TranscriptBoard of Appeals ~ July 19, 2022

six this is a meeting of the durham board of appeals um i'll call the meeting to order um my and then i think we'll start in deference to our member who retired who always reminded me to do the pledge let's stand up and do the pledge

united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right so i'd like to introduce the members we haven't met for a while we have a new codes enforcement officer and so i think today to uh we'll ask for a motion to allow our alternate what allow our alternate to vote so that we have five voting members so heather why don't why don't you start too ellen and just introduce yourself for i don't know how close we have to talk to this my name's alan plummer i started as code enforcement officer settling in it might take a few more months but yeah it's good i came from mechanic falls live in chelsea right now but moving to litchfield i'm heather roy i'm the alternate member and i think i'll be voting tonight in place of gary perry kirk newell volk road

and i'm barbara schneider i live on rough rider road and i serve as the chair but usually i have gary kicking me under the table but not tonight so i'm milt simon i live on the stackpole road and i've been a member of this board uh just slightly less time than terry

i'm a former associate member and i was uh recently appointed as a regular member so i guess the first thing i'd like to do too is is that is to have a motion to allow heather to vote as a voting member second okay all in favor

all right you're in so um in the audience i think everybody can introduce themselves and then what i'll do is turn this over to george who will lay the groundwork for us so why don't we start with you birdie okay i'm elizabeth fertig bird everyone calls me birdie because it's shorter um we live on bowie hill road 125 that's where we live and also where our tree farm is and wellness center and we moved here how many years ago seven years seven already yes great i'm jonah fertig bird and i am married to birdie and i also live in the same place hello everybody my name is thomas proll i live in freeport at a wolf snack farm and i'm one of the worker owners with jonah and birdie in celebration tree farm emma jane you might as well introduce yourself jane rice has to live on boy hello and i'm here because i have property and resource protection and i'm just seriously okay so let me frame this as i see this it it

was submitted to us as an application for our variants but really it it's more of a request for a district boundary line interpretation so if you guys would take a look just so that you know what our authority is it's on page 159 of those new ordinances it says um all the things that we can do our powers and duties are in 17.3 and 17.3 d says um we can interpret zone boundaries as part of an appeal hearing at the request of a board of selectmen planning board or code enforcement officer so that's really what we're doing here is interpreting um boundaries um and as i see it the issue is that the state mapping um is different from what the town's mapping for um floodplains are so with that we're not here just so i get it to talk about the project that happens based on what we do at the planning board with conditional use permit applications right there i'm chair um is it possible or is it is there a

record of the um of the um stop order yeah that was issued by the former ceo it was referred to but we don't have a copy of it um it's not pertinent to this request that's pertinent to the uh land-use ordinance or the planning board determination with what they'd like to go forward with okay this request is only very narrowly about the um resource protection zone oh i have a question related to that um my understanding from reading the application is that the letter was a uh asked them to discontinue the use of the rv for glamping is that correct i believe so if that's the case then i would say it is relevant okay i don't have that i don't have that here okay today and just to speak to that um briefly is there that letter which um didn't provide with you actually doesn't reference at all the resource protection zone so it was not in reference to where it was located that came up after in conversation and

so that's why we have come forward with this limited request around the district boundary line interpretation what your before we go on because i'm not sure i think it's relevant but i want to understand paul why you do so sure well you know i i don't really want to put the carp before the horse i think we'll get there as we go through the meeting this evening so but i understand it's not there uh so you know my rationale was longer and i really don't want to kind of uh get ahead of the applicant okay and to explain their application as well as good enforcement sure fair that's fair um okay so why don't we i guess to tell us a little bit about what why you're applying for this and then we'll have george do some background for us that's okay great well thank you thank you for taking the time to use appeal and for being here tonight i know everyone's busy it's middle of summer so i really appreciate everyone's time on this

evening and um you know really what we're looking to do here is have our property um reflect the accurate information from the state when we saw the accurate information from the state that was put for the town um we were supportive of that redrawing of the map because it reflects what we know on the ground that the area right now that's in resource protection for the flood plain is actually high ground it's incredibly dry right now and it's way well above the garish brook and so when you look at the accurate information it really reflects what we see on the ground where the area that's surrounding the house and the barn is is is above the garrish brook area and really we're talking about a very small area it's roughly 23 000 square feet so just over a half of an acre um and you really want to be clear like we were really committed to resource protection um we are a certified organic farm we

practice organic ecological forestry um you know and i've been committed to environmental issues throughout my life so this is not about trying to in any way degrade the environment but really just again reflect the accurate information from the state um so that's that's really why uh we are coming here tonight i mean as you stated yes we we do have um some intentions to do some projects so we'll be putting forward to a conditional use permit but that's not what we're here to talk about tonight really by you know moving forward with this um this evening then allows us to submit that application and you know know where we can place things but we're hoping to have this district boundary line reinterpreted to be accurate

hi would you like to take my seat or we can all move over one yeah this is okay and i do want to thank george for um you know just talking through and talking about where these boundary lines are and also helping with these maps and what you should introduce yourself to for the purposes thanks george for the record i am george tabarge and i am the town planner for durham and uh this application is before you under an additional provision of your land use ordinance in that additional provision the one that you quoted 17.3 d i think it was refers to the general authority of the board to do different functions but the specifics of carrying out the function of interpreting boundaries is found in article uh two

and it's in section 2.36 on page three of the land use ordinance net provision reads where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map or in circumstances where the items covered by paragraphs one through five above are not clear the board of appeals shall interpret the district boundaries so that is the specific administrative provision that you are reviewing tonight as it reflects this application for appeal and those

are pretty much the basis on which zoning maps are drawn and generally the principle is that you want to make sure that wherever you put a boundary that it's a discernible place so that you can figure out whether you're subject to it or not subject to a regulation and so generally highways make very good boundaries typically it's a center line that's item a1 boundaries following l well established lot lines construed thirdly town lines there's usually a marker and they do what they call a perambulation every 10 years of the of the town boundary uh shorelines are pretty discernible and well used and then boundaries indicated number five as being parallel to features and a lot of times you'll have 500 feet from a road or 1200 feet from a road one of those physical boundaries that you can determine so again measurements can be made to determine where the regulation stops and starts so six says where physical or cultural

features existing on the ground are at variance and this is a little bit confusing because the application is filed as a variance and that's not the same kind of variance this means they differ the variance is a legal provision for getting relief from land use regulations so they're two different issues so i hope that won't muddy the waters here more than they already are so it says where it's unclear where the actual boundary is on a property the board of appeals has the authority many communities most of the ones that i've worked with it's usually the planning board that makes this determination but in durham it's been assigned to the board of appeals which is you know makes as much sense because you are appealing something so uh in this case it's parallel to the wildflower equestrian center on royals borough road that came up just about a year ago i think it was where you had a very similar situation where a

property owner wanted to get a conditional use permit in that case i think it was for a summer camp as part of their equestrian program they wanted to have kids come and the code officer reviewing it said it's in resource protection and therefore you can't even apply for a conditional use permit because it's not a specifically permitted use so in that case you the board of appeals reviewed specific information and part of your application is a set of maps which i prepared and this is based on so this first diagram and their application shows the existing resource protection boundary as shown on that official zoning map this is just a blow-up of overlay of an air photo which i prepared using the gis system that i developed for the town the second shows based on the fema floodplain and you see the actual stream uh you see the property lines don't exactly follow the hydrology of the stream and so 100 feet from the brook on either

side is also resource protection under the criteria but this is a fairly narrow steep topography associated with the stream down through here so you don't end up with a lot of expansive wetland along the stream so this flood plain mapping comes from fema which was provided to the state of maine and the state of maine basically provided that to towns all throughout the state to show where the accurate boundaries of the floodplain are so in the equestrian center application you basically used this state best statewide available

uh information to determine that the boundary on the zoning map was not accurately depicted and was unfairly restricting the property rights of the applicant you went further than that however you said that's not ground physical ground feature or documentation thereof in other words the fema map shows the approximate location but where is the actual location so what is typically done whether it's wetland delineation or floodplain delineation you get a field professional a surveyor or an engineer to come out and shoot elevations look at the flood maps which typically give base flood elevations and then they determine where that actual line is on the ground and that was a condition of approval for the wildflower equestrian center and they went forward and got that documentation before the permit was issued so that's basically what is being appealed tonight it's not about a celebration tree farm it's not about

conditional use for camping it's about where is the appropriate boundary line for the limit of the resource protection district i have a question about why aren't we dealing with a shore land zoning overlay district the reason i ask that question is on page four boundaries shall be defined as those on the downing map on the zoning map and more specifically all land areas within 100 feet horizontal distance of the normal high water line of a stream shown on the most recent i mean it it only matters to the extent you need to then submit something to dep if we're going to change the zone i just want to be accurate oh yeah and here's further confusion okay i'm not trying to be yep no no it's a fair very fair question because that is one of the criteria right so of durham under main dep rules

okay so this is the zoning map in the only areas in durham that are required by law to be governed by shoreland zoning which is article 9 of the ordinance within 250 feet of the presence of the androscoggin river right within 250 feet of the normal high water mark of runaround pond right and then there are certain stream segments dire brook to where it divides uh this is dire work here i'm sorry wherever you have the convergence of two perennial streams uh those though and so on uh this is not garrish brook um this is pink ember guys no that's meadow brook pink and brook um i'm sorry i apologize i'm getting a brain on that

under dep rules this new work from this point where these two converge dire brook those are required to be in shoreline zoning protection durham has gone beyond the state requirements to extend it on all of these streams farther than the ep requires so i think that language only as far as dep rules are concerned and this has been a real confusion for prior quote officers do i go by the town's regulations or do i go by the dep regulations and so the answer is they have to go by both but they only have to apply dep rules within the ep areas so but but for for accuracy purposes i mean for the town this is shoreland overlay yes and no but in any case in any case as far as that provision yep that you just read about 100 feet yep there is the the resource protection along here uh and we're over here does extend you can see the dark green right 100 feet from the from the edge of the brook right yeah so so i just i guess i don't

i mean it has the same impact because if we take it out of resource protection or take it out of resource protection with shoreland overlay the impact going forward is exactly the same i just i would rather term it right yeah well my concern here is that i'm concerned about getting too ahead too far ahead of of the of the legislative body right because of the last town meeting and at the last town meeting the voters didn't accept the proposed changes to the resource protection area and they basically what i heard the sentiment seemed to be that they wanted to see the new conservation areas approved at the same time that they removed the old ones at the same time that they incorporated the old resource protection into shoreland or you know because who knows they may decide okay we want we don't want just short the shoreland zone okay we want to have other additional resource protection areas because we

know these areas that are in the old old floodplain map area uh that these have been conserved areas for the past uh many more than 20 years and so you know that's the sentiment that i heard and so i i'm concerned about setting a precedent and which is would apply which could apply town wide when those deliberations haven't really happened yet when that hasn't happened yet and i i understand that the applicant is kind of caught maybe feel caught in the middle by that and that that process may be proceeding too slowly for them but i am concerned about this because it is it's really a town-wide issue it's not just an issue for this applicant and george was asked i believe at the last hearing uh or encouraged to take this issue to the town a town meeting and he did and they spoke and they basically said no we're not ready for this yet so i have some concern about preempting this and getting too far ahead of

things before that dust settles and those decisions are made what had happened at town meeting i i understand the kind of argument i understand what the ordinance empowers us to do but it it unlike wildfire flower which occurred before the town meeting so we didn't have the sense of the body now we do and and and so will we be looking at is this the right way to handle those changes right we're kind of making a decision for the town in a way exactly because we're saying we're going to take flood plain or we're just going to draw this back to the shoreline zoning area right i mean we have to base our decision on something right yeah and i feel that we would be making the decision right and and that's why i asked because i feel you know it's it's talked about as being resource protection that hatch mark but is some of it shoreline zone and it right in durham's ordinance it would be no no the green is the 100 feet from the

brook right but but that but right no no this one in in other words that's within that the hundred feet from the brook is shoreline would be re resource protection shoreland zone under this town's ordinance because it's 100 feet from the brook yeah and and it doesn't change what we call that hundred feet whether it's shorelands zone overlay or just resource protection it doesn't that doesn't have an impact on what happens going forward it it it only has an impact on on how we articulate what we've done i just want to get it right if we're going to do it to say we are going to um reinterpret the boundary at a hundred

feet and its rural residential outside the hundred feet and its resource protection with shoreland overlay within the hundred feet could i make just one point of clarification on what you should share with paul and that is the implications of any decision you make on this application on the rest of the town we discussed this back with wildfire at the same time because i was proposing it at the time and the town hadn't spoken and we determined and i think the the

state law will support any appeal from this applicant only applies to this property so any relief that you give here has no implication on any other property other than the same effect that passing the wildfire equestrian has they are coming comparing their situation but it's not like any other property owner all of a sudden now can get permits they have to go through the same appeal process so i just want to clarify that that's fine but george you did uh start your introduction by discussing how in a way and i don't think you specifically use the word precedent but that we've already seen this a similar case yeah we've already handled it oh it does definitely have problems so it does it does have presidential value but i just wanted to clarify someone would have to go through this same process on a case-by-case basis and their flood maps may or may not allow

show maybe the floodplain isn't you know 100 feet maybe it may be more it may be more expensive right so i have to ask the question do you really want to open pandora's box or do you want to leave it closed until the town is able to do its due diligence come up with a solution

i have a question george maybe you can answer um i think that i remember correctly that at the last planning board workshop or maybe it was a select board meeting i apologize that this issue is set to go before the town again in april is that correct select board have asked us to prepare amendments combining the two different parts correcting inaccurate mapping within the existing district and at the same time as a separate referendum or warrant article adding new resource protection based on the same criteria so all that has happened is the select board has given direction to town staff to proceed in supporting the boards in preparing the amendments with the intention of it but no no warrant articles have been drafted okay that's what i just want to clarify okay but so do you do you think that it will be ready in time for april you do okay i have other questions too but i'll let other people join

terry i i kind of agree about the president i don't like the idea of setting a precedent and then next week next month we're hearing that you go they got theirs why can't i get mine okay then then we are then are we drawing papers

i mean if if in fact you know in my mind i i mean there it's a tension because it it it they're not this application just like wildflower just like any uh we'd have to get is gonna have to submit evidentiary basis for redrawing any boundary or reinterpreting any boundary if they they can't just say well i want out now without without submitting something that will justify you know relying on a new map right it's not like you can just come up and say well they got 100 feet why can't i you're going to have to show the mapping yes and here's my concern there my concern and i think uh george uh very astutely pointed out that ordinance is usually associated with uh or excuse me uh zone boundaries are often associated with uh a cultural or some type of physical feature on the ground that allow you to determine where the line is and so in this case my question would be what would that be so if you said it's the floodplain and

we know this is out of the floodplain plane i know that the old or i believe that the old maps were drawn to coincide with the old floodplain boundary and that state may be stated somewhere in an old comp plan it's nowhere in ordinance basically ordinance defines the resource protection zone as the lines drawn on the map so i think it's somewhat arbitrary to say it's the floodplain because um or it's it's i'll say it's more it's a little less than arbitrary but there's nothing really saying anywhere that flood equals resource protection and then in terms of the the shore the uh shoreland zone um the town can have resource protection areas that aren't part of the shoreland zone and we currently do we currently do so what would we base it on where would you draw that where what would you base uh the location of the new line on

in reference to your point there's no basis of determining if you go to the 2002 comprehensive plan and you look at the floodplain map that's in there it's virtually identical to the green that's on that map and pretty much everything else is within that but that 2002 floodplain map of that comprehensive plan in 2004 the zoning map was adopted that took that map and put it on the zoning map so i think there is a basis for assuming based on the public record that that boundary is that boundary is based on floodplain but there's nothing in ordinance ordnance says the lines are to be interpreted as the lines drawn on the map oh absolutely yeah and that's why they're here tonight because it is right right

if i could speak yeah just you know first of all hear your concerns and i mean i you know as i said before like i mean i have a deep uh passion around conserving the environment i mean we actually we have enjoying 110 acres that we're leasing that's now owned by a land trust um and that land trust is holy land in perpetuity so that's preserved and not developed um and so while it's not in resource protection it is uh now owned by land trust um we you know we're practicing our ecological practices and you know as i think you know again right now the land we're talking about is less than a half or just about half an acre you know i understand the the pandora box i mean and you know and definitely every time you make any decision right anything can can result from that um you know i think with that said this is you know you you can make a decision on each thing that comes before you based on the merits of it based on you

know what's being proposed and what the intention is um around that and i feel like i mean again this you know if you if you go to land you you walk the land like i have you know every day you can really see this is high ground and it goes i mean exactly where this map shows the accurate map shows is where the land goes down to the the brook um and the area that's that um yeah very steeply down to the brook and you know so there's a real it's it's not just uh you know it seems like this is where this is this is this is accurate information and you know so really trying to again you know go with this accurate information and you know i think every time you would have anyone you know if anyone came before you first of all they have to go through a process to get scheduled they have to get the information it's not like you know this decision will then uh open the the floodgates of of people coming

before you you know but even if they did you have to you you make the decision i mean and i think you can make a decision on each individual parcel based again on the on the accurate information and i have no real processing sure why don't can you come up to so that you're heard and introduce yourself for that yeah jane rice um so my question would be you go and maybe i'm understanding this incorrectly but it sounds like by your your expertise of walking the land and knowing the land you're saying that it is high ground um and i'm assuming that we're supposed to you as a group are supposed to be accepting that as the word but

delineation map prior to the actual process of i thought i heard that come out of your mind board approved it as a condition of approval and before a building permit was issued they had to provide that documentation but the board made the decision before that field analysis was done but their plan is not a building it's a temporary conditional so that kind of slides under the radar there so i guess i would kind of agree that you're opening up a pandora's box because i'll be next in line coming out and saying i want my land out of resource protection if i don't have to pay to have a delineation map and just i mean where's oh we would just he would absolutely i mean i would imag i would propose that if we were to approve this we would ask for a survey to mark this on the ground yeah and and we're completely i mean if we were to do that and so so so in as a condition to apply for a conditional use permit we could require

that that if that that this more recent floodplain map be marked on the ground so that anything happens on the other side of it but but i'm not saying we're going to do that i'm just saying if we that would be the equivalent of what what we did in the wild flower but i have to ask why are lands put into resource protection for what reasons they may be put into resource protection for different reasons one may be floodlane one may be it could be a dear wintering area it could be threatened or endangered wildlife habitat um it could be there's a whole host of reasons and that decision wouldn't speak to any of those things and that's why in my opinion that boundary should be you know will hopefully be determined with due diligence taking some of these other things in mind and not just saying okay well this is the new flood zone area and uh at least and that's what i heard at town meeting that's what i heard the

town meeting so you know um and with that i'll be quiet because i probably spent time um those were the points that i was actually going to make that that paul just made about because some of the meetings that were the town meeting some of the comments that were made were that the map that was done was done at a level six versus at a level four and that would include more criteria and so when i'm looking at this map that shows the screen one of my questions was going to be you know i see that it says 100 foot stream buffer and then it says 100 year flood plane but then none of those other criteria are checked and so without those being represented on this map i don't feel like we can look at this picture and we can look at this picture and determine whether or not it is resource protected because it doesn't include any of those things that he just alluded to and i kind of feel like that decision is

usually made by planners and committees in reflection of the whole town context what are our important areas not just really down to this one area we don't really have the full context to say this belongs to resource protection or it doesn't

just just getting down to some basic things i i don't i question how this boy would make a decision based on a proposal versus an existing loan um it's a you know the proposal as was just mentioned you know proposal was voted on at a at a town wide meeting was voted down um i i don't see how we can listen to an appeal on something proposed but we can only i believe the decision has to be based on something that's ex that exists and and that this i think that they're jumping the gun knowing that this will probably come forward again um next april and will hopefully get voted you know differently

wouldn't be necessary to be able to move forward but i don't see how we can vote on something that's being proposed when if it's not in fact on paper delineation was going to be had to be done or not because that would prompt me to either move forward or not move forward if they got away with not doing a delineation i would jump on that bad i think all of every member is like a

were to approve a a different interpretation of what the resource protection boundary is we need to be sure we would want it delineated on the ground but that's kind of we don't get there until we decide we're in a position to interpret the boundary sub in effect i'm hearing it's substituting one floodplain map for another floodplain map that's what we're assume that's the assumption for the application and what we're missing is are there other basis c's for that being in resource protection is there information about that other basis for it being resource protection i'm just interested to know well why how it got there i guess because i i don't know that information and what i'm you know again kind of understanding that this redrawing is a more accurate redrawing of resource protection that you you seem to know probably flood plain george is right okay but that determination was made also 20 years

more than 20 years ago so you know things may have changed in 20 years also um i don't know i i really can't speak to that but you know i i will say i noted that also when i moved to town and i did a little gis straight out of grad school i did a little gis analysis and i found out that the town doesn't have a short land itself a shoreland zone was never approved by the state a shoreline's only ordinance was never proved by the state it was uh imposed upon door this was like back in 2006 or something and and i

noticed that you know what george is saying with the floodplain and it does look like it lines up but that was also you know quite a long time ago so you know um i don't that that was the basis then but is that the basis now and but you know but i guess the townspeople have asked a town meeting uh that they'd like to weigh in on this and they'd like uh some more thought given to how those boundaries are determined how the new resource boundary is determined and they'd like to see the new boundaries laid out at the same time this is taken away that's my understanding and i i don't know what that all includes with regard to you know some of the more agricultural areas and those kinds of things

george can you explain the like the for example on the the mapping that was done when when there was an option to check waterfowl habitat or those are or aren't necessarily embraced in our own town's definition of resource protection or are they waterfowl moderate to high value waterfowl and waterbird is a criterion in the ordinance right now okay there are five of those in town

resource protection they're really large emergent wetland areas which can be stream associated and so [Music] i checked off the ones that hit this property got it the ones that are not checked off did not hit this property can you show me i'm trying is it here what this this property yeah yeah at this scale it's very hard um no this is swamp road so it's right down here and the and the uh orange of this this is the critical rural areas the orange is agricultural land the green is the

yes like in this room not in this room but i think in this building [Laughter] and i don't know whether i can get into the vault where i think it's okay how about right behind behind you george how about great at right here bubby hill

resource protection is the green right but but this one breaks it down yes and this one this one also has uh yeah the wildlife doesn't it isn't as broken down as this is but it's the same it's the same map is it's very simple right it doesn't have co-current habitat this is one of those waterfowl breeding habitats that we're telling you about here there's another one here no yeah that's there this is bobby hill okay yeah got it there are five of those waterfowl breeding areas there's one here there's one along meadow brook here there's one over here and i think there's a couple in the run around pond area that yeah that looks pretty close if anyone wants to take a look at that

my concern there would be so you know does that should that duty fall to the appeals board to decide what should be in resource protection that's i i just it seems like that's a town-wide question that should be a town like

timeline question and i mean you know here we're talking about just a small piece of the town so i mean just you know just over half an acre so that's i mean if i you know i was coming before you i mean yeah if it was a big piece of land i would say i totally agree with you i mean you know and i think as we think about you know how to i mean i think it's really important for us overall as a community um to be thinking about how do we conserve more land um you know i grew up around here you know we all have seen how much land has been developed and been you know just down the road from us there is a big subdivision you know i don't i'm assuming that wasn't the resource protection but like you know we have more and more subdivisions more and more development i'm not saying i'm against that development the same time you know just have seen how farmland you know has been eaten up by you know houses all over and i'm you

know being a farmer working with farmers just the importance of of keeping more land preserved i totally totally agree with that like not at all you know in any way trying to uh you know object that and i mean my my other work i do a lot of work around supporting that um farmland protection and land trust um and you know so i don't i don't disagree with that sentiment at all and you know just here again it's it's a very small piece of land that's uh is surrounding our house and and our barn you know where we have kind of the core functions of what we're trying to do as a farm um and that you know we are there on the ground observing you know knowing i mean it's it's not endangered um species habitat it's not deer habitat it's not waterfowl habitat it's not floodplain it's not any of those aspects i mean and i you know i understand like the town process yeah at the same time also just like

yeah this this map and totally you know would would go ahead with the survey um as well you know support that we didn't do that ahead of time because we didn't want to spend a lot of money to you know waste that money we want to make sure that we were doing you know following what you would want to see so we can make sure that we have an accurate survey um and you know i i would hope that yeah like anyone that would come before you would not do this just you know hey we just want to do whatever and so hey we're going to pull this out of resource protection no i think it's important that we you know do that due diligence to make sure that we are keeping um you know our resources in this town preserved and you know and again you know just trying to have this reflect what this accurate um both what the the state has has issued and what we observe you know living there could you and alan um explain for us

under the current zoning regiment you know how it's set up currently what's precluding you from doing what you want to do what are you precluded from doing now that you would like to do under the new zoning what we did well we're not we're not looking to really what we're looking to do is one campsite yes

campground in the ordinance and a campground is is uh two or more parties yeah um but primitive recreation is allowed and you are allowed my interpretation is you would be allowed to have a um an rv for example uh with something that's mobile with wheels on it if it's registered uh and use that for like lamping or camping as primitive recreation but the code enforcement officer might of course that's the person who makes that determination i don't i don't agree with that i don't think it has to be registered because it's not on the road so registration requires is required to be on the road if they're keeping it in one spot it doesn't need to be it isn't the ordinance but it would it but it would need it would need wheels which it does have yeah yeah okay yeah fair enough yeah i'll leave that i mean yeah and you know hey if we can do that within you know within the zone we're you know that

we're good we're happy with that i mean you know and that's honest i mean it's that's the one one of the one things there i mean we have this you know we're looking to build an educational facility a small non-residential educational facility it's currently right on yeah i mean we and that's yeah that can be moved you can do that right that can be done in that sport land use 44 that can be done in resource protection and in shoreland zone yeah you know and i i gotta say i look at that admit that makes total sense in today's world when you look at all these things like you know tenter yeah yeah all these things you know this movement towards individual campsites on properties that the ordinance does define a campground as two or more parties that one could have like you know one site that makes sense but so but that's it i mean the question would be what if if you're contented to just have one rv

site and no other tenth site you know i mean if if all you would ever have is one rv and no other tents going along with that but that yeah i mean that's what we're trying to do that's what we're here for i mean campground is any area track used for temporary overnight accommodation with or without shelter by two or more parties but you know once if anyone pitches a tent then you're then you're outside unless it's the same party yes it's the same family right yeah so just to make sure that we're covering all the bases then my question would be and i'm not trying to do the merits of this i know this would go before the planning board potentially um would it be considered a home-based business because if we're looking at resource protection home-based business is a no well that's a really good question but then i have to ask the question well what if you were a main guide and you were taking people hunting on

your property is that a home-based occupation i don't think that would meet the test of a home based occupation by anyone and i think this is more of primitive recreation rather i see this as more of primitive recreation rather than a home-based business and the way i would look at that too heather is when you have a specific land use that would trump a more general in other words there's a specific provision for campgrounds so that specificity trumps a general home-based business that isn't specifically um set out in the ordinance you know that once you have a specific that's just an interpretation thing that's a really good question yeah i mean so it's not like a home-based business would be something not covered elsewhere in my mind um but primitive recreation do not require buildings or structures so it i mean but a structure what's the composting toilet does that create a structure the wash station i that's yeah

i'm going to have a campsite without a toilet no you have to in the wash i mean the wash station you have to yeah and so what are their rules around resource protection as it relates to like a leech field are those they're allowed and i will say too that the um i mean we we can position the wash station and outdoor shower outside of the zone yeah i mean we'd want a composting toilet near it um but again that can be on a i mean yeah a structure that's not um you know in ground and not i mean you know just a temporary structure um i mean we actually could even do just a pop-up tent thing if you know that was better is there something similar to a wetland delineation for all of the other things that meet the criteria for resource protection like how we would how we would be wanting a wetland delineation done but then is is there a service like that that measures the criteria of all of the other parts of resources it's really

expensive okay you have to get a wildlife scientist to come out and you know look at your land and say you know this is what's living here adopted ordnance criteria that explains what is it what is this resource protection we haven't defined what resource protection is in this town we've just created a map that says this is what it is this is where it is we haven't created there's nothing that shows the criteria that the town has looked at other than the comprehensive plan right but that's that's not got the force of ordinance can i can i ask another question sure the glamping rv is that on your property or the land trust problem that's that's ours here is all our property yeah

it from the perspective of since we don't know exactly how this is going to be defined maybe it would be best just to leave it alone until it's defined rather than making a guess at what it's going to be if these guys can do what they need to do without you know um

letter yeah i mean the letter was yeah not based on the resource protection you know sometimes letters they're not always right you know they don't always say ordinance is complex yeah and i'm sure that you know it took into account fact important factors did it take into account all the factors of course we don't know we haven't seen it so i i would like to say um knowing that there was a stop cease and desist order as a new code officer coming into a town i'm not going to reverse that within my first three months of being here because that would be a bad situation looking at it i've talked to jonah about that specific and i've been to the site

that i would want to see if he were going to start that operation up again i would need to see underground electricity up to nec code i would need to see the where the septic is going to be disposed of i would need to see some kind of security safety for uh carbon monoxide um or or smoke detection for sleeping areas so with those things there are other things that are allowed in in durham that i've found i've come upon that lots of towns don't allow but they're allowed here they're they're they're doing it and there doesn't seem to be anyone bothering them and i can't see anything that's prohibiting them in any of the roles i think you'll find throughout maine in many towns um they allow people to park rv's and

enjoy uh you know the uh staycation with the outdoors yes in resource protection areas yeah right and if it wasn't a commercial venture um there are lots of people camping these days a lot of lots of relatives but it's not a campground i'm not sure if it's technically correct it's not you know it's it's it's one yeah and and you can't you can't stop a family from having a campground in their backyard and their cousin comes there for any number of weeks and that's happening on a very large scale yeah yeah very large i mean the other thing that you know the other land use that's permitted in resource protection and in um the shoreline zone overlay is public and private parks and recreational and that's funky because there's no it's like a weird language involving minimal structural development use 36 and that's permitted yeah so that would exactly that's you know how and so is the small non-residential facilities for

educational scientific or nature interpretation of purposes so both of those things are permitted so if the only reason anybody thinks that needs to be removed from the resource protection slash shoreland overlay is that campground and if there is or the rv or the one rv yeah you could you you don't need not with because the plant we don't have to reverse the stop work order because no one's appealed that but if that's the only reason to come before us

something differently so that you have an option down the road for more tense sites or multiple parties beyond the two oh right the one no it's campground is two par right beyond the one that's a campground definition yeah one more two or more yeah your zone zoning may change right automatically in april yeah or if you still felt you know another kind of avenue and you know this probably doesn't sound very appealing but another avenue is always to request a zone change and for that to be and ask the selectmen to put on the warrant the town meeting i know in a lot of towns that's what they do if you're asking if you want a zone change for a specific purpose you put it on the warrant and let the legislative body decide you know were they willing to granted her which could happen apart from the larger universities yeah because protection is the business of interpreting boundaries but we're not really in the business of

making some approving zone changes so confused are you what are you confused i mean what we're saying is that if all you want is to have one party in one rv you can do that you can do that now now yeah you might need a conditional use for because it's not a campground it's not a campground it would be but then it might if it's not a campground then it might be the home business that would need the conditional use yeah um again i would argue well what about a main guy right are they you know do they have a whole business this primitive recreation there is criteria for the home-based business that's laid out and if you can say yes right george you can say yes or no to those questions as whether or not it falls into that maybe we should look at that i don't think it's i i don't think it's primitive recreation because it's recreational uses that do not require buildings or structures and and what you're trying to do it's

not a building or structure but but the rv isn't but the other things around it are the structures like it also says such under primitive recreation such use do not include the use of all-terrain vehicles motorized bikes or other motorized vehicles on wheels oh yeah okay good question is it motorized or is it a trailer um it's it's a converted bus so it's it has a motor it doesn't work yeah you can't turn it over

mean i get i think this is not the same as the main guide that puts you know a tent site near a hunting field well i'll tell you the main guide today they probably aren't using a temp site they're probably using an rv out in the woods right but but i under i i think that

definition of the section of home what are you what are you doing i think we're going beyond the scope of tonight's meeting well we are we are and we aren't in that i think to say yeah we're not going to reinterpret um we don't have to reach a decision on anything if they can go ahead and do what they want to do with the conditional use permit so in other words we don't have to have a vote if they don't need the resource protection zone re-defined i think the question is is it a home-based occupation or not in terms of them being able to do it now and i can't you know we're getting into alan's no i that's you know that's right yeah and and i guess i'd have to ask what does allen think what is the code enforcement officer think with regard to that aspect what do you think al

or something else i think they're operating it as a business i i would think you are operating it as a business i are you not yeah i mean it's part of it yeah wreath makers and local staff and yeah yeah it seems on facebook but whether it's a home-based business or not it still needs a condition it needs the conditional use permit for the small non-residential facilities for educational scientific or nature interpretation purposes but those are outside of the resource protection zone too no those are allowed in resource protection right right but it's also they have the map those facilities are mapped as outside the current resource protection area so there must be right on the edge yeah right on the edge but but they would need that yes exactly and that's i think that's more specific than home-based business home-based business would not be allowed but this would be allowed that's the criteria under which they'd

apply for a conditional use permit yeah so again home-based business is more general this is more specific good point yes so i mean yeah we could apply for this that's why to get to mill's point that's why i think we talk about this because we could say we don't have to make a decision or we in other words we we would deny it because it's not a needed thing to accomplish what they want to accomplish yes right yeah

speaking of the planning board i mean seriously right yeah we yeah we have i mean we have our conditional use permit prepared to submit tomorrow you know so really was waiting on this meeting i mean you know i think that having the information from what you all shared tonight that you know you know based on you know it feels like we could move forward i mean we were yeah moving forward with the small non-residential uh educational facility um for the yurt but then also having that one site which is not a campground being a component of that small non-residential facility makes sense to have that as you know oh yeah because it's allowed in the zone yeah yeah yeah mean and then you know we don't we don't right open up the pandora box you're worried about we're in the zone all right yeah but then you need a if you put a unit up with another bathroom is that another building would that go under the education

the yurt is the yeah educational i mean it's non-residential so a year for having a class in it right would be okay because a small non-residential facilities for educational scientific or nature interpretation purposes facilities isn't really defined and that and that actually that definition there is no definition of that land use yeah in the code so we don't have any performance standards on that one but but but they you know if in effect what all of this is is a small non-residential facility for educational scientific or nature interpret purposes then you can do it in resource protection yeah and you can even do it in the shoreline zone overlay yeah yeah exactly right yeah and so but you're limited to one party in the rv yeah perfect

from personal experience going through this process i do have a business on my property um whether or not like commercial comes into play in terms of employees and stuff like that and i'm just putting that out there before you go before the planning board to make sure that like your buffering requirements and those types of things exist because if they deem it commercial it's it's a different set of standards that are going to have to be met i mean it's been a there's been a business there for how many years hundreds

have to say thanks and you know it's great to have people undertaking these kind of endeavors in durham great thank you thank you and um you know we i think everyone from what i see of durham in terms of uh people valuing outdoor recreation local things you know getting outside supporting local agriculture it's a wonderful thing thank you so

do we we i will write something um because i think we need to at least for the planning boards purposes they need to understand what our rationale or rationale for so then i'm saying hey we needed to do this yeah um yeah but i i think that it it's going to say that that and i don't want to kind of say you know the board determined that they can do what they want to do without this i'm just going to say

findings here like that we you know that we don't want that um we're not going to we could say a couple of things we could say that that um that in light of the legislative bodies well um resources that uh at the last town meeting voters did not accept the proposed changes the resource protection zone and that

the you know the the town is still working to determine exactly how the resource protection zone will be defined and for the voters given the proposed use yeah no re no no inter boundary interpretation is should be required no battery terminals right yep yeah or that the use is currently allowed yep the use that's the main thing the use is currently allowed and and the propelled use as well it always gets the question of well what is the use right but that appears to we could say appears to be allowed we're not evaluating or maybe based on the information that we have before us because they're going to get way more in depth yeah yeah they may find they may say you know you can't because of you know whatever or allan mays before you even go to them put some criteria on what you might want to do we could cite two things we could cite the um the use that you mentioned the educational and so cite that use

and you could also cite primitive recreation given that this is not a campground and and not a campground so it's a camping site yep barbara with regard to denying the request versus taking no action should we deny their quest i think we have to we we kind of have to yeah i think we have to yeah okay we have to deny the quest but but it's more like a deny the quest because we don't think any action needs to be taken given the proposed use as presented to us yes yeah that's that sounds reasonable but that's not what's being brought to us this evening the proposed use is not being presented in this appeal it's yes it is we're not discussing the use if you look on the other pages they detail it it details what they want to do but the variance is to seek an appeal to the existing zone not what they plan to do in that existing in the zone if if we if we were

to differentiate and approve what's a proposed zone versus an existing then what they're going to do with it comes into into account but we're not we're not talking about i think you could say both i think you could say both um because uh this is currently being determined by uh town staff and the legislative body what constitutes resource protection but that's one reason why we're denying right and the other reason is um it appears that they can do what they want to do in the current zoning that they have and i think that will cover all that and i think the reason to do that milt is is i think about all the times that right you don't want to just deny something you want to help people do what they want to do and solve the problem and so providing some guidance to people it's not the planning board may say that we're completely wrong and you may you may fail to get your conditional use permit

so be it but but we're giving you some kind of guidance from how we look at the ordinance which may or may not sway the planning board but it it you know i just think about how you know how gary always tried to do that to make yeah that's and that's not the point i was trying to make i'm just trying to clarify why this board was called to session it was to vote and the vote was to vote on a variance not on a proposed use it's not a very well it's a change it's it's it's an interpretation we're asked to vote we're asked to reinterpret the resource protection and we are this and we've made vote we haven't voted yet we're we're not we weren't interpreters it's not yet but we weren't asked to interpret we were to we were asked to um consider a proposed zone versus an existing zone and that would determine what could be done inside in that zone so we've made some recommendations as far as what they

can do so in the spirit of what you just said but we were called to not make an interpretation but to decide can can can something be done based on a proposed zone versus the existing zone so you're saying that we cannot we cannot well i think we're first we got to come up with a motion and then right we bring it to a vote right because i don't think we haven't voted so here's

so what i would i would say is i move that we language of the ordinance because if the ordinance then gives us let's go here my page that because there are no physical or cultural features existing on the ground that are of variance with the zoning map

made where you know it it's not like there's a physical feature on the ground what we're looking at is a proposed location of a flood plain that's not a physical feature on the ground well it is by it is a physical well yeah i mean it's to be determined by like a survey or a floodplain delineator it's not a physical feature it is a feature on the ground then we have to say the only if if we're if we're given the authority to reinterpret that right then the only reason that we're not approving this request is because we don't want to override the legislative body yeah i think that's it okay that's the motion that's in contradiction yeah second to a current that that we move that we we move not that it is not appropriate in light of the town meeting to reinterpret the boundary of the resource protection zone you know and you could add in addition there appears to be other um ways of them yeah

attaining their goals you seconded it right yes yeah you're gonna have to go backwards because i'm not that great yeah i'm not the sentiment reflected by the legislative body at town meeting the board is not going to reinterpret the boundaries of resource protection for the purposes of this request something like that right so we're denying a request right we are denying the request to do that interpretation but the reason we're not denying it is not because we don't think we have the authority it's because we don't want to undertake that authority yes exactly yeah and do you have thoughts on the other piece with regard to um you know a friendly government to say that we um appears that there are other methods by which right they can undertake attain their goals right based on the information based on the information information we received yeah yep yep sounds good everybody okay with that

let's can we hold a vote on the motion and i'll write it up okay um so moved second all those in favor uh the primary one motions were you not available on monday no you said you preferred thursday but are you not available