Planning Board Meeting ~ February 3, 2016

2016-02-03 · Planning Board · 26:30 · watch on YouTube →

Planning Board public hearing of February 3, 2016 on the reorganised land use ordinance the board had been working on for about two years, together with proposed changes to the historic district ordinance. The chair explained that this hearing was informational only: the last opportunity to change the draft had been the previous hearing, and from here the document goes to the town attorney, then to the Board of Selectmen, and then onto the warrant for annual town meeting. The board walked through what it had done, section by section, describing the work as a reorganisation rather than a rewrite, with a small number of substantive changes: non-conforming residential uses in the resource protection zone, home-based businesses, a driveway entrance standard, and a technical review fee for subdivisions. Ben and Paul then set out the historic district changes, which move the contributing or non-contributing judgement to the code enforcement officer and take exterior painting and new construction out of commission review. Few members of the public spoke; the questions asked were about second units, paved aprons, existing driveway entrances and the comprehensive plan. The hearing was closed with no changes made.

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

What was discussed

1. 0:01
   Public hearing opened and next steps explained

   The chair opened the hearing and said the only changes since the last meeting related to the appeals provisions, discussed with Paul, and were not intended to change anything substantive. From here the finalised document goes to the town attorney, then to the Board of Selectmen, and then onto the warrant for annual town meeting.

2. 0:01
   This hearing cannot change the draft

   Asked whether there would be further changes, the board said there would not. The previous hearing was the last chance to make changes; this one exists so the public knows what it will be voting on at town meeting, and any remaining dispute is settled there.

3. 0:01
   Review by the Department of Agriculture

   The draft went out that morning to the Department of Agriculture for review. From there it goes to Jack and then to the select board with Jack's recommendations.

4. 0:01
   Why the ordinance was reorganised

   The board said it had struggled to apply the ordinance for a couple of years and that applicants had struggled to understand it, because pieces had been amended over time until it was no longer a coherent whole. The board worked with AVCOG for a while without much result, tried doing it itself without success, and then Zoe (?) asked Nicole Brand, the code officer in Bowdoinham, to help reorganise it. The board described the result as a first step, not a finished document.

5. 0:01
   Ordinances folded in and definitions revised

   The back lot ordinance, the subdivision ordinance and the groundwater protection ordinance were incorporated into the single document. Definitions were added and revised, some to bring them into line with state statute, including junkyard, and some that the board had struggled with in the past, including campground.

6. 0:01
   Non-conformance section reorganised

   The board said the existing non-conformance provisions did not make much sense, allowing expansion of a use based on area rather than amount. The rewritten section keeps what the board took to be the original intent, that non-conforming structures may be improved but not outside their footprint and non-conforming uses may not be expanded.

7. 5:19
   Residential non-conforming uses separated from commercial

   The board split the residential from the commercial application of existing non-conforming uses in the shoreland and resource protection zones, so that long-standing houses along the river are not barred from doing work on their property. Under the revised ordinance, at page 21, non-residential expansions are prohibited and residential expansions may go up to 30 percent of the area against criteria the board of appeals would consider.

8. 5:19
   Question: can a 30 percent expansion add a second unit

   A member of the public asked whether a single family house with road frontage could use the 30 percent expansion to become a two unit. The board said that would be a change of use and is not allowed; the allowance is for something like a breezeway or an additional bedroom, to keep the single family character of what is already there.

9. 5:19
   Where the change applies

   The board said the only district affected is resource protection, the only district in which residential uses are not allowed, covering the rivers and ponds and the flood zone areas, including Runaround Pond. It does not apply in the regular part of town.

10. 5:19
    Administration, board of appeals and disability variance

    The administrative section was revised to make clear who does what on enforcement and permitting. The board of appeals section was clarified, and a disability variance was added because state statute requires one and Durham did not have it, covering things such as handicap ramps that the ordinance might not otherwise permit.

11. 10:39
    Subdivision updated and technical review fee added

    A technical review fee was added and the approval criteria were updated to current state law, on the reasoning that an ordinance that is not kept current ends up citing statutes that no longer exist. Asked whether the subdivision threshold was still two dwellings, the board said it is three, the third division being the trigger, consistent with state law.

12. 10:39
    Home-based businesses no longer need a conditional use permit

    The board changed the ordinance so that home-based businesses meeting certain criteria are simply allowed and need not come before the board at all. It gave the example of a man who sold or traded vegetables online from his computer and had to apply for a conditional use permit, which the board called ridiculous. Anything beyond those criteria still needs full review against the performance criteria for traffic, noise, light and appropriateness of use.

13. 10:39
    Back lots and a future look at minor subdivisions

    The board described the back lot ordinance as clunky and a poor way for people to use their land, and said a future goal is to make minor subdivision easier so owners think about how best to lay out their land rather than forcing back lots. John has put together a draft to build on for next year, and the board invited residents to get involved.

14. 10:39
    Driveway entrance standard

    Work begun with the road commissioner over a year earlier was incorporated, requiring approval for new entrances onto town roads so that sight distances are met and culverts are installed correctly. The board said improperly installed culverts in the right of way end up being the town's responsibility to repair and replace, which it described as a considerable and misplaced burden on the taxpayer.

15. 15:46
    Questions on existing entrances and paved aprons

    The board said existing entrances do not come under review unless they are being rebuilt or substantially changed, and that regular maintenance and upkeep are untouched. A question about whether paved aprons are part of the new requirements was not answered; the board said it would have to look. There is also a provision letting the road commissioner exercise discretion where an entrance cannot meet the sight distance.

16. 15:46
    Comprehensive plan still at the talk stage

    Asked about the comprehensive plan, the speaker said it is still talk. He and Ruth have been putting together a timeline and flowchart of the process and its benchmarks, and he has been reviewing GIS data for mapping. The state will assemble a resource package but wants an approved committee in place first.

17. 15:46
    How the comprehensive plan work would be staffed and paid for

    Asked whether the town would get outside help, the answer was that a committee would be formed first and would then decide which parts need professional help, with mapping expected to go outside because the town lacks the capacity. The last plan took a couple of years with heavy involvement from AVCOG and a lot of hearings; one to two years was given as typical. It was noted that if resources are needed, this is the time to get them into the budget cycle.

18. 15:46
    Historic district ordinance: why it is being changed

    Ben took over to describe changes to the historic district ordinance, covering the established district around the Southwest Bend area near the gazebo. Any work in the district has had to come before the historic district commission, which the board found extremely burdensome on residents of the area, and it has spent about two years on how to streamline that while keeping the historic character.

19. 15:46
    Definitions and exterior painting

    The revision adds definitions of a contributing resource, meaning a historically significant structure, and a non-contributing resource, for the many more modern buildings in the district. Exterior painting projects were removed from commission review, the board saying it was too much to require people to come in over what colour to paint their house.

20. 21:00
    Article 4 criteria and new construction

    Article 4 sets out four criteria by which the code enforcement officer decides at the building application stage whether a structure is contributing or non-contributing, allowing him to dispose of the non-contributing ones himself and send the rest to the commission. The requirement for a certificate of appropriateness on new construction was removed, on the reasoning that new construction does not contribute to the historical significance of the area.

21. 21:00
    Paul's fuller account of the historic district change

    Paul (?) said anything at all in the district, a fence or a coat of paint, previously required a certificate of appropriateness under what he called a blanket federally based preservation ordinance that does not fit Durham well. About half the homes in the district are not historic, and in the commission's 13 years only one application before it had any real historic significance. The revision treats historic properties as resources, so additions, replacements and outbuildings on a contributing resource still get looked at, while houses not visible from the road, such as those down along the ferry road, are treated as having no real effect on the district's character.

22. 21:00
    National Register listings and a townwide inventory

    Asked whether the town has any National Register listed properties, the number four was given; the exchange about whether any of them lie inside the historic district is not clear on the recording. Going forward, the historic district commission wants to carry out a townwide historic inventory of structures, which the streamlining is intended to free it up to do.

23. 21:00
    Hearing closed

    The chair thanked those who came and closed the public hearing, saying the board would be glad to dig further into how the town grows once the comprehensive plan is done.

What was decided

• 0:01
  Confirmed, without a vote, that no further changes would be made to the draft ordinance, and that it goes from here to the town attorney, then the Board of Selectmen, then onto the annual town meeting warrantpassed
• 21:00
  Close the public hearingpassed

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

• 0:01
  The hearing could not change anything. The board said the last chance to alter the draft was the previous hearing a month earlier, and that this one existed only so residents know what they are voting on. The remaining decision point is the vote at annual town meeting.
• 5:19
  Under the revised ordinance, at page 21, non-residential expansions in the resource protection zone are prohibited outright, while residential expansions may go up to 30 percent of the area subject to board of appeals criteria. The old ordinance allowed no expansion of a non-conforming use at all, which had left long-standing houses along the river unable to do work on their property.
• 10:39
  Home-based businesses meeting set criteria will no longer need a conditional use permit. The change came out of a resident who sold vegetables online from his own computer and had to apply for a permit despite no effect on his neighbours.
• 21:00
  In the historic district commission's 13 years, only one application before it had any real historic significance, and about half the homes in the district are not historic. That is the reasoning behind moving the contributing or non-contributing judgement to the code enforcement officer.

Elsewhere

← 2016-01-02 Planning Board2016-05-04 Planning Board →All meetings