TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ January 4, 2023

subdivision stuff tonight so are you comfortable voting we have an election and we have a discussion I don't forget to vote online draft land use ordinances and your input will be accepted on that so amendments so she is a voting member this evening amendments to the agenda I have one which is to hold an election

are you here for oh okay oh that's right I'm sorry I didn't recognize you if I put my glasses on they fog up um so I'll hold an election for officers do I have any nominations I'll nominate John Talbot for our chair second uh we have a motion in a second all in favor please raise a hand okay thank you very much it didn't it's not going to take three days and six elections like the House of Representatives that it's not only yet we're still working on it so with the next office is vice president do I have a motion I'll move to nominate Juliette Caplinger for vice chair second uh moved and seconded all those in favor please raise a hand and again 4-0 so we are now up to acceptance of the minutes of and thank you all uh acceptance of the minutes of Prior meetings December 7th 2020. oh one second hey Devin turn it on please thank you I always forget to tell me turn it on okay so acceptance of the

minutes of the December 7th meeting any comments if not I'll accept a motion I'll move to accept him as presented I'll second moved and second any discussion if not those in favor please raise a hand oh abstain and one extensions uh so three in favor one abstention informational exchange on non-agenda items uh I will just report to the board that uh you may recall in the comprehensive plan there's an addendum that says at any point if the town issues more than 45 permits which used to be the uh building cap or approves a hundred lots that that would call for a special uh town meeting and consideration of a moratorium and development of a growth management plan uh this year past year the town issued

34 single-family home permits so it's uh it has increased it was averaging around 15 maybe five years ago in the last five years jumped up to 20 22 last year and now it's up 35 so it is increasing but still well within the limit okay and I don't think we approved any subdivisions there were two subdivisions the year before and we've worked on this subdivision since April of last year but okay and oh you did have the Brown Road one lot it would be interesting to know how many occupancy permits had been issued perhaps the complement those 34 whether that net tell me how many is still really pending they're not finished yeah there are three or four subdivisions that are still building out so yeah definitely I know like Bowie Hill I drove through today all five of those lots are far from finished or do you know how many occupancy permits were issued 2022 Alan Allen is our code enforcement

okay so can we Define that again I know right of course so I can see is it's built people are moved in or they're about to move in right it's like a building permit almost right so yeah I mean no matter how many subdivisions we approve in a year they might not occupy for who knows right because they have to build them and everything so it's there's a little bit of a delay there but that is good info interesting to give you an example The Truman Day subdivision which was approved for 12 . they have been doing about two houses a year so based on that it could take them up to six years to complete that subdivision they're online 10 right now but yeah and then the on the other end of it the royalsboro one they got approved and I know they did it all in one year six of them like yeah it was amazing so yeah okay um well it also be interesting to see six months from now where we are in terms of the economy is

this building in fact good it's going to slow down you know if we've got Bowie Hill we've got if Deer Creek passes you know those Gonna Fill is what's the what's the housing market going to be like uh near term so okay anything else [Music] um okay the only comment I have and I apologize I came down with uh covet just before the last selectman meeting and two things I'm past the window of infection but I'm wearing this out of as Dr fauci says an overabundant of caution and I did not get a chance to talk to the selectman but they know what we'd like to do in terms of these things and I'm I'm hoping that if they had any objections the town manager or Kevin or somebody would have come back and said time out stop you know try it a different route so regarding the the housing thing the affordable housing in particular so having said that are there any residents who would like to speak on things that are not on the agenda

uh Ellen I guess I should did you have anything you want to say as the code enforcement guys a town official are there any non-residents who would like to say something on things other than the agenda seeing none of the next uh continuing business is the completeness and substantive substantive review of Deer Creek they've asked to be tabled they're still waiting for their permits from the state and that information um so I believe we need a mo and and you'll have to recruit yourself that recuse yourself probably but uh a motion to table uh item 5A completeness review of Deer Creek Crossing motion please actually I've got a question or maybe after but uh timeline is there any restrictions they they have six months to file for the final plan after getting a preliminary approval however if they are awaiting agent Outside Agency permits as in this case that can be extended yeah okay any any other questions comments discussion so

they're looking to table this until February meeting February meeting which is that going to be on the first or is it going to be on the 8th I think we always say first Wednesday we can change that first of February okay

actually five a and five b until February 1st oh second second day discussion hearing none all those in favor of tabling 5A The Substitute of review and the completeness uh raise a hand three zero one abstention [Music] so I think we should also note on that that was at the request of the applicant at the request of so we add that to the motion and we go I think we've got an email from their engineer today that said they wanted to do that so okay the the next discussion is uh I'm sure nobody has forgotten over the holidays but there are two um two areas that we've been working on or we've been working on in this Conservation Commission been working on for articles changes to the land use commission one is the affordable housing survey for affordable housing articles and then the other one is um resource protection and then I guess there's one more that is about is just cleaning up some of the language on

private roads and so uh Mr DeBarge if you'd kind of like to go through the plan on how we're going to do that uh it wasn't in your packet the uh the information on all of these draft amendments but I printed out some copies and some more clearer Maps which I think will be a little bit easier to read so I'm going to distribute those to you and while he's doing that I'd like to thank Mr the barge uh put in a lot of work answering a lot of specific what does this mean to my property questions we're talking about how useful uh George has been but you know that's one of the things that's probably been that is George's okay here you um he's got one we're good um so George I'd like to thank you for taking that on I know Mr Roy from the Conservation Commission is in um their chairman has also answered a bunch of questions so I I appreciate everybody working with the the residents of Durham and educated the

case of some people are not residents have to remove Homeland so um I did pass out these printed copies and we'll just start with the uh first potential set of draft amendments for the land use ordinance for the town meeting will be held on April 1st so as

you mentioned John we've been working on uh the resource uh Protection District boundary recalibration and uh so what I have done as you will recall there was a public meeting on December 6th the Conservation Commission held a lot of discussion and um so now we need to prepare and also the planning board held in October similar workshop on information meeting on the affordable housing components so yeah and we do discuss that as well so uh where you are now in the process is the select board is going to be looking for and welcoming a recommendation from the planning board on uh all proposed ordinance Amendment and so we've kind of been working on this time frame of they have to do the Warren articles the actual drafts of everything have to be ready you have to hold a public hearing it goes out in the town report so there's quite a very precise time frame that we've been following so this is uh kind of the

meeting where you get the first chance to formally review the draft language uh and then hopefully if you can make a decision on this tonight that would be great if we communicated to the select board if if you want more time you have the February meeting as well but they need the language at the latest by February 14th you mentioned John in order to uh to put it into the town report and send it out to the citizens so in the language is the actual verbiage of the uh with the town would vote the Warren article I believe is what goes into the talent report I'm not sure I don't think the Amendments do but there probably would be summaries they will go into the town report so if you want to start there are three parts proposed the first is resource protection the second is the affordable housing and the third is private ways which is kind of like you mentioned John cleaning up some of that uh clarify

clarifying and simplifying the process for review of what are what are known in most towns as private ways so if you want to start with the resource protection let's do that because I know we have two folks from the resource excuse me conservation the coscom

I just want to point out that Mooring new swag I see that I see that fish Roy is always appreciative of Mike Cubs outfits yeah we'll pretend Ed okay uh so starting with uh what I've labeled as part 1A and you may recall that there has been discussion of uh there are two two uh phases of the recalibration the first originally contemplated was correcting the boundaries for areas that uh Property Owners had land that was in resource protection with no basis in terms of the data uh and then that would be what what had been considered phase one phase two would then look at applying the recommended criteria of the comprehensive plan uh toward all properties within the town so there was discussion at the last town meeting and they ended up not approving the first phase and so this year I think everybody's on the same page to go to the town meeting with uh both phases out at one town meeting now the select board

has indicated they they are insistent on having to separate votes but at the after the public informational meeting with the Conservation Commission uh chairman Kevin Edo basically suggested that perhaps putting the full implementation for the recommendations of the comprehensive plan would be appropriate to consider first and then if that fails then in order to give

relief to those property owners that have restrictions based on inaccurate data that that would be kind of the fallback position uh in a second vote so that is pretty much what's before you um I have yes so so on that if

properties that are impacted correct and then with the second vote follow that as well third vote third vote sorry the one after that like um the people that would be added to or would that just be tabled well well the first vote would be fully implement the recommendations the comprehensive plan which would both put in the new uh land that is subject outside the existing resource Protection District never mind it doesn't it's like and or never mind yeah it would if so the first one fails and the second one passes then obviously the third one is there would not be a there wouldn't be a third one because it doesn't sound like there'd be a third article not at this town meeting that doesn't say that you can't continue to explore the expansion and I think one of the issues is how much research how much public participation has been done obviously we're doing a lot more this year than we did last year just for a

number of circumstances but uh you know there are some parts of this and that kind of leads to uh what I'd like to propose or at least offer for consideration tonight is an option so during the public participation process uh you know a lot of people came about 30 plus people came to the uh information meeting uh about 20 of them signed up to say I want more detailed information and I've been doing that with using GIS

analysis to show them what the effect would be on their property positive or negative and some of them have raised concerns and questions about uh particularly the beginning with habitat six plus rating system and we did find in one case where

the mapping that the greater Portland Council of governments had translated I think we're not exactly sure what happened uh the beginning with habitat data from the state and we found an area of 10 acre Wetlands that was actually Upland a fairly substantial area I did check the rest of the map in terms of the national Wetland inventory to see if there were other areas with that kind of discrepancy and I didn't really find any so but in any case the comprehensive plan recommends that for areas that are rated beginning with habitats six plus multiple natural resource areas it the wording of the of the comprehensive plan and I can put it up on the screen is basically to say these areas should be considered for resource protection or another response would be to require mandatory clustering in subdivisions to try to preserve open space in those areas so the comprehensive plan talks about two different options and uh at that

informational meeting uh the chairman Kevin Neto discussed with me the the fact that there were six proposed criteria those being floodplains shorel areas of Shoreland zoning uh required by the state the uh 100 within 100 feet of a stream a perennial stream uh also uh Wetlands of 10 or more acres and also currently contained in this ordinance under Shoreland zoning are these moderate to high value waterfowl and wading bird habitats so five of the six criteria are currently in the land use ordinance but they're not being applied on a town-wide basis they're only being applied those specific criteria are only being applied within areas governed by mandatory Shoreline so Kevin pointed out that the beginning of habitat is somewhat different in its stat status than the other and the other five and that would be something adding a new Criterion that's not currently in the land use ordinance so what I've

provided is is an opportunity for you to discuss and hopefully come up to your own conclusion of whether whether it would warrant putting two different options before the select board for their decision and so what I've done is prepared the criteria would be exactly the same and what we would do is take the same criteria that are in the Shoreland zoning and put it into the establishment of districts so it applied all on a town-wide basis not just within the Shoreland zoned areas and then uh map the first map I show includes that beginning with habitat uh six rating and I'll put that up on the screen so that members of the public watching might be able to see that so this is this map and I'm going to go to

a bigger View and this is what you're doing that Mr departure my understanding from the I.T guy is that this is being streamed but only the voice is being straight so if Folks at home are watching live you cannot see the the maps at this point and he's working on trying to get that uh for the next time but it will be on YouTube probably starting tomorrow or Friday so it's also in the agenda packet it's in the agenda package thank you that's right which is available online these maps are a little bit different I've worked on them to get them to be a little bit clearer uh than the ones that were in the packet and also be able to to zoom in closer so uh so this does include you'll see the last Criterion down here the gray is the existing uh the red Dash gray areas of the existing resource Protection District as of 2020 and then these are those criteria that I mentioned uh including beginning with habitat six

plus multiple resources and uh if you look at this one of Joe and I have discussed and have responded to a couple of uh property owners in terms of a couple of issues one is this this semi-circular area which would be a full circle is uh Blanding turtle habitat and Joe can explain the technical status of that uh that species and the habitat protection programs are available but this is entirely new resource protection zoning based on that one Criterion uh and it is a I did some

measurements today uh this is about a hundred acres here that's not currently in land that's there's some conservation easement areas out there uh and on this side down here that's uh approximately 300 acres and then there's some more over on this part of runaround Pond periphery uh in those areas right there are uh about 300 plus acres and then one of the landowners expressed concerns about the beginning with habitat six plus on these properties two of the property owners had questions about it and there's about another 40 acres over there so somewhere between 300 and 400 acres of land would be restricted by this and uh by this one Criterion alone so one question would be so three reasons to consider it at least for not including it in this round is number one this is a new Criterion compared to the others uh number two the um the rating system that's been developed by in the Fishers and Wildlife is is a qualitative

assessment based on quantitative data so in the again Joe's the expert on this can explain it much uh better detail but generally as I understand it they look at the different values of wildlife habitat of endangered species habitat of wetlands of deer yard each of these are assigned scores and then they do a composite score depending on how much overlap of those values there are so that is a qualitative assessment based on the Judgment of the experts of the wildlife but at the same time landowners are affected by this and at the very least it's important that they be able to understand the basis for that evaluation and then the voters of Durham get to weigh in do we think that those are the important values that should be and is this rating system what we should be using to determine whether people can develop their land or not so uh so what I did was at least offer the option and that this one Criterion seems to be

the one that is most questionable uh the second map actually just drops that uh that I that I passed out to you and so you'll see on the bottom uh and I'll go up on the screen for the same thing I'll have to switch over to the excuse me uh the second map which is this one so you'll see it I've dropped the beginning with habitat six plus from the bottom and then that large circular semicircular area around around Pond all those Farm Fields out there has dropped as well as these buffers around these 10 acre Wetlands up off Poland Road or Palmer Road excuse me so those are those are the pretty much the areas that we're not currently in resource protection that would be added through beginning with habitat so my offering for you to consider is is to present both of these maps to the uh to the select board and then let them make the call and what they want to put before the voters I would actually like

to kind of counter that and see what you guys think about this instead of proposing both of these to the select board one if we can we have to but both are one of one yeah understand what you're trying to say and I think in the discussions I've had I think your preference would be there be the selectman would prefer that they we come with a recommendation whether they accept it or not is still there or call but that we recommend 1A and one a b or whatever these these two are so and then kind of a couple follow-ups so that um bwh began with habitat land is what that you were talking about is mainly around run around right that's where that there are some scattered areas not a big one that you were talking about yes that's right yeah

it might be way too late to bring this up but um because we have to vote on this right this is going forward um and actually this is a question for Joe this ewh area it's it sounds like it's mostly for wildlife right and is it before he answers uh Mr Roy if you step up to the in I apologize I'm not sure your partner's name but if you'd like Mike if you want to please just introduce yourself as Joe Roy of Durham or yeah let me just explain my whole thing and then you can take it from there but what I'm wondering is what the bwh land is

helping to protect or conserve and then also if the issues with the impact if that's from just development or if it's from continual use like if we could maybe provide some sort of mitigation in these areas to anyone that wants to develop like you need to do a survey early on like we do wetland delineations right you need to do some sort of turtle survey if you have one then we have to do something about it if you don't have one then you might be okay or if it's long-term use of that area that's the issue so I'll just start introduce myself Joseph Roy um live on pink and Brook Road uh and I'm on the Conservation Commission kind of here speaking on behalf of them today um so the first question really has a few different answers or a few extended response the beginning with habitat co-occurrence model like George explained uh evaluates all the different habitat criteria and then affix is a coefficient to them so a number of value

based off of its level of importance and then on a from a mapping standpoint all these numbers get mapped on top of each other and where the numbers accumulate to score six or higher is where the agency recommends some sort of uh resource protection or or not necessarily recommends resource protection but just considering that as a valuable resource and then our comprehensive plan took it to the next level and said resource protection or mandatory clustering so in the example George you can pull back up the map in the example I just want to show you that I do have the comprehensive plan recommendations that includes some of the suggestions that uh that you had just mentioned Julia so we can look at those as well but I'll go back to the map yeah so if we go back to the yep right there so in the example where George's uh hand is right there that is primarily because that there is a rare um species so on the co-occurrence map

essentially if there's a critically well there are several different designations for rare species including critically imperiled imperiled rare So in the case of a critically imperiled species its presence alone in the habitat that it requires or the buffer around it scores three so it's really easy to start accumulating towards six in that case in this case we've got a rare turtle that scores quite high and it has a buffer around it because while they're located generally along streams they're foraging habitat and movements are encapsulated really by about a 750 foot buffer to where they might be located on the Water Resource so like in the example down there while the turtle might be most often found in the Stream or nesting near the stream it utilizes that large habitat array and a variety of habitats to meet all of its life's goals and then if we look at the top there in the western half a lot of those are

because this also this model also affixes a certain level of points to currently undeveloped habitat so inland fisheries and wildlife went through and put a spatial buffer on all roads in the state all homes all parking lots all everything and then calculated the number of Acres that a habitat block is part of that is you know maybe a thousand acres where there is no in interruption in terms of preventing wildlife habitat movements and provides a large block and the reason they did that was because a lot of critically imperiled wildlife and certain Wildlife species in general just have spatial requirements so while some species might be able to exist in a one acre patch things if we think about like our moose and stuff like that need about a four Thousand Acre undeveloped habitat log so one of the scores that is awarded in this is for undeveloped habitat blocks so areas that are over that are

200 to 600 acre score value of one anything under 200 Acres doesn't score a value from 600 to 1200 it scores a value of two and 1200 more scores a value of three Western being relatively undeveloped has a lot of blocks that are in that 1200 acre or plus so in the example in the kind of the western corner there those areas are already scoring three points because of the nature of it being undeveloped uh wildlife habitat so it

only takes one or two other occurrences of natural important natural resources for them to break that six plus threshold and the reason the model was designed like this is because while you have certain species that or or certain blocks of habitat or certain characteristics that on their own might not warrant special attention where there's a lot of overlapping features shows that there's something about that property or that land you know parcel

that is providing the opportunity for a lot of important things to overlap so just by the nature of its richness and diversity it might be considered something that you would want to protect so it's not necessary I know it's a long answer but it's not necessarily just Wildlife species but a slew of other different things so if we I think at one point we had a copy of the beginning with habitat Maps here but essentially other things that it looks at is it provides um scores to groundwater aquifers like it provides a point so if you're on an aquifer on a large undeveloped habitat block you're already sitting at four point points for that land provides protection for a Wetlands of 10 acres plus it provides one one point for those buffers around rivers and streams it provides one point for there so it would never trigger just that being resource protection but it's just accumulates towards it endangered species rare

plants rare and endangered natural communities in a significant wildlife habitat so there's a lot of things that are added into that yeah so in just a no aquifer protection the aquifer part is a really good important part so the that polygon that we're just talking about that right the northern part of that Circle oh over here right there that is the aquifer as well so that it's it's just a bunch of things right it's the aquifer it's also a budding run around that system and then you've also got the species so that's why that's so I was just answering one of my own questions yeah I just look at the aquifer map yeah and that's why now I should point that out I also think that um that area is relatively undeveloped too so it probably has it's probably scoring at least a point or two if because I'm sure there's if I remember correctly I think there's at least a couple hundred acres that has is fully intact you know

there's some tree farm out there and stuff like that so and I also would like to point out too kind of just a couple things I've been looking these amounts are very helpful George um if you go up to the upper left that we were talking about the group the um this one yeah right there so see the green and then um that gray in the middle screen is uh beginning with habitat identified Wetlands of 10 or more Acres the darker green is either flood plain or stream uh protection and then this this color here which is the same that's over on here is uh is buffer around uh tonic or Wetlands great so so what I was just getting at is the bright green encapsulates that gray polygon in the middle which would make if our vote tonight is between this map and the one without the gray right if we the gray well no the gray is the resource is the current resource protection the dark I'm sorry the dark green gray colors

the six plus seven things that color this include this one includes the six plus and so this area here goes away around this lighter green as well as this uh kind of all of color goes away around these are all 10 acre Wetlands this is a system this was that area that I mentioned in the maps we were originally using this entire area was included in the 10 acre plus Wetland and that was removed based on our review working with one of the private landowners so yeah yeah so the two options are either to go forward with this inclusive of the beginning with habitat recommended buffer from the Wetland systems that go through this area or to put it in without that beginning with habitat six plus which would remove this Olive and the one more thing I wanted to note is that the original existing resource protection District that's highlighted in like the red dots or the red lines a lot of this beginning with habitat olive color some

of it is was contained within that previous existing resource protection area actually for this area out here no no I'm looking more I'm brought sorry I'm getting out of that in that area oh you are okay exactly right yep right there you can see the boundary of the resource current resource protection goes around here around run around Pond and then also to the right of the series yeah it stops it stops right there and it stops right in here it does not include this area other than down here where you get a lot of wetland systems and streams but this part up here is not into the East a lot of what was over to the other side of town you mean yeah so a lot of the the area that we are cutting out this is all area that was based solely on the floodplain mapping that that would all be pulled out yeah so Julie I think part of what you're getting at in terms of like some of this um protection in the western part that the only thing

overlapping the gray is the six plus co-occurrence is in part driven by the original 2002 ordinance so it was it stated um protections around it named a few streams the flood plain and then it said areas as defined as swampy so that's why

you will notice that a lot of that co-occurs with Wetland complexes now whether they were mapped as 10 acres or larger it just says swampy so whomever delineated that feature that was what they were going off of so it would make sense that there would be some areas that um are only captured because of the way the beginning with habitat co-occurrence model works you know awarding points to those larger Wetland complexes awarding points to those undeveloped habitat awarding points to riparian buffers and stuff like that and it's pretty common in my experience for municipalities to focus a lot of protection around Water Resources you know they're pretty easy to see people connected with clean drinking water and things like that so cool and then my last part of that whole thing was was just bringing it back to the comp plan um you mentioned that mitigation might have been mentioned in here like yes

okay so currently um in you know any subdivision or conditional use application uh does require them checking with the the applicant to check with the Department of inland fisheries and wildlife for screening to see if there are any known mapped resources including rare and endangered plant and animal habitat so the comprehensive plan uh and you will recall this is based on the old land use ordinance that was in effect at the time that had nothing in there uh effectively to deal with a lot of these issues so we've already adopted the new subdivision regulations which include the requirements for checking with those state agencies so uh this includes uh required analysis for the subdivision based on those Maps now the actual

reference to the beginning with habitat maps are not included in the current land use ordinance that's one of the recommendations of the comprehensive plan that was adopted to try to establish that so yes there is guidance in the re in the comprehensive plan that calls for evaluation of these issues as part of the review of any subdivision or conditional use which is in our account in the city land use orders now it isn't it is in the land use ordinance that you consult with the state agencies but it doesn't give the specific guidance that's that's recommended in the comprehensive plan yeah to say to say what you do with that information so maybe a suggestion if this does if we go forward with this and vote is negative it's falling down then maybe we go back to this yes and bring up this episode again and at least yeah because you know I've been working with communities for 40 years on these issues

and Falmouth like started with vernal pools and major open space programs in their comprehensive plan and many comprehensive plans in the state of Maine recognize that zoning is one mechanism to try to protect land but there are voluntary conservation easements many of which have been done in Durham there are land acquisition programs Durham has not done that Falmouth has done a lot of that there are design regulations that you can deal with like say for example the Blanding uh turtle habitat in the early days of the Vernal pool it was the same thing that 750 foot Zone around the Vernal pool is a lot of land it's like is it 40 acres 20 acres 40 acres I can't remember off top my head what's that yeah yeah so but in any case uh when that would go through a dep or a local Town review they would require them to hire a biologist to be on their design team in one case in Falmouth they actually you've probably heard of these Wildlife

Crossings over highways well they actually created a an amphibian course through culverts under the road following their migration paths so there are mitigation measures that can be done on the big scale resource protection but there's also techniques that can be incorporated into the design review generally obviously that's not going to be as effective as as acquisition or resource protection but there are other mitigation measures that can be looked at foreign

um on the two maps the the hundred year flood plain Anderson River Shoreland run around Shoreline High Street board everything on these Maps except beginning with habitat six plus is already I mean there's Wetland Maps out there there's floodplain Maps out there are these already defined areas

right term is those those six criteria are currently listed in the lane use ordinance with applicability to the Shoreland zone areas okay so uh yes so they're not getting anything new with those first not as a concept but you're

now looking to apply those same criteria to areas out of mandatory shirlwind zone areas yeah because if you look at most it's mostly green and yellow here but those are areas out in you look at the dotted Gray everything that's green that's outside of that is an area that the comp plan has highlighted as important to protect but isn't currently receiving protection so like George is saying the concept of protecting those isn't really new because it's something that people already think about but it's applying it in this manner and in terms of the mapped resources themselves uh the beginning with habitat program with Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and wildlife's purpose is to collate all of these important resources to have them in one place where municipalities land trusts and private landowners can go to get the information which is what the town did when they got this base sort of

data so the floodplain maps from FEMA some of the Wetland maps are from U.S fish and wildlife service the Inland wading bird and waterfowl maps are done by our state agency the main Department in the fisheries and wildlife the co-occurrence model is done by beginning with habitat so they're all mapped in that data is publicly available and they have their scientific criteria that caused them to be mapped in the way that they are so in like this data like this map right here there's a version of this available online for every town in the state of Maine already collated so I think I guess my question more specifically is that on the first six criteria those are already is this question are those are those defined like like you said you go to a floodplain map go to Wetlands map it's there you've got a short in Charlotte just says 200 feet off of that that's a well-defined area the beginning with

habitat the six plus is that that is let me just clarify that I guess I look forward that is mapped as well as Joe indicated in the state inventories the difference is that the prior five criteria are currently part of Durham's regulatory program okay beginning with habitat six plus is not currently part of uh Durham's uh regulatory program it is supported by the comprehensive plan so while it's being added then is the begin the six plus habitat as a completely new regulatory component and then the other thing is could you it's a little hard bouncing back and forth because when when Mr Roy was talking there were some areas that I think that maybe we uh eliminated that I maybe hadn't noticed could you just very quickly show us you want to go back to the map what goes away I think is what I'm asking here is what I mean some of them are really big and obvious but what and some of them are overlapped

like other things are protect it so areas like this degrees this all goes away um from resource protection so this this big patch here this is a large component of this is just an old swampy area which is probably why it was included as swampy yeah um you know some of these little areas along the stream because the floodplain the FEMA map has been tightened up with new technology some of these areas are getting a little bit more defined um a couple areas down here same thing here a lot of area around streams it doesn't have a co-occurrence of another resource is getting tightened up a little bit because of laser tick it's essentially lasers

here same deal um you know removed but then you know if past this other stuff would remain so realistically the the big place is right here it's like that's where the big were you asking about that or about the difference between keeping beginning with half death six and are taking it out yeah I guess what I'm asking is if the way and I thank you very much because I didn't realize what he had just explained but on whatever one a b is whatever so you've got the one where it includes six plus you've got the one that doesn't include six plus but what Mr what much of what Mr Roy just pointed to so if we vote okay so I can show you with and without

uh okay so this is beginning with habit let me put on the others so I'm going to include the Androscoggin run around 100 uh your flood 100 foot stream Inland Fisheries uh excuse me in the waterfowl and so if you take off the beginning with habitat six plus that's what goes away if that's what you were yeah I think that's what I'm again what I what I was asking is if tonight yeah so if we vote for this the second version of the match without six plus but in the town votes for the second version without six plus a lot of the things that you said go away don't really go away well yes like for example here and here um protection for that endangered species would go that would go away

didn't have a discussion later on about saying oh through our complications in the officials of wildlife we've found that this is anyone who's trying to develop in there will even if this doesn't go through it will eventually be informed there's an endangered species sure and then this is just a way to say we're setting up that process Now versus later and then these areas would go away um the protection around these would go away because of couple things so right around here is this is a large undeveloped habitat walk 1200 it's like 1400 acres and then there's also some deer wintering habitat in there that scores a little bit of a point so then protection on that would go away um so it's not just it's not as if like everything is receiving protection that's what the beginning with habitat tool has developed for is to try to help put a number and quantify a certain habitat characteristics so there's a

little bit of stuff mostly up here and then down in this down by run around no I got you that but what you are talking about things going away that were much bigger where you talk about like the old swampy area stuff like that yeah that does not go away if with the second version so the one on the east side of town goes away with both versions of the map look so the gray right here yes that the inside here John is this has this does not rank six plus this this gray area here they're close colors gray and the green or close color well I got you but we're not are we talked if we if is this one is this your newer version that took away the this is the gis from which I produce though so I can turn things on and off yeah I guess if you would if you would take away the the no the blending Turtle version I feel like a better term here there those areas are so if we vote to take accept this map those areas are

still protected correct no no no no George could you turn off the office yes okay so if we turn off the old resource protection this would be the new resource protection but if but this is the that's my question this is the map that we're we're vote we would vote on right and this is the this is the version yeah so the final result and just show you the whole thing the final result uh with the beginning with habitat that's what the resource Protection District would be without the beginning with habitat six plus that's what the resource protection I think maybe I can clarify what he's showing here in Gray is just what is being taken out for reference for reference that would not be on this area would not be on the resource map okay so this is not the map that where we would if we did this but this is not the map that would be the map right there is what we would show the public final results and that

would be with but I think it's important to show to the public the areas that would be taken out absolutely yeah it's kind of confusing you know like this looks a lot more clean yeah but it is very important to show them that you know oh look at all this that's being taken out and if you show I'm not arguing that all right guess what I'm saying is that if we if this map that has Landing turtle and all this other stuff in it if that passes the town this is what it would be yeah and I think what you're getting at uh what it would be that it might be helpful to show to Lando two landowners and people in town something that has that gray turned off I understand the importance to making sure there is a map that shows this is the existing a map showing where this is proposed change and then a map showing what this is what the final would look like because um I actually just learned this recently about 30 of

the population has some sort of a great a green red color blindness so it makes that a little bit difficult when there's like the Grays and stuff in there but if we showed a third map that just said completely what the new one could look like that might help clarify because you just see that things disappear because I think that does make it to me it makes a difference because and maybe I'd missed it when we were talking about it this is the second map that you gave us to me I struggle to see other than the Blanding turtle area here and a little bit up in the northwest corner what the difference was but the reality is it's it is significantly different and I and I think that with like the map we have on our paper here when it's close it's easy at hand we can look at it we can kind of start Discerning some of that stuff but when we have when we I think if we retain the old District on all the maps for some

people they're going to look at all of this and think wow that is a lot more stuff in resource protection because they might not see the red line is defined or they might not see the gray and there's been definitely a few questions where someone just like oh now that I see the map closer I understand let me just bring into the discussion another aspect of this that needs to be considered and that is that it's it is obviously critically important that the public be able to understand what they're voting on right equally important is that whatever is voted on is carefully worded and documented so that when it goes into effect there's no confusion about what was adopted so that's why I think it's important and and do you do you provide five Maps do you provide one map uh in if you show one map it's important to say this is what goes in and this is what comes out on the ground uh that is part of what

I'm driving at to get these maps to presentation so that legally it's clear what was taken in and what was put out well maybe an idea is to present what the actual map would look like to the voters and then like have a table on the side like we always do show it in a presentation ahead of time but like if you want to look at it go there's you know maps that show what was taken out there's not to show what was put in right yeah but this is and we can put all that on the website too and I I think a good approach is especially because George has done all the heavy lifting already actually getting the date shape files and stuff like that I think a good approach is to show a map that shows existing resource protection then show this map that George has created whether you dislike the planning board decides the version with beginning with habitat or plus six plus or not show this one that shows everything so

you can see that trans that transpose on itself but then show what the final map would look like so then people can see current proposed change final result so then people can kind of look through and see those changes and for a lot of people what they're going to want to do is find their parcel and kind of check on each map and say okay and you know I think that is uh shows the importance of why we've been doing so much more Outreach this time yeah

think was fairly well attended and I've seen a lot of emails going back and forth um I like your idea I think what is confusing at least to me is so article whatever number it is 1A whatever article four five six when it goes up there you're gonna we're just going to show them after this this is the existing again all questions that each show a map that says this is what resource protection looks like today the article that is up for a vote right now this is what it will look like that's the existing reset protection yeah that's existing yep and I what I would say is it is hard to compare them side by side maybe without two screens and see I think what I would say the second map would would say article four or whatever it may be this is what it's going to be and I would take off I leave if you want a landing turtle on there leave those things on there but take out the Great Swamp of Durham take out all

that stuff and you should just show the existing map and then shut that off and show the proposed proposal let me put it on there there we go so you're saying what true I think what your suggestion John is the gray map and then this map say boom if that's if this is the map tonight if not that if the only problem with that is the one that I just pointed out to is that that would not create as clear a record of of showing a single map that shows what's taken in and what's taken out that would be my only concern uh jump in here right so at the end of the day what's going in the ordinance does not have that Gray Line right if if it gets past that Gray Line will go away great so that's what's winding up in the ordinance so that's what should be voted on yes if you want the other two maps for reference put them in but that is what should be attached to the Warren article right right yes yes and I I agree George that the other

pieces are really important so people understand what they're voting on but that is what is going in the ordinance that is what should be attached to the Warner [Music] right I agree yeah okay to me that then tells the code enforcement or us as a planning board you know look at your inside blending Turtle area what's going on there okay so for whatever version of the map goes you just want to have this this map and then have a supplement which would be perhaps with that or both yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't have any other maps on the warrant if I would have them on the side table or you know in the presentation information information identifying how they associate with that specific article yeah have a presentation by Joe or you or both at the beginning and you know we the town's been talking about this for a while now I think that a presentation is important because I think that for a lot of people they don't think

graphically about what begin what the resource protection might look like already and what it could look like um so it just helps them get a frame of reference so I think a presentation would be important the only other suggestion I might have with maps is if the new resource protection map is going to just be these features and resource protections applied equally um regardless of what the input criteria is it might be useful to just have the new one all one color just like the gray is all which I did originally yeah and everybody said and I think that this is much better for the yeah yeah that's a good point I'm good with having it all that's all people are going to care about all people are going to care about is what you've done to my property well I think one other issue that came up in the meeting last week I'm like friendly run around Pond Road um one of the issues that came up last

week was that people saw us you know proposing to remove a lot of properties from resource protection and then not put a significant amount of property back in and there was a lot of reticence because they thought we're removing all this land from resource protection so I think if you one of my concerns if you is if you pull this beginning with habitat out and separate it that their people are going to be like well you're not following science you're not following the recommendations of the comprehensive plan and because of that you know I think there's going to be a contingent of the population that's going to be I'll see that I hear I hear what you're saying I think and I'm not saying we don't I think what we need to decide tonight as a planning board or before or February something is do we what do we want to show as the this is our recommendation for the resource protection map so my My Vault I'm just going to say

that's just I my vote is that we we go with the full thing including beginning with habitat we base this on science and data and on our experts locally and elsewhere um based on the comprehensive plan um if this is voted down then part of the comp plan there's other options that we can go for but I that's my that's mine make an emotion can I can I I will have questions about which stupid man what the show on the map I have substantive questions how did we come up with the yellow areas uh are you talking about the Inland wading bird and waterfowl habitat

uh yes oh those are orange but Lord um so like if we go back to our Turtle friends that area where our Turtle friends live Denver Mike lives mind taking that layer off which one the uh beginning with habitat the six plus yeah okay so assume this is the map we go with right now our Turtle friends who I assume are in that little stream have a buffer of 100 feet a couple hundred feet 100 feet 100 feet yeah on the yellow with this they have almost zero buffer right

yeah so each area yeah so right with with that turned on right there the only protection for that stream is the 100 foot riparian buffer or stream side buffer um and it depends which stream you're talking like if you go down to the bottom where you keep going yep that one so like up top it's got and that must be more than 100 feet that's probably like a 300 foot buffer right up here this is this is run around Pond which gets 250. nope down down here yep well up right so

between the stream and the edge of it this is all floodplain I think yeah Chandler for sure yep um so right now our Turtle friends have like a 250 300 foot oh you're referring to the The Gray Zone yeah the gray is current yeah right so even though we're not trying to protect our Turtle friends here we were we were yeah through floodplain probably yeah right and Wetland complexes yeah so the floodplain goes away if we don't add back in this six plus our endangered Turtle friends have a hundred foot buffer and they're losing at least 250-ish feet of protection habitat and then way more to the south of that can I can I just clear I want to clarify that on that note is that if I believe this is accurate that if you take away this uh the final result I believe keeps

in anything six plus that's currently within resource protection let's just see if that bears out okay so that's that's uh with the current zoning and just see if this area right in here which isn't in the six plus stays in there when it when it takes oops okay so that's the existing and if we yeah so if you keep in the beginning with habitat um and actually what I did was I clipped let's just see if I can turn that on and in a red color which will show up hopefully a lot better so I'm going to turn off all of that okay so this is clipped this is clip to the existing resource protection and so you see beginning with habitat six excuse me beginning with habitat six plus stays in

within those areas I don't know what you mean yeah yeah so that is the scenario if outside I'm sorry that's outside existing six plus the the current or last year's proposed Viewpoint was to take anything that is outside um is outside the existence outside the existing Resort take out anything that would not meet any of the new criteria that is currently resource protected so the second phase of that would have been to then add things in so in this in this example if the first phase went through last year I just wanted it would have removed a lot of that gray area but where that six plus co-occurrence overlaps with the gray area that small section would have stayed in so um there would have been some protection but not the full recommended protection from like inland fisheries and wildlife it does go away

the beginning with habitat if you take that off those protections that you are pointing to in would go away right so our Turtle friend who lives outside of that yellow line no longer has protection or the green line way more diminished because we are decreasing it even more right and the Ecology of the turtles are the travel is a great distance from the stream so that's why here is so large so yeah I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion and that's a good thing I still have some discussion too okay but we can do it we can do it after the motion do you guys want to keep talking because we if we can if you guys want to keep talking and not vote on this until next month that's cool too well that's that is an option I guess what I what I would like to see at some point in time is we've talked about two different articles so I'd like to see the final map for an article of either everything including that uh you know all the ads

plus planning all the ads minus planning whatever we come up with if that fails then the one that is just removing the stuff that should not be there because there's no reason for it to be there those those are the two maps that's part one B which I can give you if you want to see that what is the stuff that gets removed yep If part one a Fades yes I mean I don't need to see it today is

which is put stuff in and you don't take stuff out which to your point some people are concerned about taking all this stuff out is that something we need to put or talk about putting on the warrant so option A is put stuff in and take stuff and take stuff out to be determined whether our Turtle friends stay protected or not option b is just take stuff out and don't put anything new in and option C is just putting stuff new in and don't take old stuff out that's where that's where we ran with all the confusion last year yeah so people that's why they voted it down so the Conservation Commission is not advocating for option C which would be to add all of this green on top of the gray um but we would advocate for is the most no pun intended here most streamlined process to just adopt the existing 2018 comprehensive plan uh goals which would just be to say the gray is the old map this green with a little bit of yellow

is the new map it'll be all green the green is the new map because these are the scientifically supported things to be protected um that's the option that uh some people had said at the town meeting last year had said our our hearing and the option that we feel is most um reflective of the available data now I know with the select boards uh desire to kind of do a two-phased approach um they were saying to remove things that essentially don't have aren't overlapped by gray or green and then vote later to add things that are only overlapped by Green that initially was that especially was the feeling from the select board but after the public hearing you think that and Kevin is a driving force behind making that decision after we had that public hearing he was I felt that he was more under the impression that we need to do this in one Paul school yeah and I think that my impression from Kevin I mean at that

meeting um and a brief discussion I had with him as we were heading out the door is the same thing that this should all be considered in one vote to just say rectify the map um but I think he was introducing the caveat that if that vote failed to also

then include a vote that says well remove resource protection from any place that is not overlapped by green and gray that was his saying was just as a but conditional if the first foot went through you wouldn't have the second vote which is what George started yeah

well I think so last year the plan was to do that option as you know with the saying we'll do the other stuff next year and it seemed like the feedback was we don't want to do this separately we want to do this at once so now it seems like the proposed language might be due it all at once or go back to last year's

option A if everything yeah yeah I mean I think the article four would be everything added and everything taken out that shouldn't be there if that fails then somebody gets up and says okay look it we tried but we're still being unfair to people who are in resource protection that shouldn't be in Article 5 would remove those people in Article Five if four passes Article Five it's actually one a and one B yeah

yes yes yeah because that is where informational meaning could come up and they could say well I voted against one a because of X1 and Z I didn't understand this which is a failure on our part to not educate or I just don't agree with this so those are those are the conversations that I think we had a little bit of at our last meeting and I think that there is an opportunity to have those again at the uh public hearing that the planning board will be hosting prior to the the April meeting so I think there's still opportunity to answer some of those questions which I think is great that we've had these conversations so early but I think that with enough education Outreach we'd probably get to a frame point or a standpoint where we could do it all at once because people will understand or at least they will fully understand the implications and the reasoning before voting whereas like you know when you

get to the town meeting if there's confusion the default position is just uh keep it as it is you know so so have we the Conservation Commission at the request of the planning board held kind of like a first informal just Outreach and education type thing because last year it was determined that a lot of people were thinking about both phases even though we were only voting on one phase there's some confusion because people are saying well I don't want to vote on phase one until I know what phase two looks like which is understandable so it ended up turning into a discussion that wasn't really even being voted on so that's why this year we started with this informational meeting we sent out George sent out the letters to every impacted landowner whether their land is being increased or decreased and we met with them the people who showed up just to discuss this and that is just a bonus meeting

because the the town requires that then the planning board has another meeting before the warrant language is put on the ballot to say here's what the want language is here's what the warrant language is going to mean so there is another opportunity and as a Conservation Commission we're glad more than willing to help with that meeting as well to answer technical questions I have a good question I mean the thought here is we're going to vote on this before we fully bring this to the town right for another informational meeting well an informational meeting right we would just share what we voted on the problem now is that we have to finalize a warrant and then that goes to the public hearing so the warrant is published before the official public hearing then that's normal anyways yeah you'd have to have a separate informational meeting to to go over other changes and my understanding is that the objective here is for you as

the planning board to make a recommendation to the slack board the slight board ultimately writes the warrant language but to make the recommendation and then the next meeting will explain what that warrant language whatever they decide the warrant language is what that's going to be so we don't have public input on whether a turtle the plus resources should be in or out and we don't have public input we should have the two Warren articles I think we do have public input on the resources because it was adopted in the comp plan already so while it is new language to what it would be new language in a resource protection it was adopted by the comp plan and then we did have a discussion about all of this so like at any given point someone could say I don't care about in the waiting for waterfowl habitat I want to discuss that more and have it pulled out or I don't care about you know 10 acre Wetlands I want to

discuss that but I feel that we have provided opportunity to discuss everything that's proposed um can I clarify for Ian that the beginning with habitat six plus was it presented on December 6 at the public informational meeting so just so you under it was it was it was what has happened since then and part of the purpose of an informational meeting is to take public input and consider making changes the input that was taken at the meeting follow-up into uh information to exchange with individual landowners input from the select board chairman who participated indicated to a consideration of pulling the beginning with habitat six plus out because that was the one that Drew the most attention and concern so even though the option of pulling it out has not been presented at an informational meeting the purpose of having that last one led to this situation yeah I would say that George everybody has taken what the

December 6 infant discussions and come up with uh possible solutions you know something to do so I think the public has had uh had I'm comfortable the public has had input to it and I'm not sure what we would gain by having another informational meeting um I do if we're not comfortable as we as we close in on stuff if we're not comfortable making a decision on on with or without Landing turtles or however we want to do it tonight and I've never seen a Blanding turtle so I don't hate them

um we can we can make a final decision on the resource on these two articles the next meeting uh but we do have Deer Creek we just have to use our time better I don't know what more discussion would have to make to make that decision I don't know why we can't make it tonight God's well that's question are we comfortable I am okay any other and any other discussion no I have enough information I'm just going to say the reason this was such a show last year because the public didn't feel that they had been hurt enough and because the perception was that a selectman or Selectmen forced it through in a particular way and if that is the perception again this year this will not go well and we will have show version number two which I would love not yeah I think we're all trying I think we're all trying to avoid that that is my concern it's a great concern and actually Joe am I wrong here where I think think

we're in a much better position right now than we were last year yeah I feel like so I think last meeting it's almost like flipped right yeah and now the first vote is for everything yeah because I know last year I was at you know I ate two boxes of Girl Scout cookies sitting at the meeting yeah I bought six boxes and then I went back for more but I know last year that there was a lot of people stood up and said we don't want to consider this separately we want to consider it all at the same time and then it seemed like earlier this year the conversation or earlier in 2022 the conversation was well we'll just consider both warrant language two votes same meaning and it seems like since more and more public input has come in we've now gotten to the point where it's like oh maybe we should just consider doing this all in one felt swoop so I think that we are here because of the public input

um which I think puts us in a much stronger position to have a smoother meeting um at the the next town meeting regardless how the vote goes I think there's more people who are in a position to feel like they're making a decision based off of information so that's at least my secret there is still a public hearing where people will get yeah get to hear why whatever solution we can which and that one has to happen per the rules of the town you know so that's happening whatever yeah yeah I'm sorry first state law correct sorry um so I think that this was just a nice bonus one to help us get some more public information so yeah I'm ready to make a decision tonight if others are my motion still stands what was it oh I didn't make emotions

board um the zoning map amendments part one a in which we include beginning with habitat six plus multiple resources Based on data the best science the experts in our comp plan second any further discussion and just to clarify that was the version that was in the public uh posting of this meeting agenda yeah the supplemental one I produced after that so that's what has been advertised for tonight's meeting and I'd be more comfortable actually seeing that so that I know what's you know it's just saying this is the final thing that's that's going to go in with the article and if not tonight at some point often no I mean I think everybody knows what's in your packet what we're talking about you have this specific page on that course in the packet yeah yep if it's there I'm good I mean I just want that's that I want to make sure that's what we've got another opportunity to discuss process and

public hearing it is Page um this one here right 1A which is uh starts on page 51 of your package you mean the one without the yes the one without that that is yeah nobody's seen that yet yeah that was not in our packet the one without the gray yeah I haven't produced that yeah yeah I mean I I've seen it I'm good with that yeah it's just here it is Bing yeah it is and Midas that has blending turtle on it yes

I mean I will say that I'm not in favor of the Blanding turtle again nothing personal I think we're adding new requirements I think in all of this and I know you've all worked very hard with landowners we're going to put some requirements on people and we don't have an escape hatch for them so all those areas that are now in Turtle color uh they they are those

people are now going to have restrict what what can they what we're going to say is you can't do anything well it's not anything and actually I want to take away it's not just Turtle yeah no I think yeah you're right there is a lot of it that I have to keep it simple no you're right that's the primary yeah and like but but I guess the point is I'm not sure what you can do I mean that's in in the whole concept about expanding resource protection is we do limit people's ability to do stuff yeah functionally it limits construction and extractive industries so agriculture is still alive if somebody is if if I mean I've had people when I was talking about affordable housing other things come up and say that's what I'm leaving my kids because I want to be able that's that's I am land rich and not much else and so I just want to say that that is an impact that if this passes and that you know a town will vote on it that is

a concern I have on expanding the resource protection area I mean I'll be honest I'm not super concerned because I'm not super interested in having subdivisions back closed captioning not available some off you know Backlot whatever to to their family so but it's been motion and somebody's going to call the vote so I'll quit talking and I will if all in favor of the motion

before us raise a hand and it will be three to one all those opposed I will say and this is separate that math is terrifying we are on our way to being Freeport hmm right I mean rural is Western and that's about it you're you know I think what you're observing is if you take away and just so you know uh since 2022 I

have added a thousand lots to this map since 2022. uh the the last time the parcel map on the gis was updated was 2002 part of that comprehensive plan and so last year as I was developing the gis system I added a thousand Lots yeah and I I guess I would say that resource protection some of the affordable housing stuff will hopefully get too short I'm not sure that's the best way there are other ways to slow down no I'm not I'm not talking about resource protection way to do it we've talked about resource protection being based on science but we've been talking about this in the rural character of Durham for a very long time and how to do it and we're doing a really terrible job and we're going to be just another suburb yeah it's something we just need to take a look at you know you can't have a big zoning ra or whatever it may be and then say as long as you follow these steps you know have at it I mean

that's then you get into the whole other different zoning districts and preaching the choir so okay I'm sorry um so I think we have our solution I will take this to the selectment on Tuesday barring some other disease and I'm assuming you're still going to support going with 1B which is if this fails you pull out the properties that have no comprehensive plan data supporting the resource protection we say that again I'm sorry so if if this fails at the town meeting the select board wants to have the alternative of what was put before the voters last year which was to to amend the zoning map resource protection boundary to pull out areas that would have been based on floodplain that are not floodplained so I'm assuming you're still going forward you want to take a position on that well I wonder my so Conservation Commission like would you

about that I I would be in favor of that because I think we do all the way to the people who are not supposed to be in resource protection I think and you Julia you said it very well which is okay folks article 1A failed but we

still owe it to the people who shouldn't be there to do that um and if we're holding in my opinion holding them hostage for another year so that's unfair to those folks now I will make that as a motion I'll second that uh any other discussion seeing none all those who are in favor this is this is option yeah

what other options do we have we don't want to have X Y and Z you don't have any more than right so we know select board is going to do it I guess we could just say that I think they are because no they will yeah they will that's what I'm saying I think it's fair and I think I'm in favor of supportive but we have a motion in a second I believe I second it so Alan me the motion I seconded all those in favor raise a hand three all those opposed all those wishing to abstain can I do that yes you can you may do that yeah you may do that yeah so it passes just watch TV you'll know what you can do it it would want more time I know everyone is pushing to get those people out of resource protection that should but I would ask for more time yeah I promise teams in the town meeting thing which I'm going to use to is 12 months I mean I think it may be tired we we did 12 months now anyway it has passed and so thank you both for your

participation the record is three to one right three zero one yeah she's an abstention yeah well just thank you thank you all for the opportunity to be a part of this uh I think it's helped us get to a much more cohesive place today than we were at this time it will you will need to make your case on the first or 8th of April whatever it is uh but we do need to move on to the other one affordable housing yes thank you very much which we've beaten considerably um so I think what we discussed while George is handing stuff out what we discussed was a similar thing and hopefully it's not confusing it but at our last meeting we talked about um and then you I don't know how familiar you are with the survey but option one was to pretty much follow the the comp plan um if you need time to look at that so that would that was going to be our recommendation with yet another fallback which is to uh you know if one fails what number is

this going to be George two of 2A fails which is the um similar to the comp plan then we would go with 2B which is pretty much just using the state language as our our our ordinance which would hopefully make the code enforcements jobs easier so I have a question on that so I read through George's really helpful summary and so the three options were less restrictive than zoning uh more restrictive than zoning and then neutral and simply adopt state requirements and at least Georgia's notes say the planning board decided to move forward with options one and two not the neutral adopt the state requirement no neutral is is this two is the neutrals to adopt the state requirement not according to the notes so that's what I'm going off of did I miss Dayton are you reading the talking points I'm reading your the gender notes for tonight agenda notes for tonight yeah

looked at in terms of it's easier for people to understand more restrictive less restrictive and then be neutral that doesn't necessarily mean that the order should be uh in any particular order I was just trying to explain it for the purposes of the planning board's understanding and what the survey did you know do you put the these the states last because it's neutral or do you put it in the middle or do you put it first in the survey so it's just it's just a matter of which order are we discussing it not which order was being proposed so at the last meeting the planning board members who were present did vote to propose to the select board uh choosing the comprehensive plan recommendations as the first worn article following the pattern of the resource Protection District and then as a fallback because the state must comply with the new state

law or affordable housing having the fallback be to just simply put in the state language okay I don't because I wasn't here but my understanding was is that survey was 50 50 on being more restrictive versus the other 50 was split between being less restrictive and neutral so we're basically saying we don't care what the survey said well I think neutral is more is less restrictive I mean I because it's I mean the state

to increase lot size and do other thing one one is less restrictive but two the neutral one is the states which which in fact it allows additional housing so there's still more housing being uh what's the right term allowed so I never really saw it as neutral it was neutral in the sense that it would basically follow the state law but you're still going to have more housing that's how I looked at it maybe I misunderstood the survey results and actually on that note have we received any additional survey yeah I think you did you you were accurate in terms of the results but the discussion last time by the planning board was that there were a total of 200 people doing the survey 100 people said be more restrictive 100 people said either be neutral or less restrictive and so the discussion of the planning board members came out to say that wasn't a strong enough indication we have like 100 people attend town meeting

that housing opportunities it's not you know it doesn't make it like 25 vote for that at least it was about 25. one and two up there which in my mind expanded housing made it easier to do housing from what we're doing now three was you got to have bigger Lots which which you can still have more housing fifty percent said that the other in my mind the other 50 combined said let's increase housing and I think what swayed me was is that one up there was closer to the comp plan you know that's right that's mine too the big complaints or when we create

anything in an ordinance it should be supporting the comp plan if it doesn't then we're going against the calm plant yeah and these are the comprehensive plan recommendations up on the screen well I think we've done well we can do it again but I think we've we went that we've made that decision last time right but that was my thinking was is that 50 percent in one version another said let's add housing and half of those the was follow

the comp plan have you gotten any more survey results anything that changes not really yeah they're about the same split I mean I was I had them before that I didn't go to the meeting last week but so there's no reason to revisit this I don't I other than looking at the specific language that's because last time you didn't have the specific line right this is the specific language so to do 2A you would uh in section 4.1 [Music] .8.2 you would eliminate the only one

single family detached dwelling or two family dwelling shall be permitted on a lot and then under uh subsection seven which currently says minimum lot size two family dwelling 110 000 square feet which was also a recommendation of the comprehensive plan to say you shouldn't have to have 2.5 acres versus two acres for a duplex and then um it would have you'd use the language maximum number of dwelling units per lot and then you would have three units total which could either be a configuration of one single family with two accessory apartments or one two family dwelling with one accessory apartment this would be subject to subdivision regulations so if anybody created these three units in a single five-year period that would require a planning board approval of a subdivision as I understand it and then then with that just the other the next page is that since the state law uh says you cannot limit it to a

single unit um then I did change the wording up there from single family uh to rural character of the community and then you would have to eliminate that restriction that you could only have one accessory apartment per lot so this would be full implementation of the comprehensive plan recommendations in my view yeah so two things I really like what you added in bold at the bottom George and um just if this is what's going on the article um part two way um there's a typo under affordable housing law response only one because I'm finding them every day which one was it just see at the very top the title part 2A a affordable housing law respos oh yes I think I might have already corrected that okay but thank you for making sure response

before you um we can I mean so the idea is two-way goes in front if this fails to be two B's and then 2B the argument for 2B is this what the state said we had to do and yeah if we turn it down then he's going to follow the state law

going to stop this this process right we have to do we've got to do something except doesn't our ordinance already require additional space for additional for a duplex you need two and a half acres for a single family you only need two acres that's the only space does this change that 2A would change it to say you can you only need two acres for a minimum lot size with with however many units you put on there if they fit to be simply leaves that in there so now if you everybody have 2B yes okay cool this one enforcement officer would like to justify his overtime so he's about to say something I'm only kidding there by the way I appreciate his being here so I did reach out um to get clarification on some things to MMA basically they said we can't clarify for you so there's that I did speak with uh Dan

Averill who is one of the directors from decd and there they said that guidance will be coming uh there they expect rulemaking to be finalized shortly and public comment to open within the next month or two and they're the people that are going to be making rulemaking to clarify some of the questions I had about healthy yeah I understand I think we beat that horse and I think the answer is we have a town meeting in early April and the assumption is that we're what we propose doing is going to be is not going to be overruled unless they really pull something out of their butts no um and some people have asked for the delay a delay of the action time not January 1st but later than that July that's what I meant July 1st they're asked to make that give another year but who knows where that will help well if we can if they make significant changes and I have asked to get my Corvette back and it

still never showed up so on option b this is yeah so actually but thank you comment on that really quick I think that that's because there were when we had that hearing or meeting concerns on that right right you know we're not reading this you know what if they make changes maybe you know we'll keep our eye out but like you said if there's anything big yeah the law basically requires three units on any pro property where you allow a single family if there's an existing dwelling there you have to allow up to three units and if it's a vacant lot you have to allow two units and that's currently what neuron has you couldn't have a duplex on on a on a lot it allows you to increase lot sizes as long as whatever increase you do is not more than the base so that's the law and that's pretty much what all the wording that's there there was some clarification on Accessory Apartments but Durham is pretty much in

compliance right now on Accessory Apartments so so all I've done on this version is just simply put in the language right from the law uh again eliminating the only one single family per lot and down below maximum number of dwelling units the law says Lots with an existing dwelling and I put in the effective date of the town meeting April 1st 2023 two additional dwelling units for a maximum of three subject to subdivision and vacant Lots maximum the two dwellings that's pretty much all the law says do we want to change that to July we're saying well it would be effective as of the Town media right [Music]

think we can tell the state we heard you and I think again I don't like the way they did it but at least their goal was honorable or you know to try and this would be two and a half acres for a duplex just leaves that alone and again over on Accessory Apartments it eliminates the limitation because that wouldn't be allowed under the law if somebody had an existing home they could have up to two three units so really the only difference is that they can lock piece right yeah the limitation this this treats all Durham land owners the same the state law says if you've got an existing house you get more units than somebody with a piece of vacant land for whatever reason legislative yep so I think we've had votes on those if unless we want to change the votes or open to more common I mean it would help to sell it if you've got if somebody sees a reason between now and April 1st to you know tweak stuff for the public hearing but

we'll get another shot and I think we had a very good public hearing back in October which at the end of the day may be the most controversial all of them and all we want to do on this one is tweak some language correct George yeah you may recall that we've been up to that how many strikes do you get in this game man oh man back Lots yeah roads are hey roads they're a controversial no matter where you go um Ellen you want one of these okay okay

back plots uh earlier this year we looked at uh yep thank you um we looked at the issue of this new state law kind of blew us out of the water for this uh single Backlot uh provision so we've kind of just all all I'm doing here is just clarifying the state law which says you can't really limit it to a single family dwelling under the new law and explain that down below and then we also include within this um the consolidation of the rules for what most towns call Private ways which are private roads outside of legal subdivisions under main law you can claim exemptions and do up to uh it's uh three lots in any five-year period and then you have exemptions for gift lots to relatives and other exemptions so you see a road serving a private road serving three or four lots and over time it becomes more without a subdivision approval that's currently in the ordinance but right now some of the provisions are in the backlots uh in the

section some are in roads and some are in the appendix for the subdivision for streets and it's not it's not all reconciled and the other part problem with it right now is is any landowner that wants to do this they have to go to the code officer and the road commissioner to get approval of the plan and then they go to the planning board to get approval of the maintenance agreement so it's just like a nightmare of trying to understand who approves what and the average landowner it is a nightmare to try to go through this process so what I did was I took standard private way language from other towns uh put it into this format and uh

earlier I think it was back in June the the planning board said if if all we're going to do is uh if we're not going to be able to do a subdivision review we don't want to review these at all and so you suggested that we delegate that this be delegated to the road commissioner and the code officer that they would review these private ways and the planning board would not be involved so that's what's on here and the only additional thing is at the town meeting last year there was confusion over you were you're striking out language that says it has to go to a town meeting for a vote to accept a road the council chairman the select board chairman requested that we specifically put language in there and so you see uh in

section 5.23 Tuesday treatments a says an acceptance of any private road as a Town Road requires a vote of approval at town meeting and then down under it's the second time in here somewhere there has to be a note on the plan uh a C1 says at the end of that that they have to have a private maintenance agreement and then the same statement that acceptance of the road so it's really crystal clear you cannot get a Town Road accepted without going to town meeting thanks is there a definition of private way

do you think there is you think we should add one yep this applies to subdivision roads or not think that helps or isn't it inadequate I mean that's just a note that's not part of the or that no I don't know say it does say Private Road private road Private road which was the original heading I don't think right because we have subdivision roads that are private roads yeah so what do we when do we use this versus something else and one of the other reasons that the road ordinance was a disaster last year was because some subdivision developers were very concerned about how this would apply to Future expansions so this leaves the current policies in place this is only intended to deal with the administrative procedures well we said that last year but nobody believed this no actually last time there was a discussion of a change and the big debate was over whether these roads had to be paved or not it's one of them yeah

it I think I think putting it in there needs to be clear because as I read it and I think it's correct it could be it just talks about a way developed to write access to two or more dwelling units and we don't need somebody coming in here and saying I've got a five lot subdivision why and it's going to be a private road why do I I have to do that but and then so if we put it well and let me ask you since you did such a bang-up job with Backlot clarification last year would you be willing to take on try and clarify that issue

still let me look no um you you added a lot of changelings we wouldn't go back to try to do anything on backlots what I'm suggesting is in the same way that you clarified what it meant for Backlot access would you be willing to take a look at Private Road versus private way I went to an associate position I I'll look at it yeah if you can go out for any suggestions that'd be really helpful I'm gonna look at the bigger or yes piece it's all it's confusing as you know roads are just a very confusing issue so can I and just ask I don't have my full ordinance in front of me and that's my fault but the goal of this is you're not doing a subdivision right you may be doing a Backlot or you may be doing a family subdivision correct or something else family development that doesn't require you to go through subdivision approval you play by these rules correct if you are extending a subdivision Road for example

that would have to go to the subdivision because if it's an approved subdivision the amendment has to be approved as a subdivision Amendment okay this language in here about extending a road would be a road that never went through subdivision approval and this only applies if you're accessing two or more correct well not dwelling units it'd be have to be two or more Lots right well that's really good three dwelling units on a friggin single lot or on a back lot that's how we got into the whole discussion was that if you have a Backlot you can now have three dwelling units on the backbot so it should be two or more Lots rather than dwelling units well look I mean would you allow a driveway

Lots so if you had a Backlot that had single lot three dwelling like Maine and two accessories or something like that what are you allowing them to put in there I'm gonna say your road has to meet Road standards to the road commissioner Aspire for me issues so these Road standards are like driveway standards um yep if it's if it's yeah right I'm gonna look at development in saying Kelvin can they is that road okay for that is that a Proto cave but don't wait for you okay so let me let me try to clarify if you have a lot and you're going to be putting in a single family and you're going to be adding an accessory apartment you just have your driveway if you're going to be putting in a duplex on that lot that has current road Frontage then it's still just a driveway if you want to create a Backlot that has uh one one

house on it with or without accessory and and you don't have their legal Frontage 300 300 feet then you have to create a Backlot access and that's what's confusing about this language right now because then it says and if you create two or more Lots I think it's Lots dwelling units for that part then you have to get a private road up that have It upgraded to a pro in most towns known as a private way with a plan approved by the road commissioner and the code officer and a maintenance agreement by the planning board so so I guess I still don't understand what we want to accomplish so if you have Road Frontage no matter how many units you have on that you've got a driveway got it that's easy you don't have Road Frontage you're on a back lot no matter how many dwelling units You're Building to this standard no that's limited to under the current language two or more dwelling units or structures

actually that yeah two or more dwelling units so we're still basing enough dwelling units instead of lots [Music] so if I have I have a single family home on a back lot I'm building a driveway yep I have a single family home and an in-law apartment I'm doing this accessory apartments are considered to be accessory so it does not trigger well it's a dwelling unit it's a dwelling unit I mean I I think they're defined as well in you I think you all I'm not sure why you would differentiate between a lot and a dwelling unit because if you have three people living in a house or three sorry three separate living areas uh you could have six cars you could have I mean you're not talking about two you know two more people so if you start adding accessory units back there do you not increase the traffic if it's a standalone accessory dwelling unit I would say that's that's a drone unit there are two homes there and I

need that road to be approved by the road conditions well what is the definition of a dwelling unit when we talk about dwelling units in affordable housing we're talking about apartments above a garage in the whole nine years it's a dwelling unit to me is because what's the difference yeah that's a dwelling unit right regardless of whether it's attached or detailed the X number of cars come with that X you know traffic the fire commissioner the fire chiefs got to get back there and if we run this past the fire chief was one of my other questions but see what I'm saying I'm concerned that I don't know what the difference is in this case if there's different people living up there if I have people living above my barn and living on the second floor of my house I'm going to add cars I'm going to add more more traffic well that is different to me than a a lot well and some of this becomes weird

if you're talking about dwelling units instead of dwelling units on different Lots so are you gonna have a maintenance agreement with yourself if it's one lot with three dwelling units that are all commonly owned it's am I gonna have a maintenance agreement with myself to access my single back lot because they already think we're nuts with the maintenance agreement requirements that's why we dumped it on the road commercials it should be mozarticles the intent is that it would it would cover an agreement multiple developed Lots I believe so right yeah unless it was a condominium situation

different Lots under the same ownership and they sell it choose should we go back to just ask do what the fleckman asked for which is just tell them that they have to get the town approval for a you know town meeting approval and not try to take on other changes hmm I mean I'm concerned because you could have two backlots with six families back there and three you know living in the front I maybe I'm being unrealistic but you could have multiple different people living

out that's that's not going to clarify stuff instance every situation no you know so that that's you've just raised some situations that could happen well I could see where somebody builds a house and said I want to you know I want to rent the second floor and I want to run something above the garage and uh I mean I if if we believe that people are going to do accessory Apartments why would they not what's going to keep them from doing it on a Backlot thank you

but I don't know what we're trying to pop I don't understand enough what we're trying to accomplish to do that you know it um standards with 5.23 c um a little bit with the numbering but it goes from one to five but we're talking about professional engineer designing and his aunt said you know it's got to be brought up to subdivision to me it's not clear what's the trigger that makes that happen

an accessory over the garage attached detached whatever and I'm not sure that's our intention here no it's not the intent and I'm not sure I could present a case that ancestry apartment does not trigger the multiple lot but I'd have to use some different definitions and probably don't want to get into that tonight you know maybe we're just not there on you know we just drop back and pawn say get it approved by the road commissioner and go to a town meeting to get it accepted as a public road all I can say is the language that's drafted for to change roads to private ways most of the other towns this is what they do with these and these are the standards that they apply and it seems to work pretty good well so then the question is what are we dwelling unit versus a slot

Lots not for multiple dwelling units is how is that now though the wording in this ordinance is confusing that's what I'm trying to fix yeah I'm not sure do we take a shot at this again next month this particular well I mean the other thing is I would rather not change that Backlot piece to one single Backlot instead of one single family dwelling until we figure out what's happening with the affordable housing piece

written with the intent that you had one dwelling unit per back and so dwelling unit and law were synonymous in this standard and that is probably changing so yeah I mean I think it has because I mean we're going to change if it gets accepted it'll change well state laws change it and otherwise this it has changed

that's the other piece right we didn't look at that when drafting the house the affordable housing right so maybe we don't want to increase lot sizes but we also didn't look at whether they could be on Bath Lots or Road Frontage or anything like that I don't think we can no correct me if I'm wrong we can't stop them from doing it on a backlog the multiple units the affordable that's a bad term but the the multiple units well that's not how you do it you don't do it by law you do it by Frontage you can change dimensional requirements

and Road Frontage is a dimensional requirement no I got you but the Backlot if if we if if there is a Backlot and somebody wants to build on that is that not a lot that falls under the state law right but so the exception is is you can for example I haven't looked at it specifically because they don't have to do that anymore but you can increase dimensional requirements so one dimensional requirements you can increase lot size correct right if you're going to put three houses on it you can require 10 acres you're gonna put three dwelling units on you can require 10 acres right but another dimensional requirement is Road Frontage so if you're going to have one dwelling unit you have 50 feet of Road Frontage which is the freaking back lot if you're gonna have three you need 350 feet which is our standard so by

increasing the dimensional standard which is allowed you prohibit multiple dwelling units on a backlog and can you give the question can you differentiate between a Backlot and a front lot well you're not you're differentiating between

increase the road Frontage you right now you have 350 feet on a lot I'm saying for a single family home you have 50 feet of Road Frontage and meet these requirements on a Backlot for a duplex or multiple units you have to have 350

feet not 50 feet with meeting these requirements so you change it just for the Backlot sure I mean that that's that's the effect that's an exception anyway yes exactly you get you get you get home now with with that exception of 50 people that doesn't mean you you get through so we'd have to the way the affordable housing amendments are you do get three yeah so you're sticking three dwelling units down a flipping driveway on a backlash with no subdivision approval that's my concern that's why I think it's right it you know because although the new law does say subject to subdivision requirements so if they create Three Laws yeah if it's a family subdivision maybe I'll have to be exempt yeah yeah or you're gonna rental but uh we're probably not in a position no rental would be uh yeah that's true it's a subdivision well well six weeks three you know the question would be how do we take that on between now and

April 1st well my concern is if there's this much confusion at this level going to the town meeting will be disaster yeah exactly and so maybe it's just Punt and let the broken machine continue yeah I think that's right for this I'm just gonna leave it out there I don't love our affordable housing amendments but the worst out of the barn yeah so uh what I will do uh if it's all right with you is for the next meeting I will just prepare an amendment that just simply clarifies that town roads can only be accepted uh tonight at town meeting well like because the select board has asked it yes today every meeting I go to so it's good more it's a simple take but you you asked if it took effect right as soon as the in the meeting voted um is there a waiting period in Durham for ordinance best no no

Alan did you have any comments nope I've talked more of that so we just punt on this and go back to just private roads will be approved by the town in the Eddie Tom meeting and hope to not know what he comes in wants to do a Backlot in three units I don't think he can

process and the town attorney to sort through this mess right it's my Supermarket somewhere in Durham um all right so anyway is there so that's what we're gonna do on that and then we'll take that one on next time next time we will we may have Deer Creek back before us and I will take what we talked about this evening to the Selectmen and give them a heads up and let you know their thoughts assuming I don't get Dengue fever or anything else between now and next Tuesday but thank you for your time and thank you for coming out of the minor leagues to play with us this evening your thoughts are always well appreciated okay Devin turn it off oh emotion of the jury I'll make that motion it's our next meeting uh February February 1st second all in favor raise a hand now turn it off Devin