Public Information Meeting - Land Use Ordinance Amendments

2025-11-12 · Public Information Meeting · 1:43:56 · watch on YouTube →

An informal public information meeting held by the planning board on proposed amendments to Durham's Land Use Ordinance. The chair stated at the outset that no voting would take place and that this was planned to be the last informal public meeting on the ordinance updates before the select board's review and a formal public hearing ahead of the summer town meeting. The town planner, George, presented ten proposed administrative changes covering the digitisation of the ordinance, subdivision road standards, driveway standards, zoning boundary determinations, subdivision solid waste containers, campground review scope, application deadlines and submission requirements, non-substantive text corrections, and proof of payment of taxes. Each section was opened to public comment. The agriculture committee also presented a set of proposed agriculture definitions and was asked to return with a narrower package if it wanted anything on the coming town meeting warrant.

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. 0:45
   Opening and purpose of the meeting

   Brian (?), chairing, welcomed the public, said all members were present, and stated this was an informal, non-voting public meeting. He explained that the land use ordinance is amended annually to bring sections into legal compliance, that a consultant had been hired this year for codification, and that the board had been working through the proposed updates since the spring.

2. 6:10
   Process, and how the changes will be split on the warrant

   George (?) said the consultant works on ordinances for about 32 Maine communities and had completed an editorial and legal analysis identifying 139 points needing attention, including inconsistent references to the select board and areas out of compliance with state law on affordable housing and mobile home parks. The technical codification will go to town meeting as one warrant article, with minor policy changes and administrative changes handled as separate articles, so that a contested policy item cannot defeat the codification the town has paid for. He noted the board had pulled noise regulation changes off the minor policy list after public input at the October 22 meeting.

3. 11:19
   Administrative change 1: digitised ordinance

   The ordinance is currently maintained as a Microsoft Word document that George updates by hand each year and posts as a single PDF. The digitised version would be searchable and cross-referenced, with the whole ordinance or individual sections downloadable as Word or PDF, and would carry the corrections for typographical errors, outdated citations, floodplain management and affordable housing requirements.

4. 11:19
   Administrative change 2: subdivision road standards

   Road classification would move off the repealed growth management policy, which split roads into public and private by growth area, and onto traffic-based classes of minor local, local and subcollector. Pavement width would go from the present 22 feet public and 20 feet private to 20, 22 and 24 feet by class; shoulders would go from 4 feet public and 2 feet private to 2 feet for all roads on the peer-review engineer's advice; and the 50-foot right of way would be widened for subcollectors, which George (?) said are unlikely to be built in Durham as they serve over a hundred homes.

5. 16:34
   Road standards continued: paving, base, culverts, turnarounds and sight distance

   A building permit could be issued once the road is complete to the lot in question, rather than for the whole road, if the fire chief verifies access for emergency vehicles. Gravel would still be allowed for roads serving three or fewer lots, with the whole road out to the main road paved if it goes beyond three; road base would change from 6 inches of aggregate base and 12 inches of subbase to 3 inches of surface gravel and 15 inches of base gravel; and culverts would change from 12-inch zinc-coated metal pipe to high-density polyethylene at a 15-inch minimum, with planning board waiver authority. Parking standards would move to site plan review, driveways on turnarounds would need the road commissioner's approval so as not to interfere with plowing, and sight distances would be made to match the MDOT standard.

6. 21:49
   Question on whether reclassification affects existing roads

   Mike (?) asked whether the new road classes apply only within subdivisions or across the town, and how they interact with the minor policy changes that turn on whether a road is public or private. George (?) said the standards apply only to the construction of new roads, in subdivisions or as private ways, and that the assessing and 911 maps and the road commissioner's maintenance map are unaffected. He added that the back lot access policies depend on whether something meets the legal definition of a road and on legal rights of access, not on construction standards.

7. 21:49
   Administrative change 3: driveway standards

   The current wording applies driveway standards to all town roads, which has left the road commissioner unclear whether he issues permits on state-maintained, town-maintained or association-maintained roads. The revision would apply the permit requirement only to roads over which the town has jurisdiction, through town maintenance or planning board approval, and state that the town does not issue permits where MDOT does.

8. 27:47
   Driveway standards continued, and a question on aprons

   Sight distance tables would be made consistent with MDOT; the driveway grade allowed where it meets the road would drop from 10 percent to 3 percent within the right of way; the minimum intersection angle would be fixed at 75 degrees, removing the road commissioner's discretion to allow less; the apron would be paved wherever the road is paved regardless of grade; and erosion control language would become a cross-reference. A member of the public said the ordinance does not specify how deep a paved apron must be, that aprons he has seen look like one or two feet, and that he did not believe the requirement was being adhered to; George (?) said he would look into specifying it.

9. 33:03
   Public comment on maintenance agreements for private ways

   A resident asked what the town attorney had said about maintenance agreements on private ways. George (?) said the attorney's concern was with imposing an agreement on existing owners, and that she was satisfied once told the ordinance only requires the person extending the way to make an offer to the other owners and record an affidavit, not to obtain their participation. Residents argued that maintenance is a matter between the private owners and no business of the town, since the town will not maintain those roads.

10. 38:20
    Administrative change 4: who determines zoning district boundaries

    Authority to determine the precise location of a zoning district boundary would move from the board of appeals to the planning board. George (?) said the question has come before the board of appeals four times in the seven years he has worked for the town, that the board of appeals struggled with it because members saw it as changing the zoning map, and that the planning board meets more often and has staff and consultant support. Mike (?) confirmed this covers interpreting the existing map on a particular property, not changing zoning.

11. 38:20
    Administrative change 5: subdivision solid waste containers

    There are currently no rules on where subdivision trash containers may be placed, and George cited Windgate Farms (?) on Royalsborough Road, where containers are put out on a road with a 50 mph speed limit. The proposal would require collection from within the subdivision, either curbside or at a central facility, and would require the developer to submit either a readiness-to-serve letter from the hauler or a waste management plan for planning board approval.

12. 43:34
    Public comment on the hauler and private roads

    A member of the solid waste committee said Casella requires full indemnification for road damage before going down a private road, that its trucks weigh 100,000 pounds and will damage private roads, and that a smaller truck would make more sense. Others noted the hauler does not go down private ways at all, and that if Casella will not serve a subdivision no readiness-to-serve letter will be forthcoming and the developer would have to produce a plan.

13. 48:49
    Timing against the Casella contract, and scope of the change

    Members said the town's contract with Casella is being settled before the summer town meeting, with the select board due to meet the company around December 9, and that the contract terms would affect what this section should say. It was clarified that the change sits in the subdivision regulations and covers subdivisions only, not private ways generally, and the draft language prohibiting containers being placed on main public roads or state roads for collection was read out.

14. 53:49
    Administrative change 6: scope of campground reviews

    Campgrounds would keep the conditional use review, which looks at noise, traffic and visual quality, but would be exempted from site plan review under article 8, whose standards are written for commercial installations. George (?) said the state already conducts the full engineering, sanitation and environmental review under its campground licensing, and that on the most recent campground the applicant spent nearly two years at the state before the planning board acted on the state-approved plans.

15. 59:02
    Campground definition, and administrative change 7: submission deadlines and copies

    A resident pointed out that Durham defines a campground as more than one site while the state uses five or more, creating a gap for small campsites, and asked that the definitions be aligned; the board said it would look into it and discuss it further. On deadlines, the current 14 days to get onto the next agenda would go to 21 days, a deadline would be set for applicants supplying missing information, and the requirement for 10 printed copies would drop to five, with material sent out at least seven days before the meeting.

16. 1:04:32
    Non-substantive corrections, and proof of payment of taxes

    The select board, on the planning board's recommendation and after review by the town attorney, would be authorised to correct typographical errors, misspellings, incorrect cross-references and outdated statutory citations without waiting for a town meeting, with a record kept and no change to substance; George gave the example of back lot access, cited as section 5.23 when it is now 5.24. A separate change would require proof that property taxes are paid as evidence of the financial capacity needed for a conditional use permit or subdivision approval, following at least one case where an applicant did not pay taxes for two years while the lien process ran.

17. 1:10:34
    Discussion of the tax requirement and applicant standing

    Members discussed how the requirement would work where a property is being bought, when taxes are settled at closing and responsibility passes to the buyer, and noted the board can already negotiate conditions such as payment of taxes before a plan is released for recording. It was also noted that an applicant must hold some vested interest in the property, such as an easement or a purchase and sale agreement. This stretch of the transcript is heavily garbled.

18. 1:10:34
    Administrative change: conditional use submission requirements

    Submission requirements the planning board adopted as instructions in 2020 would be moved into the ordinance itself, which the town attorney advised is where they must be authorised. The change would also make clear that the planning board, not the code officer, determines whether an application is complete, and would preserve the board's authority to waive requirements on request with justification.

19. 1:15:55
    Agriculture committee: proposed definitions of agriculture

    A co-chair of the agriculture committee, which was formed under a charter approved last year and works from the 2018 comprehensive plan, presented a set of proposed agriculture definitions drawn from review of other Maine towns' ordinances. She said the aim was to establish shared language for what agriculture looks like now before deciding what ordinance changes follow, and that different aspects may need different treatment. David Coulson was named as the other co-chair.

20. 1:21:11
    How agriculture sits in the current ordinance

    George set out where agriculture appears now: the rural residential and agricultural district as the town's primary district, the article 3 table specifying where agriculture is permitted or conditional in each district, performance standards on storage, spreading and disposal, mapping of farmland soils in the subdivision regulations, shoreland provisions on water quality, and aquifer protection limits on pesticides and spraying. He said adding six or more definitions would require deciding where each new use falls in that table, so this is more than a matter of definitions.

21. 1:26:18
    Timeline for getting agriculture changes onto the warrant

    George (?) said he had spoken to Christa Chappelle (?) of the farmland trust, who indicated continued support for the agriculture committee, and that a complete package could be considered at the next town meeting if assembled in time. He said the codification draft is expected at the end of January, that the town would have to finalise proposals by about April at the latest, and that the planning board must hold a public hearing not less than 7 and not more than 30 days before the town meeting. Definitions alone, he said, would not change anything.

22. 1:31:36
    Overlap in existing definitions, and pairing with the comprehensive plan

    A member noted the ordinance already contains both 'agriculture' and 'agricultural community' and that the two look similar. Others suggested that because the comprehensive plan must be updated within the next couple of years, the wider agriculture questions could be taken up alongside that process, which would bring its own public discussion.

23. 1:37:46
    Farm labour and housing; closing

    The committee co-chair raised the labour shortage on Maine farms alongside the housing shortage, and how housing affordable to farm workers might be provided. The board asked the committee to identify the most critical changes and scale the proposal down. The closing exchange is largely inaudible.

What was decided

• 38:20
  Agreed that whether the town should require maintenance agreements on private ways is more than a minor policy issue and would be taken up separately, possibly on next month's agenda or the following year, rather than as part of this set of changes. No vote was taken; the meeting was informal and non-voting.tabled
• 53:49
  Agreed to leave the subdivision solid waste container language as drafted for now and to follow the town's contract negotiations with Casella through March before revisiting it.outcome unclear
• 59:02
  Agreed to look into aligning Durham's definition of a campground, currently more than one site, with the state's definition of five or more sites, and to discuss it at a later meeting.tabled
• 1:26:18
  Agreed that the agriculture committee would work up a scaled-down package of essential ordinance changes rather than definitions alone, and that if it cannot be assembled in time for the coming town meeting it would wait until the following year.tabled

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

• 6:10
  The consultant's editorial and legal analysis of the land use ordinance identified 139 points needing correction, including areas where the town is not in compliance with state law on affordable housing and mobile home parks. The technical codification will be a separate warrant article from the policy changes so that a contested policy item cannot defeat the codification the town has paid for.
• 43:34
  A solid waste committee member said Casella requires complete indemnification for road damage before entering a private road and that its trucks weigh 100,000 pounds. The town's contract with Casella was moved up, with the select board due to meet the company around December 9, and members said the contract terms would determine what the subdivision solid waste rules should say.
• 27:47
  The driveway grade allowed where a driveway meets the road would drop from the present 10 percent to 3 percent, and the minimum intersection angle would be fixed at 75 degrees, removing the road commissioner's ability to approve a shallower angle. George (?) said the present wording could expose the town to liability.
• 1:26:18
  The codification draft is expected at the end of January; proposals must be finalised by about April; and the planning board must hold a public hearing not less than 7 and not more than 30 days before the town meeting. The chair said this was planned to be the last informal public meeting before the select board's review and a formal public hearing.

Elsewhere

← 2025-10-22 Public Information MeetingAll meetings