No, we don't do enforcement. We just review applications that come to us,

right? So, I mean, if the board of selectman wanted to, they could say, "All right, this is our priority for this year is we want to get all we want to identify and get everybody all businesses in public education and public outreach and we want everyone in front of us for a consent agreement or we want everyone in front of the planning board for conditional use or whatever they need. Um, I think the board of selectman has other priorities right now, frankly. I don't know. There's a little bit of stuff going on in the world. Um, but that's how it would happens on this amnesty piece. I'm going

to and probably Kevin Neto just telling them research that George did for us and where we came out um and basically leaving it in their hands to prioritize however they see fit if that all makes sense. Does that sound appropriate?

Does need to take a vote on I don't think we do. There was nothing in front of us. It's not like we're approving anything. I'm basically just going to update everybody on our conversation tonight if that's all right on this piece. Okay.

I Okay, is really long um but outline some of the changes he made. and I don't quite understand what he's saying point. Um, so one of the big questions that we had, so we we had suggested a lot of changes to the ordinance. George made those. I made a few more. Um but we had a couple like two red do with the nuisance standard um because again these are going to be receiving code officer review not planning board review. So they're going to be code officer review. Um so one was

sort of that nuisance standard. it won't create any additional, you know, glare, noise, whatever from a um from a residence than a residence. That's the current standard that's in our ordinance. Um so that was one big picture. And then the other big picture question is, are we going to come up with a list of businesses that can never be a homebased business? So, for example, a an automobile garage or a dog

kennel, uh something that is inherently going to be more disruptive than you would normally expect from a residence. said he's not gonna get back in time to join us. So, if it's okay with everybody, I'd like to run through the draft first and then talk about nuisances and absolute prohibitions. Does anyone have strong feelings about that? Does that work?

The uh draft you sent, did you send that to the town email? Yeah. Do you want me to send it to your other one? No, mine. Yeah. No, not a problem. I have the older one. I'm going to share my screen so you can all see what I'm seeing. Is that all right?

Good. All right. riverbend went to the selectman was told it was a planning board issue. She thinks it needs to be identified in the ordinance or if there's a procedure etc that the selectman will deal with it and also that if it's complaint based only those complaints need to be in writing. I don't think that's our jurisdiction. I think that's that's enforcement. That's the selectman. Um, and I'm happy to leave it in their hands however they see fit. So, let me see if I can share my screen.

So, Riverbend hasn't chosen to go to the appeals. I don't know if they have or not. I haven't heard. Um, and nobody's Tammy, you don't know, do you? will appeal it and then depending on the outcome of that if he wants to pursue a consent with the selectman, he can do that. Um he had an attorney has in theory, but the selectman may not have wanted to touch it until they saw what happened with a conditional use. Um or they frankly they may not want to touch it at all and that's entirely their purview.

Right. So, and I apologize. I was saying Riverside this whole time. It's Riverbend. Yeah. focusing in California a little bit today. Sorry. All right. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Let me see if I can make it Oh, that probably did not make it better for you. There we go. How's that?

It's good. Good. So, um the the red lining is mine. George um George doesn't redline. He just underlined stuff which makes me a little baddy because then I can't tell what happened. But um so the underlying stuff is different from

our original what's currently in our ordinance. Um the red underline the red the red line and cross out is is my additions. So um initially George had So what we decided last time and everybody uh please jump in if I'm misremembering anything is originally George we had asked George and he did set up a split between minor homebased businesses and major homebased businesses and minor homebased businesses were subject to one set of standards major home excuse me major homebased businesses were subject to another set and then a conditional use or you know whatever use that wasn't homebased was subject to conditional use standards or anything else. We talked it through and decided we did not want a three- tiered system. We wanted a two-tiered system. So either you're a homebased business and you meet the set of criteria and you get to go to the code officer instead of the planning board or you are a commercial business

and you need to follow the land use table and um and go through that process if it's a conditional use or whatever it is. So, um, what we have is, uh, you know, whoops, homebased business under the conditions stated herein with review and approval by the code enforcement officer subject to these requirements. And in our land use table in every zone except for resource protection it allows

uh code officer review and approval. So size for a homebased business, it may utilize no more than 50% of all floor area of all principal and accessory structures up to a limit of 1500 square ft. Does that size still sound good to everybody?

foot house or you've got a 2,000 foot house and a thousand square foot garage, you can use up to 1500 square feet of those. um size for a home daycare is uh for either child or adult day services. No more than 12 children or adults. Um and

it's not subject to the limitations on percent and floor area of the structure utilized. I remember why we did that, but I don't know why we would do that. What do you guys think? 1500 square feet or 50%. uh building other than their home?

right. So, it's in an accessory building, correct? Do we want the accessory building to be larger than 50% of the home? Do well more, like 75% of the home. Do we So, I think I think Heather's saying that the sizes for daycarees are different. Like, there's state rags,

right? So, she's saying it's 35 square foot per child. So, what is the I think that's how we came I think we used a So, that's still smaller than 1500 square feet. Yeah, it's a lot smaller, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, that doesn't that doesn't apply. I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure out why we we did that.

So, I guess my proposal would be to take out that section, but you guys tell me what you think. substantiate it, I think we need to take it out. Does everybody think daycare should be subject to because Right. The point of a homebased business is it should still look like a home,

right? Right. it it shouldn't be this commercial operation or even a commercial appearing operation. Um, and if it is, then we have conditional use and we have standards and you have to meet those standards and that's all fine. I think the idea is that a homebased business gets an easier standard and it gets a little bit of a pass because it it looks and acts like a home. So, if you could have a, you know, 3,000 square foot daycare, maybe it's only serving 12 kids, but in addition to your, you know, small little home or large home, whatever that um or 20,000

foot daycare, right, serving 12 kids, I don't know. But either way, it seems I think those size limits seem reasonable even for a daycare. What do you guys think? think that's I do too. All right. So, we decided on two employees um may regularly work simultaneously on the premises in connection with all homebased businesses, right? So, does that look okay?

So, for the appearance, initially, I'm just going to scroll down. He took out the standards that we currently have for homebased businesses and replaced them entirely. We also I cut and pasted a definition that's currently in our homebased business in our ordinance as it exists now. And I just want to talk a little bit about what belongs in our definition if anything and what belongs in our performance standards because I think people have struggled with those in the past.

And in my mind, if it's a performance standard, if it's something you need to meet, then it should be in the performance standards as opposed to the definition. So I added and this was language I pulled from the old ordinance um for appearance the use of the dwelling for homebased business shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes. So again, that is um

uh a that's keeping with the idea that this should still look and act like a residence um and it may not alter the residential character of the structure or change the character of the lot from its principal use as a residence. And then the exterior effects I felt like went into there. So my proposal would be to delete those from the definition and we'll get to the definition in a minute. Um

standards. Is everybody okay with that? So the next one is exterior effects. Um, so there's no exterior display, storage materials, or other indications of a homebased business with the following exceptions. So, outdoor activity areas allowed for um child and adult daycare, one unlit sign greater than no greater than four square feet. I think we increased that from the last one,

right? No more than two commercial vehicles may be parked overnight. Um, I don't think we need this section, but um, and then outdoor storage for equipment, materials, and commercial dumpsters is allowed, but it may not exceed 1500 square feet, and it must be screened from the view of the neighbors and access roads with fencing that's at least six feet in height.

those pieces? Yeah. Okay. So, traffic Um, so the level of vehicular traffic generated by a homebased business must not regularly exceed 40 daily trips and a vehicle coming and going is two trips. Um, I took out the language about significantly exceed that generated by a residence because it's going to be four times that generated by a resident if we're allowing 40 trips. Um, and I also took out in addition to the 10 daily trips associated with a typical single family dwelling because I think this question focuses on the daily trips generated by the business, not the residential use. Right? So, if I have a business and I have two teenage children, my teenage children's trips don't count. Those are residential. They're they'd be coming and going whether I have the business or not. But if I have five clients a day, those 10 trips count for my business. Does that um A, does everybody agree with that

number? And B, does everybody agree with how that's written with my changes in there? Okay. more than occasional short-term parking. No more than four parking spaces beyond those needed for the residents except for a home, child, or adult daycare, which shall provide one parking space for any non-resident employee and six spaces for drop offs in addition to parking for the residents. Are you guys okay with that? That is going to result in potentially larger parking lots for daycarees, but we'll keep all other parking to no more than four spaces. I always get kind of concerned when I see it being we put descriptives in there that are subjective. When I look at not more than occasional, what's occasional mean short-term parking?

at was, you know, you're not going to have 20 cars parked there all day, right? So, if you think of a the type of a homebased business, right, like a daycare, it's drop off and pick up. And if it's a hair salon, you're there for an hour, an hour and a half or less. Um, and then you're leaving. If it's a bakery, you're stopping and you're picking up your baked goods and you're leaving. Um, I think that's what it was intended to mean. Whether that's clear enough, it may not be. So, so what do you think instead, Alan?

I know that's that's that's the battle we always come up with. if we remove something like that. But I I just don't if we have something described, I wouldn't want people manipulating it to their advantage and because we're not specific enough or

Wouldn't we sort of interpret what occasional was if it ever did become a problem though? I mean, well, it it'd be the code officer interpreting it in this case. Yeah. Yeah. The the neighbors complaining because wait a minute, they've been this vehicle, two of these vehicles have been there for a week. That's not occasional.

And that seems like a fair complaint. Yeah. Well, exactly. Uh, you know, um, I mean, I think the idea is nobody wants to look at the house next door and see 20 cars parked there all day and have it looking like a parking lot instead of a residence. I think that's the idea behind this.

Okay. Um, I'm fine with it's okay leaving it there, but I just wanted to bring it up. Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe think about it a little bit more. Okay. So, hazardous waste. A homebased business must not generate hazardous waste in amounts that exceed normal residential household quantities. Um, and a homebased business not meeting the requirements of this section will be treated as a commercial use and must meet the requirements for approval as established in uh I meant to put whatever that land use land use table is.

meant to address a little bit of the fight that George and I got into the last time where he said, "Well, if it's not a homebased business, then it's prohibited." And I said, "No, if it's not a homebased business, it's a conditional use or subject to our land use table." Um, and so this was my attempt at making that clear that all right, so if you have four employees and you want to run a bakery, you're not a homebased business, you're a bakery. So, go look at the land use table and see what it is for a bakery, right? And it's probably conditional use. Um, so then you got to go to the planning board. And if you want to run a hair salon and you have, you know, three employees or you want to run a really big daycare, um, it's not that you can't do it on your residential property, it's that you then have to go to the land use table and see what you have to do there. Does that A, does that make sense? And B, does that language

get us there? Okay. nuisances. I'm going to stop sharing for a minute. so our original ordinance. Now, why can't I find it? first time. 727. actually before that. I don't see he's got a So many emails. Oh, I know. I just searched for George in my inbox.

I did delete this one and start with a new one. And there's about a hundred. Sorry. That's why I had hoped he was going to redline what we had looked out. There it is. I did save it on my desktop. So originally George had actually let me share this screen so you guys don't have to find it as well.

he had this section on nuisances that says um a major homebased business must not generate any noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, dust, odors, heat, light glare, electrical interference or other effects such that levels common to a residential area exceeded beyond the property lines or beyond the walls of the dwelling. So, the concern that we talked about was

um well, how's Bob going to decide if this is going to generate glare or noise that exceeds normal residential use when he's reviewing an application? And it it might be one thing for the planning board to look at those factors because there's a bunch of us and we're getting all this information, but how's Bob gonna do it? And so the request we had

to George was what do what do other towns do? So George basically expressed his concerns about having a um a code enforcement officer do this um and then gave us a few examples from other towns. So panel in the definition has objectionable circumstances such as noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical, blah blah blah shall not be produced beyond what is normally produced in the zoning district. Lisbon has the home occupation shall not generate all of this bad stuff

um which are detectable beyond the limits of the subject property or above what is expected for the neighborhood. Auburn has uh it won't generate all these bad things. Um detectable to normal sensory perception at or beyond the property boundaries. Home occupation shall not interfere with radio or television reception. I don't know how it would do that. Um and then Freeport basically says home

occupations are subject to um other performance standards in the ordinance. Brunswick says it has to meet the other performance standards um with a few specific ones, you know, construction, noise, smoke in particular matter, odors, etc.

So, it looks like um it looks like most of the folks around us have a nuisance standard. And I I feel like it's important to have something, right? Just because you're doing it out of your home doesn't mean it's not going to be terrible for your neighbors. um and have a significant impact on your neighbors greater than what would happen if if it if you were just using it as a residence. Um,

alternative that George also proposed which was and not necessarily just an alternative but it could be an and or um prohibit specific industries that are likely to be nuisances like a doggy daycare, right? Or a kennel or a automobile shop or a welding shop or a um you know, take take your pick. Something that's going to be really noisy or put off a lot of odor or things like that. So, so what do you guys what do you guys think about the nuisance standards just having them in general? I understand the concern that the code officer has to implement it, but I also

I'm really concerned about implementing uh basically a free pass for any type of homebased business regardless of of noise and odor and and glare considerations. So I feel like we can cover all bases if we make the nuisances more subjectified. Is that a word? Instead of

subjectified or objective, I don't know. Yes. Yeah. So, so you know instead of saying above normal or you know beyond what's in a residential area, you know, if we can make them more um specific, um I think that will help the CEO out um

and we'll have something to um lean against, you know, when we we have applications that have these issues. Okay. Um, and I I would say for all of the nuisances, I think we can find some some data and details that we can add to them.

So, and he gave us three different options. He gave us the do not include a nuisance standard, which I don't think that that's acceptable. Yeah. And he said include a generalized nuisance standard and then adopt standards related to specific nuisance factors.

Yep. uh the I'm kind of leaning to adopting uh the specifics, but in do in doing that, I want to make sure that if we adopt that, we're covering all of them. Yeah. So, I think you and Juliet are on the same page. Um what do you think, Wes?

as well. Okay. As a I mean adopting specific standards would the performance standards be adequate or they would have to be sort of based to the homebased business lower threshold or I don't know. I think we probably have to look at them one by one. Right. So, um, you know, our noise limits are actually fairly low. They're 55 dB

between 7 a.m. and 700 p.m. and 45 between 700 p.m. and 7 a.m. Um, let's see what else. I wonder if we have a glare standard. specific. have no idea what that what it means, frankly. Um, we do not. So, we do have an odor standard. No person shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air contaminants so as to result in detectable odors at the lot line with a source which are measured in excess of the following limits. I don't know how anyone would enforce this for areas used for residential or commercial within 500 feet of the lot line of the source. It's a violation if odors are detected after the air has been diluted with seven or more volumes of odor-free air. Who's going to provide that?

Of odor-free air. Yeah, I'm sure Bob's just going to carry it around in a can. Um, oh boy. Wow. There's a centtoometer that I'm sure we do not own. Uh, so there I guess it's a long way of saying most of these are addressed

in um in the ordinance already. time and see if we were okay with what they say or if we think something needs to be different. Yeah. Or I mean, what do you guys What do you think? I think I think that's what we should do. Um, that's my vote. Um, the first thing I think we should do is list all of the um, nuisances that we want to talk about or maybe there's some that we we need to add or, you know, do we have everything we're comfortable with? You know, is everything in there that that we've been hearing about, you know, that we seen issues on?

All right. Well, let me let me take what George had originally drafted for us and make a list. So we had smoke, fumes, dust, heat, light, glare, electrical interference. Let's see what he found on some of our others. So, let's see. Poel, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electro disturbance, odors, heater, glare. I think we've got all of those.

Are we concerned about radiation? Oh, I'm not sure what folks would be doing that would give off radiation. I don't know. an X-ray tech out of their home. Let me let me share my screen again. Is landscaping or view in there?

It's not other than the buffering for outside storage and maintenance areas. mean like a viewshed, right? The visual impacts that is a type of impact. Well, right now we have there must be no exterior display, no exterior storage materials and no other exterior indications of a homebased business with the following exception. So in theory there shouldn't be anything that needs to be screened except for this you know the out except for these specific pieces. So outdoor play areas, commercial vehicles if you have them. Um

so so we're saying that you people shouldn't see any of that? Any of what? Any anything relating to their homebased business, right? other than these exceptions, right? So, if you run a landscaping business, your mulch pile is within 1500

square feet and it's behind a fence. If you have, you know, a hair salon, you've got a sign and that's about it. What about parking areas for homebased businesses? So, we don't have a requirement that those are screened, but we can. So, parking right now is you can't have more than four parking spaces. So, you're not going to have a huge

be screened in some way if you wanted. Yeah. I guess I'm tying into the glare, aren't I? You know, thinking of the cars coming and going, the glare. So, that's maybe under the glare part. Um I'm just looking at, you know, Brunswick and Freeport and that is, you know, the landscaping is a we don't talk too much about it in our ordinance.

No, we absolutely don't. Right. So I just wonder is kind of funny you know like that's you know like start at the bottom of the pile. Well, and it's a little hard because now that we've moved to site plan, it's all don't have whereas when we were doing strict conditional uses and all of the standards were in conditional uses, we had, you know, we marched through our standards. So, all right. So, let's start. Um, for nuisances, is this at least the right list? noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, dust, odors, heat, light, glare, electrical interference.

away? and explosive hazard. Yeah, I don't know. Let me add a note in there. Fire has it. Yeah, that What is that? Storing of chemicals in a paint shop. Yeah, maybe. right now we have a standard in our ordinance. Where' it go

property line. Ann, I'm really sorry. I I can't I sorry. Going back to landscaping. So I'm looking at 5.16. Is that still in here or did we take that out? The landscaping part? I don't What are you What are you talking about?

No, in our regular ordinance. I think that's that's in there. Okay, Yeah, that's under performance standards. I don't really know how that would come into play, but quiet. Let you go. No, don't. I mean, that's it's important.

What were you sort of having at with that? Well, I guess so. I guess what you're saying, Anna, is that any homebased business is supposed to have all of its facilities um hidden from view or minimized from view except for a couple of things like you mentioned. Is that right?

Yep. Okay. So, yep. The pieces that are specifically in the ordinance, right? Okay. So, if that's in there, then that covers I'm thinking, you know, like um a doggy daycare, you know, if you've got, you know, kennels all around, you know, I mean, aside from the noise, but, you know, people don't want to see maybe dogs running around in their in their neighbor's yard, you know, so that's supposed to be hidden. Someone that's got, you know, maybe some sort of car shop or something. So, all of that equipment has to be hidden, etc. Okay. So if that's covered broadly

then I feel better. Yep. So thank you. Okay. So should we talk about noise? So that's in 5.19 for anyone who has the ordinance up. Um so this is uh maximum permissible sound pressure level of any continuous regular or frequent or intermittent source of sound. Um sound levels shall be measured at least 4 feet above the ground at property boundary of the source. So, they can exceed 55 dB from 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 45 dB from 7:00 p.m. to a 7 a.m.

quiet. So, I just Googled um examples. So, 60 dB is conversation in a restaurant office, background music, air conditioning unit at 100 ft. 50 dB is a quiet suburb, conversation at home, large electrical transformers at 100 ft. So 55 is sort of in the middle of that.

right? It's it's not loud, especially for during the day. I mean, and if you had I mean, frankly, if you were my neighbor, you would hear me yelling at my dog at way louder than 55 dB throughout the day. or children or you know

whatever. So do we think that is reasonable for a homebased business or do we think it needs to be quieter just decide to change or would this require more input. What do you mean input? Do you want to ask George to do more research?

No. Can we just change the level like that? Is that something we can I mean, so what the process that we're going to go through is we're going to draft this ordinance the best we think it it should be. We'll take public comment on it. um and we'll take more public comment on it and then it'll go to town meeting um and they'll decide

current again can you show that table again real quick? Yeah, Yeah. Yeah. 55 to 45. Okay. I mean, I'm looking at others nearby and that I mean seems to be really what we are. Um that seems to be what others have. the way it is.

Yeah, I'd leave it as is. Yes. Okay. So, we'll just say they have to meet the standards in 5.19, right? Okay. Sorry, I'm not meaning to make everybody dizzy here, but it's too late. All right. Vibration is the next one. We do not do we have a did I say we add a standard for vibration? We do. So section 5.29 of our current ordinance. Uh this does not mean a whole lot to me. So but it's basically it it normal operations shouldn't cause or create a vibration at or beyond the lot boundary line which is an excess of

chart. I can't I can't relate this to normal life at all. Uh is anybody else? No. But I I think we kind of looked over these tables just to kind of check their accuracy. So I'm kind of banking a little bit on that. So you guys are okay. I mean honestly what what do we think this is gonna

Right. It should be the what homebased business is somebody gonna do that's going to create a ton of vi I mean the only the only uh vibration I've experienced with a subdivision is creating a road and basically vibrating the the gravel so it has to be done.

Yeah. And I think that's right that's temporary construction that's not ongoing business. So, I mean, maybe I don't even I don't even know what kind of industry you'd be doing out of your home that's generating significant vibration.

Uh, unless you had amplifiers and you had someone doing rock and roll. Yeah. But even then, you've probably got you're probably exceeding the decibb before you're exceeding the vibrations, right? You need to put in parenthesis only good vibrations.

Um, how about smoke? So, this I could see something. We could see like um metal smithing or um something like that. There's no standard for smoke, is there? There isn't. Section 5.4 has one for air emissions. Um it basically says no emission of dust, ash, smoke or other particulate matter blah blah blah shall be allowed which can cause damage to human or animal health blah blah blah which can cause soiling beyond the property boundaries or fail to meet or cannot meet the air mission standards set by the main department. So, I will tell you in Portland, and I'm just using this by analogy, for example, with outdoor fires, like fire pits and things like that, they'll shut you down if you have smoke drifting across your neighbor's property line. Not the odor, but like visible smoke.

emission section doesn't seem to help me a whole lot, but I wonder if that's a reasonable standard that visible smoke shall not cross the property line on a regular basis, right? Does that make sense as a standard? I think so.

I don't really know how fumes and odor are different. Yeah, the same thing. We could probably get by with just odors. Okay. Is everybody okay with that? Yeah. All right. So dust what um what do you think about the same standard the dust shall not cross visibly cross the property boundary on a regular basis? I mean part so I live next to that horrible pile that DOT piled and I will tell you that when they were um screening and everything else like my entire house had a layer of of dust on it everything in my house but you couldn't see it visibly cross the property line

till it settles right exactly so maybe um visibly cross property line or the effect of sense? So it it won't visibly cross a property line or see I'm going to say substantial or noticeable Yeah. Yeah. I agree with that. Um, looking at looking at smoke and actually I think there's some for dust. There are state regulations.

Um, you know, that shouldn't be exceeded. So, I don't know if we want to add that in there as well. Um, yeah. Or if we just want to make it, you know, um, property line standard. Yeah, at least for smoke and particulate matter. Um,

yes, there are measurable DP um regulations and I would think the same for dust and fumes. I may be wrong about the dust and fumes, but um but at least I like what you've got. Not, you know, nothing across property line.

Yeah. Um, Heather actually has a good point about marijuana. Um, and coming up, I think if the town meeting votes to move forward with marijuana businesses, I think the idea is to have a separate marijuana licensing ordinance that should address all of this. But it's actually something that I want us to talk about when we get to our next section about um

whether we want to ban certain certain types of industries as being homebased businesses and instead require them to go through full conditional approval or whatever it it winds up being. And I think marijuana is going to be a good one for us to talk about um when we get there, but it is a really good point.

this one's hard to measure. Is hard to measure. Um where' my standard go? And frankly, I think the standard in here, I think if you showed it to Bob and said, "Hey, how would you enforce that?" Yeah. He he'd give you a look like you had three heads, understandably so.

So, but for me, right, so like I have had people who move in above a barbecue joint and then complain about the smell of barbecue versus like in the old days the breweries when on days they were brewering brewing in the old port the entire old port wreaked. Um,

the old days you mean like pre- March? Yeah. So I was thinking like 15 years ago, but yeah, even pre-arch sometimes. Um, you know, so so right, like a bakery, is it unreasonable to think that somebody might smell pie wafting across their property line?

Wow. Whereas you could certainly smell pie wafting across your property line if you live next to me or to somebody else. Um, but I can also see someone saying,"Well, I don't, you know, I don't want to smell marijuana." That's there are people with allergies to marijuana. I don't want to smell, you know, an automotive garage. I don't want to smell whatever the business may be that that may use chemicals or something else. So,

I I think we have a couple options. I think we can stick with the odor standard. we have which is is not enforceable because we just don't have the equipment but it's in theory enforceable. We could come up with our own standard

or we could say zero odors crossing the property line. All right. I don't know how you would control that. Like business. So if they did have odors, they would probably just come to us for conditional use. And we'd say, "Okay, it's pie and you bake twice a week. We don't you know, you get your conditional use approval."

Juliet. What do you think? Um, I mean, I think that what we've got for odor is crazy. Um, and we can't we can't measure it. Um, and looking at others nearby, they have the word that I keep seeing is offensive. Um, regularly emit odors that are offensive or harmful by reason of their character. Um, you know, again, pretty subjective, but

yeah, I think that one that's going to be really right. So, if you don't like pie, pie is pretty offensive. If you don't like pot, pot's pretty offensive. If you do like pot, this is not an offensive odor, you know. And you have to be if you're trying to restrict something. If you looked at a farm that's spreading manure, some people would find that very offensive, but

it dissipates after two or three days, right? It's just we have to be very careful with that. Yeah. And you know, a farm would be agriculture, so it wouldn't even be but like dog waste, right? So, yeah. Or if you're running a K, you know, if you're running a kennel or um I don't know, the fumes from a hair salon, like the stuff they used to call your hair stinks. I don't know if it'd go outside of the building, but

I don't know. This is a tough one. This is the toughest one I think that we have because we can't objectify it. see if we can uh throw that back at George and see if there's something specific out there from other towns.

Okay. I don't know whether Well, let's at least let's at least kick this one kick this can down the road. just to go sorry with the the offensive in nature. I mean, wouldn't that be sort of a reasonable person kind of argument? Like,

yeah, who's going to argue pie is an unreasonable smell order? Um, had someone argue about barbecue, right? Literally complains about barbecue. Probably. We're hungry all the time. Yeah. I don't know. I think that catches a lot of it, though. I mean occasionally there's something that comes up that's maybe out of that reasonable

uh category but I think something like that would would probably catch most of the issues and and uh and like said kick them to conditional use where they you know we can kind of apply a standard or point to a standard at least. Uh, I don't know where we're going to get the free free uh odor free air, but

yeah. Okay. Maybe something like that. All right. Maybe I'll take a stab at that and see if George has any other thoughts, too. Um, heat. blacksmithing or forging or welding or I don't know. So much though that heat is would be a nuisance.

I I mean you need to be pretty close to the You need to be pretty damn hot to even have an impact across property lines. Yeah. And it's whatever it is that's that hot is probably going to cause smoke, maybe some noise and certainly uh some odor. So,

I don't know. Can you think of an example where heat would be a nuisance? We don't even really have it in any of our other standards like our conditional use or anything like that. Do we want to just get rid of this standard?

I I would. Yeah. Okay. basically saying no light shall be placed in view of any public roadway so its beams are directed on the roadway if they're of such brilliance to impair vision. Lighting with a lumen equal to or greater than a 200 watt mercury light shall not be directed towards the sky or adjacent properties.

really We're probably talking about building lights, lights on structures, Use that at all? I mean that seems like a fairly adequate standard that would catch most if not all. I was interested when I I had read this earlier when it talked about the lighting with a loom output equal to or greater than 200 watt mercury light shall not be directed shall not be directed towards the sky.

the dark sky lighting requirements like where your your exterior lighting has to have covering on that bulb. So you're so to avoid light pollution. Well, when you when you mentioned landscape lighting, that's why I brought it up. Right.

that section? We think that's enough. Yeah. glare. parking area shall be screened to avoid glare or parking in similar areas? So, why wouldn't we combine that with lighting? Lighting addresses about the view of public roadways.

This should be more maybe cars pulling in and out or Right. right? Or light bouncing off of something shiny. I don't know. somebody could similar areas must be screened to avoid glare. um from vehicles and other sources on neighboring properties and roadways. Did that get us there? Okay,

sounds good. And then electrical interference like I don't even Are you using giant magnets? Like I don't know what this is. probably this will never be a problem. Like it should probably go away, right? Like what would create this? What would create electrical? What could you possibly be doing in your home?

It would create electrical interference with your neighbor, right? It would be a had to be a very high voltage magnet. I think they're thinking maybe radio, TV things, right? That would that would impact, you know, cell service or cable or something like that maybe.

Freeport has one on electromagnetic interference. Let me see if I can pull that up. thought. How about we combine light and call it lighting and glare? Because I think like Alan mentioned, it's a lot of that is covered. The glare part is covered in the lighting part. You know,

I don't think the glare part is covered in the lighting part, but it's it's coming from a light or it's coming from a headlight, right? Yes, it could come from a headlight or a a stationary light, right? Glare doesn't, right? But I don't think the lighting standard in our ordinance addresses something from like headlights.

Yeah. No, no lights in view of any public roadway or street. No, you're right. No, you're right. It doesn't. It doesn't. I think we need to add the glare part, but I guess what I'm saying is combine those two. So, it says lighting and glare. I don't

I think glare's got to be separate because we're gonna we're gonna revert to 517 for the lighting which addresses that. I think glare's probably got to be separate or you Okay. It's not a big deal. It's not a big deal. I mean, you refer to the section for lighting and glare could be a blur, but should

Yeah, that's all I was thinking was adding them together and then glare would just be a little part underneath it, but not a big deal. Sorry. Sorry to bring it up. electromagnetic interference. It says no use activity or process shall be conducted which produces electromagnetic interference in the transmission or reception of electrical impulses beyond the lot lines including radio and television. You have to meet federal, state, and local requirements. I we can stick it in. I just it doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Yeah. The only thing I'm thinking is maybe does this mean something in the future? You know, I don't know. Probably not, but uh we could put it in there and have it just in case. You guys okay with reports language? have many issues with it. Maybe.

Okay. Uh, anything else on nuisances better. Okay, I'm going to bring it up one more time. I'm sorry. I'm just going to bring it up one more time because I'm looking I'm looking at our at what you've got on the screen right now and I don't see anywhere where we we talk about landscaping or or viewshed impacts. I see that we talk about it a little bit under um number three under appearance where we say there must be no exterior display, no exterior storage of materials, etc. But we only bring up the landscape landscape part or screening in one part of that and that's under D. That's that's the only part I see in this whole thing.

Yep. So, so I guess that's the question. Do you think that outdoor activity areas for daycare should be screened? Do you think that signs should be screened? No. Do you think No. No. No. But I feel like what we're what you're saying isn't really what this is saying. You know, I think that it's saying um

certain things out there and the only things that need to be screened is this outdoor storage. right. So what else do you think should be screened with landscaping? So, it could be anything. And I I you know, I don't know because I don't have anything really in front of me, but it could be above and beyond outdoor storage. It could be above and beyond materials and commercial dumpsters,

but then you can't have it at all. It's not a homebased business at that point, right? So, if you have piles of landscaping materials outside of your storage area, you're not a homebased business anymore because you can have no exterior displays and no exterior storage materials. So, the minute you have that, you're not a homebased business anymore. You're a conditional use. So, I I guess I'm not understanding what you think needs to be screened that

I just I I feel like there could be some there could be things that we're just not thinking of. you know, you know, and we don't we're not covered, but um I don't have anything on the top of my head right now, you know. Okay.

So, is there another provision that you think we need to add in? I feel like we should add a landscaping part and I'll I'll I can give you a couple of examples. Um if you go to or um under so Brunswick has landscape maintenance um

um so what does Brunswick say? screens, and plant materials required to be installed or protected by this ordinance and then it's cut out, so doesn't really talk too much. I I don't know what the rest of that says, but um you know, they have a section that talks about landscaping um

specific to homebased businesses. Um I think it's It's in general. So yeah, you know, maybe this is above and beyond homebased. I think maybe that's what I'm hearing, you know, is maybe we shouldn't take this on right now during homebased business.

Well, so if they don't meet the the standard in D, they come to us for a conditional use where we could then make that decision about screening. Is that right, Ann? basically. Yeah. I mean, that's one of our pieces for conditional use or site plan um is

how it fits in and the visual impact it has on on the neighbors. we'd have a we'd have a way of addressing something above and beyond what we have there. D, I get what you mean about, you know, are we missing something in the words of equipment or materials? Could someone say, "Oh, this isn't equipment or material. It's some other category I'm going to make up, so I can leave it here."

Um, you know, I think that's inevitable, right? Yeah, it's true. We're really putting as much as we can in there without making it cumbersome. It's probably going to capture most if not all of the things that um go above and beyond a homebased business certainly um and kick it over to us to to uh um the conditional use.

Yeah. I mean the only the only other piece that we might want to think about is the parking and you had identified that earlier. It's not allowed to have more than four parking spaces or six for um pro well it'll probably be eight for a daycare. So that's the only other outdoor piece that maybe we want to require to be screened or landscaped or or something. But I I think the rest of it is just not allowed.

It's covered. You feel like it's covered? I do. Okay. I mean, you just you can't have exterior to anything really un except for those four things. So, three things. Four. Okay. So, do you guys think we need to add something to parking?

Well, we kind of address the parking when we address the glare, right? I mean, the glare is you've got that covered perspective, but Okay. Well, and I mean, there might be some value, right? Maybe I don't want to look at my neighbors eight parking spaces. So, even separate from glare, maybe there's a reason to have them screened, but I don't feel strongly about it. But you guys tell me.

I think that's overreaching personally. Me, too. Okay. I mean, move on. Move on from that. that George had raised is do we want to um prohibit specific industries from being homebased businesses? and he identified a few examples including a kennel, you know, a dog kennel. Um,

an automotive garage, I don't remember the other one that he welding things that are sort of inherently going to be more disruptive than others. I don't think we're going to be able to catch all of them certainly. And we so we do have the nuisance standards, but um it it may get us further.

But what do you guys what do you guys think some of the homebased the unidentified homebased businesses that we already have in town and how or would we be impacting those if we put standards out there? Welding for an example for me is it's when one individual is doing welding homebased business. Is it a homebased business? I I struggle with that.

probably gonna, you know, I think weed on a as a complaint would arise. I think um the nuisance standards, I mean, welding or any of the businesses that we could could ban are probably going to be banned because they cause noise, odor, vibration, something that's in the nuisance standard. So it seems a little bit redundant and I agree with Alan that you know we could never possibly guess at it what you know we should put in there for um you know obviously cover some of it but I don't know that that's really necessary and the other issue is the existing businesses would that sort of by banning these um these uses would that obviously ly have a negative impact on on those businesses that may not be affecting their neighbors much at all. Um so I don't know I don't I'm a little

up in the air about that. Yeah. I think we really have to be care if we ban something that is existing uh and it becomes part of our ordinance then it's a responsibility of the CEO to go out and say hey I have a new ordinance here and you can't provide this anymore

well it wouldn't impact existing but if for example a business had been pre-existing and never got approval and then they had to come to us for approval they would no longer be able to do it. But um but yeah, I I agree with you guys. I think our standards are catching it. And even even some of the ones that George suggested, right, I think they'd be a problem on a small lot, but if you have 50 acres and your house is smack dab in the middle of it and you want to do welding, your neighbors aren't going to know, nor are they going to care. If you have a teeny little halfacre lot and you're doing welding, your neighbors are going to care, but you're also going to not meet the noise and the other standards that we've set out.

So, I think I don't think we need them. Um, but is everybody else okay with that? Yeah. Yeah, I'm good. Okay. Um, so the last piece to George's memo that I haven't read carefully in a while businesses and shoreland zoning,

for now he says keeping it limited residential and just review for those HVs in the shorland zoning would be simple fix. Yeah. So I don't I don't you feel we need to expand on it any more than that? that may be a conversation to have later when George's here when we have Mike Mors actually.

Yeah. Um so the last piece is the definition. and propose a business use performed or conducted within a dwelling or accessory structure by the residents thereof. That must meet the standards or that meets we were just talking about does that and then I would take out the accessory and does not change the character. I think that needs to go in and we just put that in our standards. Um, does that as a definition make sense to everybody?

Could you screen share that in just like Oh, sorry. Forgot I stopped. tell what you guys are looking at because I can I can like look at other things and you're still seeing this one screen. So, um, so how does that work?

Okay. Um, anything else that we want to talk about on homebased businesses? I am gonna once we're done, Heather is still on with us. So, I'm going to ask if she has anything. Um, I don't think we have anyone else. Nope. Um, but any anyone else from the board have anything else on this one

that you want to talk about or think about or Just for clarity, the at the bottom of page two of George's memo, he talks about uh just being called home occupation versus a homebased business. and whether or not we should be allowed. Is that just an approval or is there a benefit to calling it homebased business versus home occupation? Should we

I actually don't know why we call it a homebased business. I'm fine with calling it a home occupation. Do you guys you mean to mirror up with the D? Yeah. And also I mean homebased business Did we argue once that because it was an accessory apartment, it was not technically a homebased business? I vaguely remember some conversation.

I don't remember that, but my memory is terrible, frankly. probably not be uh you know anything's too serious but um it just maybe to get in line with the D's language as well as eliminate any questions about what a home it's a home occupation not a homebased business

okay is everybody okay with that the header here D shorland's only standards for homebased business. So, which which is it? I don't know what I would have I'll just leave a note for George to look at it. Yeah, let's be consistent with the I agree with being consistent with the DP.

Yeah. Whatever the verbiage is. Good lord. on this one? add or any public comment on this one? Um just a couple of things. I wanted to say thank you. I think you guys have done a great job and um I appreciate the change in the wording of the definition especially. Um, I don't have what you guys have in front of me to look at and I I mentioned once about safety standards for homebased business. It it you it may be addressed and I just don't have it to look at, but um I think that that's important to consider if it doesn't hit any of those boxes. Um, there was one other thing. What was I thinking of? I don't know. I guess that's like a safety the safety hazards. Um, I do think those are those are important if they haven't been addressed. And then just making sure if we are going to have some sort of marijuana situation

that somehow that gets put into an amendment or whatever because I do think that's going to definitely apply here. Okay. Thank you. Thanks guys. Have a good night. Thanks for letting me be part of this. I appreciate it. Um, so actually I had a note and I forgot to go back to it. So thank you Heather for reminding me. We did talk about fire and explosives and Heather mentioned general safety standards. Um, I'm going to reshare that. Sorry I spaced on that and thank you for reminding me.

uh, fire or explosive. Is there anything hazardous chemicals hazardous so I guess I was thinking Whoop sorry no go ahead okay I was thinking more like um I know for myself personally one of the things that I had to comply with was making sure that my driveway was wide enough to be able to facilitate the traffic and proper snow removal and stuff like that so that emergency vehicles would be able to access um and that type of thing. So, I think there's those kind of safety concerns and then also um if there were any fire hazard type things happening um just that emergency vehicles would be able to access the business or the home. I mean, we would hope that that would be the case anyway, but if someone's, you know, doing a business and there is increased traffic and that type of thing that could happen, I think those things just need to be considered.

board, I know you thought you were done. I'm sorry. Let's talk first about explo fire and explosive hazards because that I think Alan mentioned that specifically and I flake. Do we want to have a specific standard on something like that?

I think most most of that for explosive hazards is storage of if you're looking of painting materials. Uh actually I I I knew there was an individual he was a painter and he had stored things in his garage and eventually he his garage caught on fire but there should be some precaution there that's for sure to storage. So using that as an example,

would we want to prohibit someone like so say I have a home painting business, right? And I store all my paints in my garage and I have one employee and I use this as my office and I sometimes bring clients here to show them paint samples or whatever, but I store all my paints in my garage and this is my homebased business. Do we want to say that I can't have that as a homebased business or do we want to say that I need to meet like the NFPA standards for storing

flammable and yeah I would I I exact would say that you'd have to meet the standards. Okay. I would I wouldn't prohibit it. And so I think we can wrap all of that up into basically fire and life safety compliance. Um, I don't know how much our fire chief is doing currently, but you know, the states adopted NFPA one and 101 and

it covers a lot of that. So, um, so maybe if we loop in and that also covers, you know, access Heather was talking about access to the site for emergency vehicles and things like that. It covers all of that. and does that get us there? Must meet all applicable fire and life safety standards including but not limited to those addressing storage of flammable and conduct bustable materials, site access and other requirements.

Good. Okay. So, I am going to clean this up a bit. I'll um send it to the group. I'll send it to George. We will um those items that we wanted to have a public hearing on before not this town meeting, but the following town meeting. So, spring of 21. Um great. Good work, guys. Did we did we punt on one or did we have a question that we kind of wanted to throw at George?

So, I think we settled that one. That was the odors one, right? Um, and I and maybe we will. Let's just look at this one more time. Um, because I'll clean it up and I'll have George look through it as well. Oh, and we did punt the shoreland piece. So, I guess we'll we'll clean it up and we'll look at it one more time and and have a conversation about the shoreland piece.

Yeah, sounds good. And the different subject, uh, the public hearing coming up on the 23rd. Is that going to be Zoom? Yep. So, let's talk about that. Um, we just got an email from Kevin. They are voting on it, I think, next week. When to hold the public hearings. So, what um I talked to Kevin and we talked about combining all the public hearings for our issues and the issues that they have on the ballot in the hopes of getting more public attendance at at both um both our stuff and their stuff. So, really um I've asked John Simino to rejoin us for that conversation because he really shephered through the process on those shoreline zoning amendments. Um, and I was not probably as involved as I should have been, but uh, he has tentatively agreed because he is a saint. Um,

depending depending on timing for him. So, this will be similar, you know, as we were drafting those Shorland zoning amendments and approving them. We had some public feedback and some public concerns and I think it'll be pretty similar. Um folks are going to get um folks whose properties are impacted will get specific cards

mailings about the public hearings. So it will really be us. Honestly, there's not a lot of flexibility in what we did. We just conformed it to the state. So it's not really like we can make any changes um in response to public comment. So I think our role is going to be listening to it um but also educating and explaining why we did what we did, what the actual impact on the ground is. You know, when we held the first public comments, we got a lot of, well, we want, you know, we want the town to pay for a very specific on the ground delineation and and why that's that's not possible and why our taxes would go through the roof if we were going to do that and really how it works on the ground. So, um, are folks available for those two dates? I think it's September 23rd and October 3rd. October 3rd is a Saturday. Um,

so it's not definitely on date yet. They're going to vote to finalize it next week, but I those are the two proposed dates, September 23rd in the evening, and then October 3rd, which is a weekend. So, I thought the affected property owners already had notices sent to them.

They did. Um, I suspect our process got a little muddled and whether that was COVID or whether that was it's the first time we've done Shoreland zoning amendments in forever, I'm not sure. Um, but yes, they did. So, this will be the second set of notices they get.

Um, and then it'll get voted on by secret ballot at town meeting. Um, town meeting is going to be through through secret ballot again. because we're still in the middle of a pandemic. So, I think our job is really going to be to to educate and to answer questions and to hear feedback and if there is something that we can change and we want to consider changing it, um we can apparently still do that. Um so, those are the two public hearings. They are also holding a public hearing on just the question of whether the town wants us to spend time drafting

marijuana ordinances. um whether they want to do I think they split split it into the four groups the retail manufacturing growing and um testing and I think that will help govern our work substantially moving forward because if the town is not the voters are not super interested in manufacturing which frankly I I really hope we we don't wind up moving forward with manufacturing um things go boom when it's not done right and

we have a volunteer fire department who is wonderful but uh they don't need to be dealing with that. So for example, if the town voted down manufacturing but voted up cultivation, we would craft we would work on crafting cultivation ordinance that addresses all of the issues that that come with that. Um that's the other big issue that will impact us. And then there are a couple others that that don't really touch on us including historic right

preservation issues and um town manager. So basically if if you guys are available for our portion that would be great. I would recommend you stay for the marijuana discussion because it will be relevant to our work but after that if you want to drop off you certainly can. Um, and I, um, I'm probably going to work with John to, uh, see which one of us is going to do a little dog and pony show because I know at one point I think he and George had an entire PowerPoint on this or some sort of little presentation.

Yeah, that's that was that was presented actually at the town office, wasn't Yeah. Yeah, maybe. again I that process was making me a little crazy so I stepped back from it. So um but I have since put on my big girl pants and returned to the table. Um so yeah something I'll I'll talk to John and and George and figure out what the best way to to present that is. So

let us let us know. We don't put all the burden on your shoulders. I'm trying to put it all on John. Hey buddy, we'll put it all on John. Hey buddy, remember how you ditched us? So, um, yeah. No, I appreciate that. Any any questions or concerns about the public meetings coming up? Public hearings coming up?

No. No. And I I definitely agree with you. I think that anything that we present to the the public, it's an opportunity for education and how we present it, put ourselves in their shoes, and you do that, it usually is much more wellreceived.

Yeah. And I I absolutely understand that people have concerns and are concerned about their property values and the use of their property in the future. Um but we're our hands are tied and honestly because the state has imposed shoreline zoning on us already, these rules already apply.

Yeah, it just um uh so but yes, absolutely. We we do that is going to be a big part of our job. Yeah. Um unless there's anything else. I'm not super excited about looking at forms at 8:30 at night. I don't know about you guys. Motion to adjurnn.

All right. One thing I want to finish. Um, so I think we've made great progress on homebased businesses. We did get some additional information from Mike Morse that I have not looked at yet, but that's I consider that sort of like phase two of our shoreland zoning. Given that we have public hearings on September 23rd, October 3rd, and then our regular meeting potentially, I don't feel like scheduling a workshop to continue working on that in September. But if you guys are super keen to do it, I will suck it up. But are you guys okay with waiting till maybe October or November for another ordinance workshop?

Sounds good. Yeah, me. Okay, great. Now, I'll take that motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? All right. Uh, Wes, uh, yes. Alan, yes. Juliet, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. Thank you guys. And thank you, Heather, for participating

and thank you Tammy as always for all your support. I will see you guys. Um, I'll send out an email when those dates are finalized and we'll go from there. Do they have