Planning Board Meeting ~ January 4, 2023

2023-01-04 · Planning Board · 2:02:59 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board elected officers, tabled the Deer Creek Crossing review at the applicant's request, and spent the meeting settling what it would recommend to the select board for the April 1 town meeting. On resource protection, town planner George Thebarge presented two versions of the recalibrated district map, one including the Beginning with Habitat 6+ criterion and one without it, and Joseph Roy of the Conservation Commission explained how that scoring model works. The board voted to recommend the version that includes Beginning with Habitat 6+, and then took a second motion on the fallback article that would only remove land with no supporting data if the first article fails at town meeting. The affordable housing amendments were reviewed in their final wording, with no new vote, the board having decided at its previous meeting to put the comprehensive plan version first and the state language as a fallback. The private ways and back lots amendment was set aside after a long discussion in which the board could not settle whether the trigger should be lots or dwelling units; George Thebarge will bring back a narrower amendment stating that a town road can only be accepted at town meeting.

What was discussed

1. 0:02
   Election of officers and acceptance of minutes

   An election of officers was added to the agenda. John Talbot was nominated as chair and Juliet Caplinger as vice chair, the vice chair vote being given as 4-0 and the chair vote as the same. The minutes of the December 7, 2022 meeting were then accepted.

2. 0:02
   Building permits against the comprehensive plan trigger

   George Thebarge reported that the comprehensive plan addendum calls for a special town meeting and consideration of a moratorium and a growth management plan if the town issues more than 45 permits or approves 100 lots in a year. He said the town issued 34 single-family home permits in the past year, giving the figure once as 35, against an average of about 15 five years ago and 20 to 22 the year before. No subdivisions were approved this year beyond a one-lot on Brown Road.

3. 0:02
   Build-out of approved subdivisions

   Members asked how many occupancy permits had been issued, since approvals do not show how much has actually been built. The Truman Day subdivision, approved for 12 lots, has been completing about two houses a year and could take six years, while a Royalsborough subdivision built its six lots in one year. Alan Plummer was asked for the occupancy permit count.

4. 5:47
   Deer Creek Crossing tabled

   The applicant asked for the completeness and substantive reviews to be tabled, being still without state permits. George Thebarge said an applicant has six months to file the final plan after preliminary approval, which can be extended while outside agency permits are awaited.

5. 5:47
   The three draft amendments and the timetable

   John Talbot introduced the three sets of draft amendments for the April 1 town meeting: resource protection, affordable housing, and a clean-up of the private roads language. George Thebarge said the select board is looking for a recommendation from the planning board and needs the language by February 14 at the latest to go into the town report. John Talbot thanked George Thebarge and Joseph Roy for answering landowners' questions about individual properties.

6. 11:43
   Resource protection: the two-vote structure

   George Thebarge explained that last year's phase one was not approved and that the select board is insistent on two separate votes. Following the December 6 public information meeting, the select board chairman, Kevin (?), suggested putting the full implementation of the comprehensive plan recommendations first, with relief for landowners restricted on inaccurate data as a fallback second vote. About 30 people attended that meeting and about 20 asked for detailed information on their own property.

7. 16:59
   The six criteria and the two map options

   The six criteria are floodplains, shoreland zoning areas, land within 100 feet of a perennial stream, wetlands of 10 or more acres, moderate to high value waterfowl and wading bird habitat, and Beginning with Habitat 6+. George Thebarge said five of the six are already in the land use ordinance but are applied only within mandatory shoreland zoned areas, while Beginning with Habitat 6+ would be new. He offered the board a map with that criterion and a map without it.

8. 22:42
   What Beginning with Habitat 6+ adds

   George Thebarge gave measurements for the areas that criterion alone would add, listing about 100 acres in one place, about 300 acres in another, 300 or more acres around Runaround Pond and about 40 acres elsewhere, and summarised it as somewhere between 300 and 400 acres; the individual figures given do not add to that total. He gave three reasons the board might leave it out: it is a new criterion, the rating is a qualitative assessment of quantitative data, and landowners should be able to understand the basis for it.

9. 27:47
   How the co-occurrence model scores land

   Joseph Roy explained that Beginning with Habitat assigns values to habitat features and maps them on top of each other, with a score of six or more flagged as a valuable resource. A critically imperiled species scores three on its own, and the rare turtle in question carries a buffer of about 750 feet because of how far it travels from water. Undeveloped habitat blocks score one at 200 to 600 acres, two at 600 to 1,200 and three above 1,200, and aquifers, ten-acre wetlands and stream buffers each add points.

10. 32:49
    What comes out of resource protection

    Members asked to see what the recalibration removes as well as what it adds. George Thebarge showed that much of the land coming out was included under the 2002 ordinance's reference to swampy areas or by older floodplain mapping that has since been tightened with lidar. Joseph Roy noted that the current district around Runaround Pond stops short of areas the comprehensive plan flags.

11. 37:58
    Mitigation as an alternative to zoning

    In answer to a question about whether development could be mitigated rather than prohibited, George Thebarge said the subdivision regulations already require applicants to check with state agencies, but the comprehensive plan's guidance on what to do with that information is not in the ordinance. He described other towns' approaches, including conservation easements, land acquisition and design requirements such as amphibian crossings under roads in Falmouth.

12. 48:42
    How the maps should be presented to voters

    The board discussed showing residents the existing district, the proposed change, and the final result as three separate maps, so people can find their parcel on each. George Thebarge said whatever is voted on must also create a clear legal record of what goes in and what comes out. The board agreed that only the final map should be attached to the warrant article, with the others used in a presentation and on the website.

13. 58:55
    Motion on Part 1A

    Juliet Caplinger moved that the board recommend the zoning map amendment including Beginning with Habitat 6+, on the basis of the science, the local experts and the comprehensive plan. A member said she was not in favour of including the turtle habitat, arguing the change puts restrictions on landowners with no relief available, and that expanding resource protection limits what people can do with land they may be leaving to their children.

14. 1:21:59
    Growth and the parcel map

    After the vote, members discussed the rate of development, with one saying the town is on its way to being another suburb. George Thebarge said the GIS parcel map had not been updated since 2002 and that he had added about a thousand lots to it since 2022.

15. 1:21:59
    Motion on the Part 1B fallback

    John Talbot moved that the board also support the fallback article, which if Part 1A fails at town meeting would remove from resource protection the land with no comprehensive plan data supporting it. Joseph Roy said the Conservation Commission would be in favour, on the ground that those landowners should not be held for another year. One member asked for more time before deciding and abstained.

16. 1:27:04
    Affordable housing: which version goes first

    The board reviewed its earlier decision to put the comprehensive plan version, Part 2A, to town meeting first with the state language, Part 2B, as the fallback. George Thebarge said the survey drew about 200 responses, 100 for a more restrictive approach and 100 for neutral or less restrictive, which the board had not treated as a strong enough indication either way. Members said the deciding factor was that Part 2A follows the comprehensive plan.

17. 1:32:15
    The Part 2A wording

    George Thebarge went through the changes: removing the limit of one single family or two family dwelling per lot, setting the minimum lot size for a two family dwelling at 110,000 square feet, allowing a maximum of three dwelling units per lot as either a single family with two accessory apartments or a two family with one accessory apartment, and removing the one accessory apartment per lot restriction. Three units created within a five-year period would be subject to subdivision review. A typo in the heading was noted.

18. 1:38:10
    The Part 2B wording and state guidance

    Part 2B puts the state language into the ordinance: a lot with an existing dwelling must be allowed two additional units for a maximum of three, and a vacant lot a maximum of two. Alan Plummer said MMA (?) told him it could not clarify the questions he had, and that Dan Averill (?), a director at the Department of Economic and Community Development, said rulemaking is expected to be finalised shortly with public comment opening within a month or two.

19. 1:43:42
    Private ways, back lots and what triggers a review

    George Thebarge explained that the rules for private roads outside subdivisions are split between the back lots section, the roads section and the subdivision appendix, and that a landowner currently has to go to the code officer and road commissioner for the plan and to the planning board for the maintenance agreement. The draft would consolidate them, delegate review to the road commissioner and code officer, and state that acceptance of a private road as a town road requires a vote at town meeting, as the select board chairman asked. The board could not settle whether the trigger should be two or more lots or two or more dwelling units, a question the new housing law makes harder because a back lot could now hold three units.

20. 1:59:18
    Private ways set aside

    John Talbot said that if there is this much confusion at board level the article would fail at town meeting. George Thebarge agreed to prepare for the February meeting an amendment that only states that town roads can be accepted at town meeting, leaving the rest for later work with the town attorney. The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn to February 1.

What was decided

• 0:02
  Elect John Talbot as chair and Juliet Caplinger as vice chair. The vice chair vote is given as 4-0 and the chair vote as the same; no separate count is stated for the chair.passed
• 0:02
  Accept the minutes of the December 7, 2022 meeting as presented. The minutes record the motion by Allan Purinton, seconded by Juliet Caplinger, carried 3-0-1.passed
• 5:47
  Table items 5a and 5b, the completeness and substantive reviews of Deer Creek Crossing, until February 1, 2023 at the request of the applicant. The minutes record the motion by Allan Purinton, seconded by Juliet Caplinger, carried 3-0-1.tabled
• 58:55
  Propose to the select board Part 1A, applying the resource protection criteria recommended by the 2018 comprehensive plan, including Beginning with Habitat 6+. The minutes record the motion by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Allan Purinton, carried 4-0; in the recording the chair says three to one as he calls the vote.passed
• 1:21:59
  Support the Part 1B fallback article, which if Part 1A fails at town meeting would remove from resource protection the land with no comprehensive plan data supporting it. In the recording the vote is three in favour with one abstention and the chair says it passes; the town's minutes record this motion, moved by John Talbot and seconded by Allan Purinton, as failed. The two accounts conflict.outcome unclear
• 1:59:18
  Set aside the private ways and back lots amendment, with George Thebarge to bring back a narrower amendment for the February meeting stating only that acceptance of a road as a town road requires a vote at town meeting.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.

Motions the minutes record

The town's own written account of what was decided, taken from pbminutes_010420223.txt. It owes nothing to the recording or to a model: the clerk typed it, with the vote. Where the summary above claims a decision this list does not carry, the summary is the part to doubt.

• accept the minutes from December 7, 2022 meeting as presentedcarried 3-0-1

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• table 5a and 5b until February 1, 2023, at the request of the applicantcarried 3-0-1

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

• propose to the Selectboard, Part 1A – to apply Resource Protection criteria per 2018 Comprehensive Plan recommendationscarried 4-0

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Allan Purinton

• if Part 1Afailed

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

Where the minutes and the recording disagree

Two independent records exist for this meeting: the town's written minutes and the video. For the items below they do not agree, or neither one settles the question. Both accounts are given as they stand. This site has no standing to decide which is right (the minutes are the legal record, the recording is what happened in the room), so the conflict is stated rather than resolved, and nothing here says the town got anything wrong.

• 1:21:59The written minutes record this motion as failed. On the recording it is carried three in favour with one abstention, and the chair says "so it passes". The minutes' own entry for it breaks off mid-sentence.

Worth knowing

• 0:02
  The comprehensive plan calls for a special town meeting and consideration of a moratorium if the town issues more than 45 permits or approves 100 lots in a year. The town issued 34 single-family home permits in the past year, given once as 35, against an average of about 15 five years ago.
• 5:47
  The select board needs the final ordinance language by February 14 at the latest for it to go into the town report, with the town meeting on April 1.
• 22:42
  The Beginning with Habitat 6+ criterion is the only one of the six not already in Durham's ordinance, and on its own would put somewhere between 300 and 400 acres into resource protection, though the individual areas listed add to more than that.
• 1:27:04
  The affordable housing survey drew about 200 responses, split 100 for a more restrictive approach and 100 for neutral or less restrictive. The board did not treat that as a strong enough indication and went with the version closest to the comprehensive plan.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 1 passage of motion language, against 6 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2022-12-07 Planning Board2023-02-01 Planning Board →All meetings