Planning Board Public Information Meeting ~ November 13, 2024

2024-11-13 · Planning Board · 1:09:48 · watch on YouTube →

This was a Planning Board public information meeting on November 13, 2024, held to introduce two items to residents rather than to decide anything. The first was a proposed revision of the Resource Protection District, after Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (?) confirmed the generalised co-occurrence map it had applied to Durham was inaccurate and produced a customised analysis; the proposal would remove about 1,500 acres from resource protection and give relief to existing buildings that remain in it. The second was a proposed 180-day moratorium on battery energy storage systems, to be voted at a special town meeting on Tuesday November 19 at the Eureka Center, because the town attorney has advised such installations currently count as an essential service permitted throughout the rural residential and agricultural district with only site plan review applying. Residents raised the accuracy of FEMA flood plain mapping, non-delivery of the notice postcards, and argued that the moratorium's 20 kilowatt residential exemption is too low. No votes were taken beyond adjournment; the resource protection proposal goes to the planning board on December 4, then to the select board, a formal public hearing in March and the April town meeting.

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. 14:01
   Opening and how the evening would run

   The chair, John, confirmed a quorum of five members, with one member blocked into his driveway by CMP restoring power. He explained the two items came from tasks the select board handed the planning board in the spring, that resource protection had been worked on over the summer by a joint working group of three planning board and three conservation commission members, and that each item would be introduced, opened for comment, then closed separately.

2. 19:13
   Why the resource protection map is being revised

   George Thebarge (?) explained the zoning map was updated in 2023 using state natural resources data, and that public input at the time questioned the data's accuracy and the effect on expanding existing structures. After inquiries at state level, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (?) confirmed the generalised co-occurrence map applied to Durham was inaccurate and produced a customised analysis. Most of the highest rated areas dropped off in the 2024 update.

3. 19:13
   Proposal to remove about 1,500 acres

   The proposal removes from resource protection only those areas that were included solely because of the beginning with habitat six plus co-occurrence rating, about 1,500 acres shown in orange on the map. Land that also qualifies under other Durham classifications stays in: the 100-year flood plain, forested wetlands of 10 acres or more, the 100 foot stream buffer, and waterfowl and wading bird habitat.

4. 24:29
   Relief for existing buildings

   Eighteen buildings that were in resource protection only because of the co-occurrence rating come out automatically and can be expanded subject to building codes. A further 34 buildings remain in resource protection, and the working group proposed four treatments giving each a 100 foot development buffer so owners can obtain a building permit without going to the planning board or board of appeals. In the stream buffer and wading bird habitat cases, expansion is allowed only if it goes no closer to the protected resource, and flood plain construction remains subject to federal and state flood proofing rules.

5. 29:40
   Public comment on resource protection

   Bruce (?) of 1641 Royalsborough Road (?) asked whether his part of town was affected and was directed to contact the town planner for a map of his parcel. Another resident asked that the warrant language explain that the change corrects an inaccuracy rather than simply saying areas are being removed, and the chair agreed and said there would probably be a presentation at town meeting.

6. 35:07
   Questions about the flood plain mapping

   A resident said the mapped 100-year flood plain is two to four times the area that actually flooded in December, which was the second highest recording on the Androscoggin, and said this made him question the mapping even though he supports the proposal. The chair explained the 100-year flood plain is a 1 percent annual chance standard, and that FEMA is looking at remapping the lower Androscoggin including Durham, though that is a long process. Residents were referred to FEMA and their insurers on flood insurance questions.

7. 35:07
   Postcards not received

   A Runaround Pond Road resident said neither she nor her neighbours received the postcards promised to affected landowners. The board said 120 were mailed more than a week earlier. The chair apologised and asked people to pass on the recording and to contact the planner with individual questions.

8. 40:21
   Why other areas dropped out of the rating

   Joe Roy (?) explained that the 2018 map scored undeveloped habitat blocks heavily, and blocks of 1,200 acres or more score a large number of points. Houses, roads and driveways built since 2018 have reduced some blocks below that threshold, so they score much less. The flood plain was also redrawn with more accurate mapping, removing some areas from the co-occurrence model.

9. 40:21
   The Blanding's turtle area

   A resident noted the largest block coming out of resource protection is the remnant of the circle drawn around a Blanding's turtle sighting on Chesley Hill Road, which she said has been debunked. A conservation commission member added that the flood plain data shown is the latest from FEMA.

10. 45:22
    Next steps for resource protection

    The planning board will consider the comments at its December 4 meeting and decide what to send to the select board, which may amend it before putting it on the warrant. A formal public hearing follows in March, no more than 30 and no fewer than 7 days before town meeting, with the town vote at the April town meeting.

11. 45:22
    Introduction to the battery storage moratorium

    The chair said the discussion was strictly about whether to adopt a moratorium, not about siting, size or standards. He said the planning board concluded in about August or September that the subject was too complicated to do justice to in time for the April town meeting. A special town meeting is set for Tuesday November 19 at the Eureka Center, doors at 6:30 and meeting at 6:45.

12. 50:47
    Why a moratorium is proposed

    George Thebarge showed a five acre battery storage site approved by the Gorham planning board next to a CMP pole line in an industrial park, and said Durham has received inquiries about an even larger system. The town attorney has advised that because it connects to the electrical grid it meets the definition of an essential service and is a permitted use throughout the rural residential and agricultural district, so the planning board can apply only its site plan review standards. He said other states have seen significant fire safety, noise and environmental problems, none of which Durham's rules address.

13. 50:47
    Terms of the moratorium

    The moratorium would run 180 days with the select board able to extend it by a further 180. It would not apply to residential systems under 20 kilowatts, so household solar batteries and vehicles are not affected. The select board advised holding a special town meeting rather than waiting for April, to prevent an application being filed in the meantime.

14. 56:02
    Objection to the 20 kilowatt exemption

    Mike Friendly of Runaround Pond Road (?) said 20 kilowatts is not generous enough for anyone backing up heating and cooling, and recommended 40. Members noted a single Tesla unit is about 13.5 kilowatt hours, so two would exceed the limit. The board was unsure whether the wording could be changed with the vote inside the seven day posting window.

15. 1:01:05
    Select board response on extension and the threshold

    Joe Roy, chair of the select board, said the board can extend the moratorium after six months but that there are legal questions about going beyond a year, since moratoriums cannot be extended indefinitely without reason, and that a special town meeting would likely be the option if standards were not ready for the April 2025 town meeting. He said the select board and town manager would contact the lawyer first thing the next morning about the kilowatt threshold, and that there may be an opportunity to amend the language by motion at the special town meeting. He said the intent is to limit commercial or grid scale installations, not household systems.

16. 1:06:37
    Comment from a battery storage developer

    A member of the team building the Gorham battery storage said the purpose of such systems is to stabilise the grid and store renewable generation, and that delaying six months to a year risks driving away a resource that would bring CMP attention to local substations. The chair invited him to make that case at the special town meeting, and said the greater danger is proceeding without the right tools. The meeting then adjourned.

What was decided

• 45:22
  No vote was taken on the resource protection changes; this was an information meeting. Comments will be considered at the planning board's December 4 meeting, then the proposal goes to the select board, a formal public hearing in March and the April town meeting.tabled
• 1:01:05
  Board and select board chair agreed to consult the town attorney the following morning about whether the 20 kilowatt residential exemption in the moratorium can be raised, either before or by amendment at the special town meeting on November 19.passed
• 1:06:37
  Motion to adjourn.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

• 19:13
  Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (?) confirmed that the generalised co-occurrence map applied to Durham in 2023 was inaccurate and ran a customised analysis for the town. The proposal would take about 1,500 acres back out of the Resource Protection District.
• 24:29
  Eighteen buildings come out of resource protection automatically under the proposal. A further 34 buildings stay in but would get a 100 foot development buffer, so owners could expand with a building permit rather than going to the planning board or board of appeals.
• 50:47
  Durham has received inquiries about a battery energy storage system larger than the five acre project Gorham approved. The town attorney has advised that such a facility currently counts as an essential service and is a permitted use throughout the rural residential and agricultural district, leaving the planning board only its site plan review standards. A special town meeting on a 180-day moratorium is set for Tuesday November 19 at 6:45 at the Eureka Center.
• 56:02
  Residents argued the moratorium's 20 kilowatt residential exemption is too low, since two household battery units would exceed it, and asked for 40. With the vote inside the seven day posting window, the board was unsure whether the wording could still be changed.

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: 1 passage of motion language, against 3 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2024-10-02 Planning Board2024-12-04 Planning Board →All meetings