TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ February 3, 2016

guess I'd like to call this public hearing to order and um we've been through there have been a couple changes since the last time we met, mostly relating to appeals provisions, which Paul and I discussed, but I don't think the intent was to change anything sensitive on that. Uh but other than that, this is really just an opportunity for folks in the public to ask us questions, give us feedback. Uh the next steps from here will be that once we finalize this, we've taken all comments and made any changes we're going to make. This will go to the town attorney for review. It will go to the board of selectmen. Um and then it will get put on the warrant for our annual town meeting.

There there will be no other changes. There will be no other changes. No. Okay. So, this public hearing doesn't mean much. Well, it's just Yeah, it's it's it's information. It's it's enough information to put out to the public so that they understand what the changes are and if it's if it's enough of an issue, then it's settled at at town meeting. But as far as as the timeline goes, the last public hearing we had two weeks ago or last month was the last chance for actually making changes. So now it's just to present it to the public so that they know what's coming, so that they know what they're voting on at town at town meeting.

It has gone to a it went out this morning to the Department of Agriculture for review. It will go to Jack from here and um to the select board with Jack's recommendations. Okay, sounds good. So does anyone have questions or comments? No.

Uh maybe it would help to give a quick summary of what our intent was and what we've actually been able to accomplish. Um so we've struggled as the planning board. We've struggled to implement this ordinance for a couple years now. Um we find that folks who are coming before us are having a hard time understanding it. We're having a hard time applying it. And that happens a lot when ordinances are adopted and then changed over time. Bits and pieces are changed over time and it's no longer a cohesive hole. It's bits and pieces that are cobbled together. Uh so our first we worked with

um someone from Avco for a little while and that wasn't super productive. We tried doing it ourselves and that was a disaster. Um Zoe asked uh Nicole Brand who is the code officer in Bowdenham. Yeah. Bowdenham uh to help us out and her mission was really just to reorganize

was sort of the first step. So we don't consider this to be a finished document. We consider this to be the first step in a process of making our ordinances better. Uh we did incorporate the backlot ordinance and subdivision

subdivision and um I think that was that was it. I think that's it. Um our and our goal was not really to make any substantive changes other than anything that really jumped out at us as dysfunctional. The goal was really to reorganize it, streamline it, have it be a little more accessible and readily usable by the folks who were coming before us for permits as well as us as well as our code officer. Uh so the summary of changes gives you sort of a a basic overview uh of what we did or tried to do. So it oh the groundwater protection ordinance we also incorporated.

Yeah. Um you can see the added and revised definitions. We sort of changed those around and um tried to make them more clear. Some of them were to bring them into performance with state statute. So for junkyard for example, some of them were definitions that we struggled with in the past. Campground for example, uh and hit those and tried to clarify where the boundaries of some of these were. the non-conformance section before was

um so basically non-conformance is when you have a property or a building or a use that for some reason is no longer allowed in a zone but used to be allowed uh but it's you know what's called grandfathered non-conforming is the

legal word. Um and our non-conformance ordinance didn't make a whole lot of sense. we were allowing an expansion of use based on an area instead of an amount and things like that. So, we reorganized that and we changed that. There were some substantive changes in that section. Um, but we tried to hold pretty close to what we felt was the original intent of that ordinance, which was to allow non-conforming structures to be improved but not outside their footprint. Um, non-conforming uses couldn't be expanded. Uh, and eventually the idea is that non-conforming uses will go away over time

except for the residential portion of non-conforming uses, right? That could be expanded. There's homes that along the river that have been there forever. They're now considered non-conforming and there were significant restrictions on those houses to be able to do anything um because of their non-conforming use. So, we separated out the the diff we've made a difference between the commercial application and the residential application of existing non-conforming uses in the shoreline zone and and resource protection, what the town calls resell protection zone to allow those residential applications to continue to thrive.

And that's consistent with the state statute and guidance on shortly. Federal statutes, right? So, and the residential portion would be broken down in the new revision in terms of well, the the old ordinance did not allow for any expansion of a non-conforming use in what's known as the resource protection zone. Um, and we felt that it applied both residentially and commercially to any non-conforming use. that the only thing that we had come up against that seemed to have any real significant rub on that was the folks who had existing structures in the resource protection zone that may want to do a small addition or whatever that if they were to maintain the state and federal guidelines of expansion in those zones um that they should be allowed to continue to do that.

So we we sort of made the dividing line in that way with that one. Yep. So, I don't know if you guys have the revised ordinance, but under uh so it's on page 21 of the revised ordinance, non-residential expansions are prohibited. Done. Uh whereas residential exper residential expansions can occur up to 30% of the area according to a couple criteria that the board of appeals would decide would consider and decide whether it's appropriate. Uh and that would have to meet certain standards. As far as road frontage,

well, so this was only in as far as use, right? Potential use, use and lot or building are a little bit different, which can be and they overlap. So that's kind of hard to wrap your brain around. So for example, in our shoreland zone and our res what we have as our resource protection zone, residential uses aren't allowed period. So you can't build a new house in our resource protection zone. but their existing houses that perhaps they're conforming in all other ways. They meet the minimum lot size, they meet the setbacks, they meet all of everything else, but because it was a residential use in um a district where it's no longer allowed, they couldn't do anything to their property.

Um so that's changed under our new use statute standards. if they were fully conforming as far as lot setback, minimum, you know, maximum lot coverage, all of that, they can't go outside of those boundaries. Does that make sense?

Yeah. My my only question is if you had a single family with road frontage, could you expand 30% and put an extra unit on that? to having that same road frontage on there without having that. So, cuz you're saying that you can expand 30%, but can you make it into a two unit, single family into a two unit?

That would be a change of use. Yeah, that would be a change of use. Mother apartment. It's a change of use. It wouldn't be no changes of uses of that. No, but that's only in a rec. So, but you can put a 30% expansion for a breezeway or something like that

or an additional bedroom or that sort of stuff. I mean, it's essentially to maintain the single family character of what's already there and to allow it to continue to be used, but not control urban sprawl ideal. No, I I'm it's mainly these are just this these are environmentally resource protected zones. It's not really a a circumstance for sprawl. It's

it's mainly for protecting pollution of of water resources, aquafers, and that sort of stuff. So, I think probably the only district that this would apply is resource protection. Correct. Because that's the only district we don't allow residential uses in.

Yeah. It's not doesn't apply anywhere else in town, but in the in the what's known as the resource protection district, which is along the the rivers and ponds um in the in the flood zone areas and stuff along the side river.

Okay. Right around pond. It's not in the regular part of town. the most substantive changes to. Um we also revised the administrative section just to make it clear who does what as far as enforcement and permitting. The board of appeals we added in we clarified and we also added to allow for disability variance which is required by state statute which we didn't have. Uh so for example, handicap ramps and things like that that may not otherwise be permitted under our ordinance. Um the board of appeals can grant a variance based on disability. Um subdivision I don't remember what we did for subdivision. We just I think we just updated it to conform to state law. Is that right?

And to we allowed for a technical review fee that was added. Y that's right. Um we went through some of the approval criteria uh to update it to local to current state laws. When the state changes statutes and the ordinance has to follow if it doesn't over time it starts citing laws that don't exist anymore and no longer valid.

Yep. And actually if you see the last bullet under revise the subdivision conditional use permit section that last bullet actually has nothing to do with subdivision. That was another substantive change we made is we found we were having folks who were working

remotely via the internet. We had one gentleman come in who was like selling vegetables online, you know, like trading vegetables basically and he had to come to us for a conditional use permit and that was ridiculous. It had no impact on his neighbors. It had no impact on the neighborhood. He's literally sitting in his home typing on his computer.

Yeah. Um, so we changed the statute that if homebased businesses meet certain criteria, they're just allowed. They don't have to come to us at all. We don't have to review them. And it really was designed to get at those folks who will have zero impact on their neighbors or the neighborhood or the property. Um, there'll be no major changes. Uh, that was another substantive change that we made. Anything else will need to come to us for a full review based on our performance criteria which includes traffic considerations and noise and light and and use and all of that appropriateness of the use

without without reading specifically into the subdivision changes. Is it still two or more dwellings require the subdivision? It's three. It's three Yeah. The third the third division is the is is the threshold. Okay. Yeah.

And that's consistent with state law. State law. One of our goals in the future. So, we have a backlot ordinance or had a backlot ordinance that we since incorporated that's pretty clunky. Um, and it it's not a great way for folks to be using their land. Basically, you create a rightway that just goes back. Um, one of our goals in the future is to make subdivision or a minor subdivision more friendly so that folks are actually thinking about what's what's the best way to lay out to divide up my property because people see subdivision and they think it's super burdensome and it can be especially for large ones. Um, and we'd love to make that more accessible for people because it's just a better way to plan our community and have our community grow than people trying to force them into these back lots. That has not been done in this. That is a goal of ours in the future. So, we'd love folks who have thoughts on that to

to give them to us as we work through that problem. John actually put together a good draft for us to start building on that for next year. So, if this when when this cycle starts again through next year, if any of you guys want to get involved, it'd be nice to have you here and you can look through some of this stuff and help us figure out how to craft it.

Yeah, I'd be interested in that. Okay. Yeah. Great. I know where to find you. Right. The the last one is also a substantial um change and we had started we had started working with the road commissioner on a driveway entrance standard over a year ago. I think

it was before I came here two years ago before I came here. Um, so we finally got around to incorporating that into the ordinance, but that basically requires approval for new entrances onto town roads, uh, to make sure that sight distances are met and everything's safe and all of that. You know, you're not going to wash out town property with your driveway. Part of the issue that we've been having in town is a lot of the culberts and stuff that have been put in where driveways enter town roads haven't been put in properly and it the town winds up because it's in the rightway the town winds up bearing responsibility for repairing and replacing them which is a considerable burden on the taxpayer. It shouldn't be the taxpayer's burden.

So the idea with this is that with a driveway and entrance we get the driveways where they need to be make sure that the coverts that initially are installed by the homeowner are put in correctly. They'll last a lot longer and they won't impact negatively impact the roads or or the road budgets in regards to replacement. Coverts are supposed to be in approximately twice their depth. So if you got a 15inch cover, it wants 15 inches of soil on top of it than the cover. So it needs to carry the depth in order to maintain over time. It doesn't just lift up out of the ground through frosting and stuff. So, the road commissioner will now have the opportunity to review all entrances to see that they meet the standard.

Are paved aprons part of the new requirements? Um, I I'm not remembering exactly. Does it say that in there? I I didn't see it. I was just I think where the where the road is paved. I think that they may be in the um I'm going to have to look for you on that. And for existing entrances, can those be affected or reviewed by the road commissioner?

Existing entrances don't don't come under review. Okay. I think unless you're rebuilding or changing it substantially, and I'm thinking back to the ordinance we wrote before. Okay. Um, so I think it's only triggered if you're doing something major to it,

but regular maintenance and upkeep, and if it exists, we're not touching it. And there there is a provision in there for um people who have entrances onto town roads that may not be able to meet the site distance that at the discretion of the road commissioner. Um there's a little bit of room to try to figure out how best to satisfy the intention. So it doesn't bind anybody into a corner they can't get out.

comprehensive plan? There's a lot of talk going. It's still talk. Ruth and I have been putting together trying to put together a a a timeline flowchart as to how the process should move forward and when certain benchmarks need to be accomplished in order to keep it moving. I've been reviewing some of the GIS data for mapping um and a couple of the other websites in the state. The state will put together a pretty good resource package for us uh if we decide to pull the trigger on it. that they want to they want an approved committee before they'll start putting any of their energy into it.

Are we going to get help to facilitate that or just do it in house? Um, it's looking like what I'm assuming what we would do initially is put together a committee and then at the as the once the committee is established determine what portions we need to go outside for professional help. Most of the mapping and that sort of stuff is going to be done somewhere else. we don't have the capacity for that. Uh we'll look at what we have for resources within the committee and within the town to satisfy some of the requirements. Um and then kind of decide what to do from that point.

usually takes between one and two years to put together a halfway decent comp plan. Took a couple years last time and with heavy involvement by ABCOG. Yeah. A lot of hearings. A lot of what? A lot of hearings. Yeah, it takes a lot of hearings. It would need a lot of public input. That's one that's really important to be really uh public about.

If there's resources needed, this is the time so they can get into the budget cycle, part of our budget committee. For those of you on the budget committee on the budget, for Ann, maybe we could move forward with Ben kind of going over the stuff that we did with the historic district ordinance as well. Um, just to kind of hit the highlights on that one for folks if in case they have an interest.

Are you prepared for that? Yeah, I'm ready. So, the uh the historic district is kind of down in the southwest southwest bend area where the gazebo is and there's a uh established district there. Um, and any work that people have wanted to do has had to come in front of the historic commission. Um, and it's just been we found it extremely burdensome on the residents of the area. So, we've been trying to figure out over the how long has it been? A year and a half now?

Yeah, two years. Two years. Oh, boy. And um we've just been trying to figure out how to best streamline processes while um retaining the historic nature of some of the the buildings down there. Um so we've kind of started at the bottom level. Sounds like like you guys have as well. Um we've just been doing some definition changes. Um we've omitted a couple things and we've given uh some power to the codes enforcement officer to to to draw lines before it comes to the commission. Um one thing so the definition changes um we brought in um contributing resources and a non-contributing resource meaning a historically significant structure would be a contributing resource. And then there's a lot of buildings down there that are more modern, don't really apply. So, we added that to the to the ordinance. Um, we asked to omit any exterior painting projects to come in front of the commission just cuz

it's just people need to maintain their homes. It's just it's too much work. Telling them how to what color to paint it. Right. Right. Seemed a little over a little problematic. Right. Um and basically the biggest change that we made was

article four here. four criteria that a uh well how would I say this? uh four criteria that would determine whether a building is contributing or non-contributing. Um and it would be up to the codes enforcement officer upon building application. Um whether it was or was not. Therefore, he can just say, "Well, look, it's, you know, it's non-contributing. Don't worry about it. I'll take care of it right here." Or it's a contributing structure and then it might have to go to the historic commission to approve the changes. I think that was pretty much it. Oh, we there was a um under article 4

in the ordinance new construction. Um the the a certificate of appropri appropriateness would need to be applied to new construction, but we got rid of that figuring that any new construction was not a was not contributing to historical significance of the area. So, um,

it's a little more complicated than that. Essentially, if I may. Yeah, I know. Please do. You can explain it better than I can. Any anything that went on in the historic district had to come before the historic district commission for a certificate of appropriateness. If you wanted to put up a fence if you wanted to paint your house, no matter what you did, has to come before it. And it's a it's a a pretty much a blanket sort of federalbased ordinance for preservation. um that doesn't really fit Durham well. Um the Southwest Bend is an important historical part of Durham and should be preserved in some measure, but about 50% of the homes uh in the in the district are not historical homes. They're more modern homes. Um and in the 13 years that the commission has existed, uh they've had one application come before them that had any real historic significance. everything else has been other people in a district that it just

becomes cumbersome in the process of what they want to do with their houses. It's one more layer of stuff they have to go through that that doesn't really seem to further the historic preservation of the district um or u you

know really really do anything to help anybody out. So, we were looking, the board was looking for a way to streamline the process for structures in the district that aren't historic in a way that would allow them to do work like anyone else would on their home and still preserve the character and nature of the district itself and the historic structures in the district. So, if a historic home in the district wants to put on an addition or a side building or something like that, the the the property is considered a resource. They didn't say buildings, we said resource. So there is some application of the district commission to look at how a historic resource would be improved, expanded, replaced or so on. So the significant part of that is is a a um contributing resource or a non-contributing resource. Uh so any place that's not visible from the road, you get down along the ferry road where

there's a few of the homes that that can't really have any real significant impact on the historical character of the Southwest Bend is kind of a no-brainer. Uh some of the other ones that are a little bit different up near the road or maybe associated with other homes would will be looked at a little differently, but it should free up most of the covers and parts of the ordinance on property owners in the district.

Do we have any national registered listed? Four. Four. None of them in the district. No, we're in the district. That's another We're way off on that, but we're we're going to be looking at that. Um, so going forward, the board, the historic district commission's really excited about trying to do a a townwide historic inventory, assessing structures and stuff in town and find out where most of them are. and really start to get into looking how best the the commission can apply itself to historic attributes and resources and preservation in townwide. So, they're pretty excited. This will this will relieve them of a lot of the um the sort of cumbersome part of what it is that they were going to do and they can really get get on stuff.

Yeah, nailed it. Thank you, Paul. It is. Yep. It is. think we'll close the public hearing. Thank you guys for coming. Um, we're excited once the comp plan is done, we'll be excited to start digging into this a little more and really thinking about how our town grows like in the future.

Thank you guys for coming. Thank you.