Planning Board Meeting ~ May 1, 2024

2024-05-01 · Planning Board · 2:33:40 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board had no applications before it and used the meeting to settle its position on land use policy items ahead of a May 7 meeting the select board has called with all committee chairs and vice chairs, which John Talbot and Juliet Caplinger will attend. Town planner George Thebarge described the process for getting an ordinance amendment onto the annual town meeting warrant and walked the board through the carried-over list: solar siting, battery energy storage, refinement of the Resource Protection District boundary, historic preservation regulations, cell towers, and a new item on agriculture. By consensus, with no vote taken on any of it, the board decided to take on battery energy storage, to work with the Conservation Commission on the resource protection refinement, to ask the Conservation Commission to hold solar siting until 2025, to take no position on historic preservation, to treat cell towers as a lower priority, and to add roads and private ways to the list. Talbot will call Conservation Commission chair Jess Costa before May 7 so the two bodies are not working against each other. Thebarge will write a memo setting out what he heard and send the board's recommendations to the select board. The added item on the third-party reviewer's scope of work was not reached, and the board adjourned at 9:03pm.

What was discussed

1. 3:39
   Call to order, agenda and upcoming applications

   John Talbot opened the May 1 regular meeting with five members present for a quorum, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. He added an item on the services and scope taken on by the town's third-party reviewer, Gorrill Palmer (?), if time allowed. No residents spoke; the board noted that Bowie Hill has submitted a sketch plan application for phase two for the June meeting, that Ruby Lane may return, and that members had a plat to sign before leaving.

2. 9:12
   Process for getting an amendment to town meeting

   George Thebarge described the phases: research over the summer, a report and recommended policy direction to the select board by the end of summer, public participation from Labor Day to about mid-December, then the select board finalising the warrant from January 1 and a legally posted public hearing. He said the town gets one shot a year, that the warrant carries around 40 budget items, and that typically half a dozen or fewer land use policy items can be decided at a town meeting.

3. 14:38
   Proposed agricultural commission

   Thebarge said a group met with the select board last week about forming an agricultural commission, which they are calling a working group, and presented a draft charter; the select board is supportive but wants the group's role and its fit with existing boards clarified. He said Maine Farmland Trust has offered staff support and that there are only about four agricultural commissions in the state. The group will be at the May 7 meeting.

4. 25:28
   Criteria for prioritising policy work

   Thebarge said he had asked an AI tool what the criteria are for prioritising land use regulatory policies and reported seven; the ones he read out were environmental impact, social equity, costs and benefits, economic viability, land suitability, community input, legal and regulatory requirements, and comprehensive plan goals. He said the last of these carry the most weight in practice: without public support a proposal goes nowhere, and state law sets the outer limits.

5. 31:09
   Commercial and housing development pressure

   Brian Lanoie asked whether the commercial land use ordinance is adequate, saying he has seen no major commercial development come before the board since he joined. Thebarge said that without public utilities major commercial or industrial development is close to a nonstarter in Durham, and that the comprehensive plan points instead to home-based businesses, small contractors and commercial agriculture, such as the greenhouse operation on Royalsborough Road he called Renova (?). He then set out the comprehensive plan's triggers for reconsidering that if housing activity rises.

6. 36:34
   Solar energy systems, part two (siting)

   The board discussed whether a solar overlay zone should be pursued this year. Thebarge explained an overlay by analogy with the Aquifer Protection District, and Talbot said the Conservation Commission, with research by Michael Friendly (?), had looked at siting and at a Topsham-model permit fee, which was described in the meeting both as being in the tens of thousands and as at least four figures. Talbot said the Conservation Commission had already agreed to hold off on siting for a year so the solar ordinance itself could get on the books, and that impact fees are a select board matter rather than a land use one.

7. 58:38
   Battery energy storage systems

   Juliet Caplinger and Talbot identified development pressure for standalone battery storage: state goals, the major power lines running through town, and at least one siting analysis already done for a facility here. Thebarge said the first question is whether such a facility could meet NFPA 1142 fire flow with no public water supply, noting the Maine Custom Woodlands (?) approval required a quoted 1,750 gallons per minute for a two-hour supply and that a battery site might need on the order of 10,000 gallons a minute. Caplinger said newer units are built as contained trailers and a fire is often left to burn rather than doused, so the water requirement may not be decisive.

8. 1:09:34
   Resource Protection District boundary, background

   Thebarge said he had recommended a two-step process, first correcting the boundary where mapped flood plain was not actually flood plain, then analysing where new resource protection should go with landowner input, and that the two steps were combined instead. He said Beginning with Habitat has since revised its 6 Plus data, that land the town's maps still show as 6 Plus is no longer in it, and that the program is now preparing a customised analysis for Durham, which he had been told to expect at the end of April. What is now proposed is the second step that was bypassed, pulling out areas the analysis does not support.

9. 1:15:31
   Appeals and the development buffer map

   Two landowners have taken cases to the board of appeals. The transcript describes one being upheld because the owners had done everything they could to split their lot before the ordinance took effect, and the other resting on a field analysis showing the land did not meet the Beginning with Habitat 6 Plus criterion. Thebarge said a second state map applies a development buffer of 250 feet from a road or from an existing building, drawn from the same data used when the district was adopted but never discussed at the time; Talbot said both maps should be built into a refined boundary.

10. 1:20:43
    Scope of the resource protection refinement

    Talbot asked whether the board agreed the refinement should be taken on in the coming year. Caplinger said the development buffer should not be applied as another broad brush, that undeveloped habitat blocks and other layers need to be examined, and that the scope should be framed broadly rather than limited to the bullet points on the list. Thebarge said the town is not bound to follow the Beginning with Habitat maps exactly and could use a 100-foot buffer instead of 250 where aerial photographs support it.

11. 1:31:05
    Historic preservation regulations

    Thebarge said Durham's historic district regulations were modelled on towns with real districts and are beyond what the town has the capacity or need to administer, and that the report he presented in August 2022 recommending simplification went no further. Five properties are nationally listed and three more are eligible, for eight in total, and the ordinance requires review of any development permit within 1,500 feet, described as a quarter mile, of any of them. He gave the example of the Congregational Church having to go to the historic district commission this week to replace windows.

12. 1:41:54
    Cell tower performance standards

    The ordinance has no standards for communication towers beyond conditional use review. Thebarge said FCC rules bind municipalities, with time limits for receiving, processing and deciding applications and a bar on regulations that have the effect of prohibiting service; an applicant not handled within those rules can go to court and get the permit without town review. He said development pressure is low because coverage in Durham is reasonable and new carriers tend to rent space on existing towers, and noted the town's existing tower ordinance has nothing on decommissioning.

13. 1:46:58
    Agricultural regulations

    Thebarge relayed frustration from the agricultural group about how the board has handled agricultural applications, and said the ordinance still defines agriculture as raising livestock and planting crops while agritourism has developed nationally for decades. He said one of the three things the group is pursuing is having agriculture-related activity allowed by right. Talbot said by-right approval concerns him where it extends to campgrounds, concerts, weddings and similar events, and that the group needs to bring forward its own proposed article first.

14. 1:57:27
    Manufactured housing, tiny homes and mobile home parks

    Talbot raised state law on manufactured housing. Thebarge said the ordinance does not meet state law in three areas: tiny homes as accessory dwelling units, individual siting of manufactured homes, and mobile home parks, where the ordinance requires an acre per home while state law allows 4,000 square feet. Talbot said the state bars a minimum width requirement above 14 feet while the ordinance sets a higher figure, which the recording garbles.

15. 2:02:44
    Roads, private ways and back lots

    Thebarge said responsibility for back lot access roads is split among the code officer, the road commissioner and the planning board and is a recurring source of confusion, and that the subdivision road standards are still tied to a growth policy repealed a couple of years ago even though no public roads are being approved. He has already drafted a private way process with road classifications, engineering and drainage review, and full subdivision review beyond three lots in five years. The board also discussed the 300-foot frontage requirement, whether all back lots must be five acres, and roads such as Granite Hill Farm Road and Cushing Road; an earlier overhaul stalled partly over whether private roads must be gravel or paved.

16. 2:19:08
    Codification project and planner workload

    Thebarge said he is managing the codification project, that it will not run as a committee process, and that he will work with the consultant, the code officer and other staff; the request for proposals is out. He also has a community facilities planning process going to the select board on May 21 and at least two development applications expected over the summer. He said a first cut of the codification is about a year away and that the consultant indicated two, more likely two-plus to three years, for a final product.

17. 2:30:44
    Next meeting and adjournment

    The third-party reviewer item was left to the next meeting. The June meeting is expected to include the Bowie Hill sketch plan and possibly Ruby Lane, which has legal matters to resolve. The board then moved to adjourn.

What was decided

• 52:46
  Consensus, with no vote taken, to recommend that the Conservation Commission hold solar siting work until 2025. Thebarge recorded three reasons to pass on: waiting for an agricultural commission to be involved, the lack of a scientific or objective basis for drawing solar overlay boundaries, and reluctance to limit land use rights again so soon after resource protection.passed
• 1:25:46
  Consensus, with no vote taken, that refining the Resource Protection District boundary is a priority and should be a joint effort with the Conservation Commission; which body takes the lead was left unresolved.passed
• 1:31:05
  Talbot to call Conservation Commission chair Jess Costa before the May 7 select board meeting so the Conservation Commission is not surprised by the planning board's recommendations; Talbot and Caplinger to have that conversation.passed
• 1:41:54
  Consensus that the planning board takes no position on the overhaul of historic preservation regulations, leaving it to the historic district commission and the select board.passed
• 1:57:27
  Consensus that the planning board takes no lead on agricultural regulations at this stage and waits for the agricultural group to bring forward a proposed article, while reserving its concern about uses allowed by right.passed
• 2:02:44
  Consensus not to take up manufactured housing, tiny homes or mobile home park standards this year, and to see what the codification review produces.passed
• 2:14:07
  Consensus that the planning board will take on battery energy storage systems this year, citing development pressure, with the Conservation Commission's degree of involvement to be settled.passed
• 2:19:08
  Consensus that cell tower performance standards are a lower priority, to be picked up depending on what else the select board directs.passed
• 2:24:57
  Consensus to add roads and private ways to the list given to the select board, with the near-term focus on clearing up the administrative split between the code officer, the road commissioner and the planning board rather than on road standards.passed
• 2:30:44
  Adjourn at 9:03pm, moved by Brian Lanoie and seconded by Juliet Caplinger; the minutes record it carried 5-0.passed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Motions the minutes record

The town's own written account of what was decided, taken from pbminutes_05_01_2024.txt. It owes nothing to the recording or to a model: the clerk typed it, with the vote. Where the summary above claims a decision this list does not carry, the summary is the part to doubt.

• adjourn at 9:03pmcarried 5-0

  Moved by Brian Lanoie, seconded by Juliet Caplinger

Worth knowing

• 31:09
  Thebarge said the comprehensive plan has an addendum tracking housing: if building permits for homes exceed 45 in a year, or lots approved by the planning board exceed 100, that triggers the select board to consider a special town meeting on a moratorium or a review of the comprehensive plan. He said the town is currently running at around 20 homes a year or fewer.
• 42:05
  Talbot said that if a vote were taken now his position would be to ban battery energy storage systems, citing fire safety, noise, appearance and what is left on the ground if one burns, and noting New York has them on hold; he stated at once that this was his own opinion.
• 1:15:31
  One landowner spent $3,500 on a field analysis showing their land did not meet the Beginning with Habitat 6 Plus criterion, and won their appeal on that basis. Talbot said that financial burden on residents to fight the mapping does not seem fair, and Thebarge said a state-run analysis would spare many owners the same cost.
• 1:46:58
  Thebarge said the agricultural group told him there is a high level of frustration with the planning board over agricultural applications, which they said the board struggled with because the ordinance gave no clear guidance on agritourism, causing lengthy delays. A board member replied that he recalled only one such application.

Elsewhere

← 2024-04-24 Planning Board2024-06-05 Planning Board →All meetings