Planning Board Meeting ~ August 3, 2022

2022-08-03 · Planning Board · 3:02:16 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board met on August 3, 2022 and spent most of the evening on the substantive review of the preliminary plan for Deer Creek Crossing, a 13-lot cluster subdivision on Hallowell Road, working condition by condition through a draft prepared by the town planner. It voted on some twenty conditions, most of them 4-0 with one abstention, and did not reach a decision on preliminary approval: the applicant has never produced a certified boundary survey, and the board required one before it votes at its next meeting, which is also when the 60-day statutory clock runs out. It then took up a conditional use application from Celebration Tree Farm at 125 Bowie Hill Road for a yurt, a single campsite in a converted bus and use of an 1800s barn for community events, and got stuck on what the bus legally is; a site visit was set for September 7 at 5:00 p.m. and a public hearing for the next meeting. The board closed with the planner's draft response to a new state law that from next July will require single-family zones to allow up to three dwellings on a lot, and a timetable of informational meetings this autumn and public hearings in January and February ahead of April town meeting.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 1:47
   Making two members voting for the evening

   The chair moved Tyler and Ann up to voting members for the meeting and no member objected, giving a quorum of five. Because a vote was expected, both were asked whether they had caught up: Tyler had read the minutes but not watched the video and was comfortable, and the other members agreed he should vote. Ann (?) said she would abstain because she had missed the site walk.

2. 1:47
   Minutes of July 13

   The minutes were approved as amended, with a compliment to George, the town planner, on their detail. The amendment added wetland delineation and wetland resource permitting to the list of potential peer reviews recorded under new business, alongside engineered plans, traffic safety review and potential forestry violations.

3. 1:47
   Town meeting articles

   The chair reported the budget committee had recommended approval of $16,000 for a GIS system for tax mapping, which is separate from the mapping the town planner has done for the board. He noted the other three articles at the August 16 town meeting cover improving the phone and internet system, new computers, and heating and HVAC, and urged viewers to come and vote.

4. 7:16
   Where the Deer Creek Crossing review stands

   The application for the 13-lot cluster subdivision on Hallowell Road was determined complete on July 13, which started a 60-day clock, so a decision falls due by the next meeting. George (?) summarised the issues raised at the public hearing: survey accuracy, drainage, timber harvesting violations, disclosure of encumbrances, wetland delineation accuracy, the location of the stormwater basin, and the existing and proposed stream crossings. The conservation commission asked in writing for a high-intensity soil survey and supported the open space network connecting to the Timber Oaks open space.

5. 7:16
   Later comments received

   After the public hearing an email raised impacts on the schools, impacts on the aquifer district that extends partly onto the property, and continuing zoning violations. Notice went to the school superintendent, the road commissioner and the fire chief as required; written comments came back from the road commissioner and the superintendent. The fire chief has not been asked to review a formal fire protection proposal because the applicant has offered options without settling on one.

6. 7:16
   The board's three options

   George set out the choices: approve for preliminary approval without conditions if the application meets all standards, approve with conditions where an impact can be mitigated, or deny if the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof on any standard. He had drafted conditions of approval ordered to follow the standards in the ordinance, which would also form the basis for findings of fact. A member raised a fourth route, asking the applicant for an extension rather than denying, which George (?) confirmed is possible if the applicant agrees.

7. 12:57
   How to take the votes

   George advised, on attorney guidance, that each condition be put to the applicant to see whether they accept it, so it is not contested later, and that each be voted on individually by majority rather than voting the whole set at the end. If the board leaned toward denial he would prepare findings of fact for the next meeting; if it approved with conditions, the existing documentation would serve.

8. 12:57
   Public comment must be at a noticed hearing

   George (?) reported the town attorney's advice, sought in May, that public comment on a subdivision or conditional use application should only be taken at a properly noticed public hearing, so that parties have the chance to rebut evidence. He said this matters for defending any decision the board makes.

9. 12:57
   The outstanding judgment

   On the encumbrance question, George (?) reported that a lien discharge is now in the record: the property owner paid a fine, the select board accepted it and determined the violations were abated to its satisfaction, ceasing enforcement. According to Jack Conway, the town attorney, no satisfaction of judgment has been filed with the court, though he is prepared to do it if the town requests. George (?) reminded the board the burden is on the applicant to show there are no encumbrances affecting the ability to sell lots.

10. 18:39
    What preliminary approval means

    George (?) explained preliminary approval follows a state model and is the point at which the board tells an applicant it is worth spending more money on state permits, cost estimates, bank financing and performance guarantees. If the board is convinced a standard simply cannot be met, there is no point granting it. His worked example was fire protection: the application offers a 36,000 gallon fire pond where the ordinance requires 120,000 gallons unless the fire chief accepts less in combination with sprinklers, which in his view does not meet the standard as submitted.

11. 24:27
    Condition 6.1(a): right-of-way to the abutting property

    The ordinance calls for extending a right-of-way for future road connections. The applicant is willing to put one in off the end of the hammerhead to the abutting property but it appears on no plan, so a condition would require it on the final plan. Members noted it would cross a wetland, that it is a paper street rather than a road, and that whoever eventually builds it would have to meet the same or higher standards as the crossings in this subdivision.

12. 24:27
    Interconnectivity

    A member said he is a strong believer in the interconnectivity of neighbourhoods rather than isolated dead ends, pointing to larger parcels beyond and to Milky Way Lane as showing future connection toward Dyer Road or back out to Davis Road. The right-of-way would keep land from being landlocked without requiring anything to be built now.

13. 29:47
    Condition 6.1(b): the stormwater detention basin

    The conservation commission's representative had suggested the stormwater detention basin above the stream be moved out of the resource protection district, which extends about 100 feet from the stream. The applicant's engineer argued the counter case, that moving it further from the stream means it captures less road runoff, so untreated runoff reaches the stream. George (?) confirmed his understanding that the ordinance does not prohibit stormwater features in resource protection; it was the commission representative's opinion that they should not be there.

14. 35:29
    Sending the basin question to peer review

    Members said they did not have enough information to decide either way, and agreed the question belonged with the board's own expert. It was put to the applicant, who accepted, that the peer reviewer would advise whether the basin stays as designed or moves, on the understanding that this is not a major redesign that would cost lots.

15. 40:50
    The survey

    The applicant submitted a survey prepared for a prior property owner rather than a new one, and that survey itself notes discrepancies where title is not clear around the periphery. Four issues arise: marking the corners of the parcel as the ordinance requires, the areas of questionable title, the effect of unclear title on the open space calculations, and a CMP easement identified during the title search that does not appear on the plan. A representative of the applicant agreed a standard boundary survey by a certified professional land surveyor has not been done.

16. 40:50
    When the survey has to be produced

    Members said doing it now would eliminate the questions at final plan stage, and asked whether it could be ready for the next meeting. The applicant's side said the surveyor is lined up and it could be, while explaining the preference for surveying after preliminary approval because pins set on the ground are wasted if a project is denied. The board indicated it would hold the survey question, and with it the preliminary approval vote, until the next meeting.

17. 46:43
    High-intensity soil survey

    The ordinance lets the board require a high-intensity soil survey but does not require it automatically. George (?) said it matters where topography produces extensive wetlands and hydric soils of uncertain extent that could affect foundations, drainage and road integrity, but that the general soil surveys here do not show wide discrepancies, that the national evaluation system the conservation commission relied on has been judged impractical in Maine, and that no objective evidence was offered that the soil mapping is inadequate.

18. 51:59
    Letting the peer reviewer decide

    Members were reluctant to impose a survey requiring extensive test pits with no demonstrated benefit, but equally did not want to be sitting here in five years wishing they had. George (?) explained a peer reviewer would not carry out a high-intensity soil survey, which needs a backhoe and many test pits, but could review the question. The condition was modified so the engineering peer reviewer advises whether one should be required, with the applicant agreeing.

19. 51:59
    The intersection offset from Patriot Way

    The subdivision entrance had been offset diagonally from Patriot Way and has been moved within the right-of-way closer to directly opposite, but remains slightly offset. The options were a traffic engineer's letter reviewed by the peer reviewer, or leaving it to MDOT, which also has to approve it. Members noted the board has independent jurisdiction and does not have to accept MDOT's position, as at Wingate Farm, and that Timber Oaks has indicated a willingness to work on a full realignment, which would require amending its own subdivision.

20. 57:40
    Leaving the alignment to MDOT

    The board settled on requiring the applicant to have MDOT address the offset specifically in its permit comments, so the point cannot be missed, rather than commissioning a separate traffic engineering review. Members also noted the sight distance figure of 700 feet in both directions is fine but the plan's arrows both point the same way, a typo to be corrected, and that the requirement is around 350 feet.

21. 1:02:49
    Drainage concerns

    The neighbours had asked for an independent peer review of the stormwater and erosion control. The board agreed the engineering peer review should address it.

22. 1:02:49
    Timber harvesting violations

    The only evidence until now had been the applicant's account of what their forester said, which George called inadequate; the condition would have required either verification from the state agriculture and forestry department or a licensed forester. The applicant produced a signed and dated certification from Jeff Cody (?), a registered Maine harvester, stating he harvested map 7 lot 32A in 2019 in compliance with the liquidation harvesting standards in Chapter 23. The board accepted that as the certification it was looking for.

23. 1:08:44
    Whether the judgment has actually been satisfied

    Members returned at length to the encumbrance question. The select board had accepted $25,000 against a court-ordered $50,000 fine, plus $1,245 in legal fees, at its meeting of March 22, 2022, and a letter signed by the town manager declares the payment resolves the actions that led to the penalties. Members pointed out that letter is the town manager's characterisation, not the vote itself, and that the board could not tell whether the select board voted on the money alone or also found the on-the-ground work complete.

24. 1:13:52
    What would settle it

    Members said filing with the court is not needed for the planning board's purposes; what is needed is clarity on what the select board voted, which could be resolved by a simple motion that all conditions of the judgment have been satisfied. The code enforcement officer confirmed he checked after everything was done and the site is clean. The point had arisen because a resident on the site walk objected that $25,000 had been accepted while equipment remained on the property, which a member said he had some sympathy with.

25. 1:19:13
    Wetland delineation

    The applicant's wetland delineator had gone back out on August 1 and produced a letter with dated photographs confirming nothing had changed since the original work, which had been done in winter and again in May. A member argued a peer review was still warranted, because delineation should not be done in winter, because the site carries extensive wetlands, and because the town has had problems with subdivisions near wetlands recently, adding that this was no reflection on the delineator. Someone on the applicant's side questioned why a peer review was needed when the professional had just recertified his findings.

26. 1:24:25
    Stream crossings

    The proposal involves restoring a stream, removing an existing culvert and building a new crossing, all requiring DEP and Army Corps of Engineers permits. Asked whether the town needed anything more, George (?) said the planning board is the town's only reviewer beyond a shoreland zoning permit for the crossing. Calvin's written comment was that the plans do not show the culvert footings, detail those agencies will require. A member with experience of such permits in another state said they are thorough and hard to get, and was comfortable relying on them.

27. 1:24:25
    Impact on the schools

    The superintendent's letter was read as saying the subdivision could potentially affect the Durham Community School, but that more likely than not the district could accommodate the number of school-aged children. A member noted it was not a statement of no impact, but others said it was more than the board usually gets, and the board did not impose a condition.

28. 1:29:28
    Aquifer district and zoning violations

    Only a small part of the project, the road out to Hallowell Road, lies within the aquifer district. The board agreed the code enforcement officer should review the standards applicable there. It separately agreed he should inspect for any current zoning violations, members observing that this is his job.

29. 1:29:28
    Fire protection resolved at 120,000 gallons

    The condition as drafted would have required either 36,000 gallons in underground tanks plus a fire pond, or a lower amount if the fire chief agreed in combination with sprinklers. The applicant said they were fine with a 120,000 gallon pond and had only been waiting on the fire chief, so the board took the full ordinance figure, which removes the need for sprinklers in the houses. Because the pond cannot sit at the end of the turnaround where the paper street will run, the board required it to be located outside that right-of-way.

30. 1:35:22
    Clearing, permits and plan corrections

    Further conditions were taken in turn: final plans must show all areas intended for clearing to support the stormwater assumptions and required buffers; MDOT permits for the intersection are required, Calvin having pointed out the existing permit for a house does not serve; and the road extension condition was approved with southwest corrected to south.

31. 1:35:22
    Peer review, clearing limits and deed notices

    The board required an engineering peer review of the road and associated plans, having already dealt with the stormwater separately. It required clearing limits within individual lots so owners know what they may and may not cut, and required the deeds to put owners on notice of the areas where cutting is prohibited. Condition 13 was dropped, the forester's certification having been produced.

32. 1:35:22
    Lots 6 and 7

    Wetlands cover considerable parts of lots 6 and 7. Rather than remove them from the plan, the board required an engineered site plan for each showing the grading of the house so that it does not extend into the wetlands, with a fresh engineered plan required if a later builder wants something different. The applicant accepted.

33. 1:41:08
    The remaining standard conditions

    Conditions 15 to 25 cover other review criteria: engineering cost estimates for the road, electrical service, stormwater management, erosion control and fire protection system; notice that the applicant has six months to file for final approval; erosion and sedimentation control and the engineering peer review; a street name from the addressing officer; checks with the Natural Areas Program, the Maine Historic Preservation Commission and inland fisheries and wildlife; a bank letter showing financial capacity; a DEP stormwater permit required by the size of the road; covenants checked against the town attorney's template at the applicant's expense; and a performance guarantee.

34. 1:41:08
    Items the chair thought were missing

    The chair raised two omissions he did not consider grounds to hold the application up. The plans carry the required statement that septic will be done in accordance with Maine rules but not the equivalent for wells. More substantially, the covenants say nothing about use of the common areas, so there is no control on people taking ATVs into the wetlands or crossing streams; he asked that the covenant review look for language protecting the sensitive areas.

35. 1:41:08
    Buffers and trails

    On buffers, members confirmed condition 7 requires areas intended for clearing to be shown to support the stormwater assumptions and the required buffers along water bodies, with wooded buffers around each lot and the 100 foot stream buffers. The open space proposal is a marked perimeter trail on the model of Bowie, with logs laid across wetland and stream crossings.

36. 1:46:48
    Celebration Tree Farm conditional use application

    The second application was a conditional use for camping, public workshops and events at Celebration Tree Farm, 125 Bowie Hill Road, map 10 lot 43. George (?) explained some proposed uses do not clearly fit the table of uses, and that the applicants had gone to the board of appeals for clarification of the resource protection boundary; that application was denied on the basis of the town meeting vote on the zoning map and because the board of appeals thought the activities fit within uses already allowed in both the resource protection and rural residential and agricultural districts.

37. 1:46:48
    History of the property

    In 2021 the applicants had submitted a different conditional use application for about 20 campsites on land to the rear, during which the camping bus on this property was discussed; the previous code officer issued an order against use of the bus because it did not meet code, and the current code officer has verified it is not being used for camping. George had drafted potential findings of fact following the application for the board to modify.

38. 1:51:53
    Public hearing and site visit

    A public hearing is not required for a conditional use, but the board chose to hold one at the next meeting, saying transparency and including the community mattered and that it expected people on both sides. The applicants had understood the public was invited to comment that evening and were told a formal noticed hearing is needed. A site visit, also open to the public and noticed, was set for September 7 at 5:00 p.m.

39. 1:51:53
    No contact with board members

    The chair explained to the new applicants that neither they nor members of the public may contact planning board members about an application. Anyone with questions, or anyone being asked to write in, should go to the town planner, who passes the information to the board.

40. 1:56:59
    Who the applicants are

    Jonathan Bird (?) introduced himself and the other worker owners of Celebration Tree Farm and Wellness Center: his wife Elizabeth Fertig-Bird, Tom Prohl (?) and Jeanette Huff. Their backgrounds are in food systems and cooperative business development, the wellness industry and education, and organic farming, Prohl being farm operations manager at Wolfe's Neck Center for Agriculture and the Environment in Freeport.

41. 1:56:59
    History of the farm

    The Birds bought the farm in 2015 from Diane Ackerman after the death of her husband John Ackerman, who started it in the 1980s practising ecological forestry and organic agriculture, welcomed the community to cut trees, and helped start the conservation commission and the land trust and preserve land including Runaround Pond and the Durham River Park. The farm is now one of the only certified organic Christmas tree farms in the state and became solar powered this year. It converted to a cooperatively owned LLC in 2020, and the adjoining 110 acres of forest were bought and preserved by the Land in Common community land trust, from which the cooperative holds a 99 year lease; the community supported forest programme has over 90 members.

42. 2:02:27
    What is proposed

    The proposal is a non-residential educational and nature interpretation facility, a 30 foot diameter yurt on above-ground concrete footings for year-round workshops; a single campsite consisting of the converted celebration bus, which the applicants argue is not a campground because the ordinance defines that as two or more parties; and use of the early 1800s barn as a cultural facility and community building. All of it falls within the 8.3 acres the Birds own and live on, not the 110 leased acres.

43. 2:02:27
    The campsite

    The campsite would be used under six months a year. There is no running water on the bus; an expansion of the leach field is designed to take greywater from an outdoor shower and sink, with a composting toilet handling waste to town requirements. The bus would be off grid on solar with battery lights, with a grill outside for cooking and a small campfire ring subject to strict fire safety rules.

44. 2:02:27
    The barn

    The barn would host monthly community variety shows, occasional performing and visual art shows, educational programmes, and the annual celebration market, which has brought over 25 craft and food vendors together each November on Shop Local Saturday for five years. The barn and yurt would be available for rental to community supported forest members for family events, including no more than two or three weddings a year, birthday parties, baby showers and memorial services, with most events under 30 people and weddings capped at 100.

45. 2:02:27
    Performance standards as presented

    The applicants said campfires would be attended and fully extinguished, and they would work with the code officer and fire chief on smoke alarms, extinguishers and egress, all areas being close to Bowie Hill Road. Most events would end before 9 p.m. with occasional events to 10 p.m. no more than three times a year, quiet hours running 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Daily traffic would average under ten cars and probably under five, special events would be limited to 20 vehicles with a shuttle required for wedding guests, and Christmas tree season uses overflow parking with staff keeping cars off Bowie Hill Road.

46. 2:08:02
    History with the town

    The applicants set out their dealings with the previous code officer, Bob, and a 2018 appearance before the planning board which determined tree sales needed no additional permit as agricultural use. They said the wellness centre and campsite were verbally approved under agriculture and home-based business uses, and that they rented the bus on Airbnb from 2019 to 2021 with five-star reviews and no neighbour complaints until a letter last autumn, after which they stopped. They have been working since November 2021 to reach this point, through a change of code officer and an appeal.

47. 2:08:02
    What is actually before the board

    Members struggled with which uses apply and whether the existing activities were in front of them. Ann's position, which others accepted, was that the existing yoga, wellness and Christmas tree sales are either in violation or not and are the current code officer's problem, and that the board is looking only at two new conditional uses: an educational use comprising the yurt and campsite, and use of the barn for gatherings.

48. 2:19:16
    What the bus is

    The unresolved question was how to classify the converted bus. The previous code officer's cease and desist rested on the town not allowing a second dwelling on one parcel; the current code officer said that provision is in direct opposition to a state law passed in March, which the town has not yet caught up with. Members canvassed whether the bus is a dwelling, which would bring the building code into play, a recreational vehicle, a campsite, or, as one member put it, a bed and breakfast if it stands alone.

49. 2:30:31
    Primary use of the bus

    Members pressed whether guests would be required to take part in the educational programme. The applicants said they always share what they do with guests but would not require everyone to take a workshop, and that farm stays are common and educational in themselves. A member replied that if the primary reason someone rents it is to go shopping in Freeport, calling it an educational facility looks like a stretch, whereas if the bus were always coupled with a retreat it would sit clearly within the educational use. The board asked them to define the primary use, and noted the bus could be moved out of resource protection, which would simplify matters.

50. 2:36:20
    The planner's suggested way through

    George (?) offered two observations. The board need not worry about the existing operations, only about what is proposed. And he did not think anything proposed could not fit somewhere, since use 31 covers other commercial services not otherwise listed, which could be approved as a conditional use with whatever restrictions the board thinks necessary; a member pointed out that use 31 does not help the bus, which sits in resource protection. Members also noted a property can carry multiple uses, with the stricter standard applying, and raised whether a wedding in the barn could spill into gardens or a tent in the resource protection zone.

51. 2:41:58
    Parking

    A member said parking was a significant concern, since the site plan shows only a small parking area and not the field behind where the tents are set up. The board asked for a scaled parking plan with marked spaces, so it can see that whatever number the applicants propose actually fits, and be satisfied there will be no overflow onto Bowie Hill Road.

52. 2:41:58
    Hours and noise

    A member said 10 p.m. seemed late for that neighbourhood and that a line has to be drawn, so that if the code officer receives a complaint about 11 o'clock there is something to enforce. The applicants said they would be fine with an earlier hour, that they live there and are not seeking late night parties, and that they had spoken to neighbours. Another member pointed to the very low noise limits in section 5.19, said the code officer already has noise complaints and that noise is extremely difficult to enforce, and asked the applicants to show they can at least plausibly comply, possibly with a decibel meter.

53. 2:47:00
    What the applicants are to bring back

    The summary given to the applicants was: add marked spaces to a scaled parking map, propose the hours of operation the board will vote on, and think about how to demonstrate compliance with the noise standard. They said they were looking for guidance and would evolve the proposal to fit. Members and the planner agreed to work with the code officer between meetings to sort out which use categories apply, particularly for the bus.

54. 2:47:00
    Marking public comment on the agenda

    A member asked that future agendas state which items will take public comment and which will not, so residents know before they attend. The chair and the planner agreed it was a good idea.

55. 2:53:05
    Ordinance revision timetable

    The historical commission and the conservation commission are each working on their own changes and are responsible for their public discussion period, while the planning board holds the public hearings. The plan is informational and organising meetings starting in September, an informational meeting in October or November, a public comment meeting, and public hearings in late January or February to be ready for April town meeting. Affordable housing is to run on a separate track.

56. 2:53:05
    The new state housing law

    George (?) explained the state law taking effect next July requires all single-family zones to allow multiple dwellings on a lot, up to three. Two Durham provisions are affected: the town currently requires two and a half acres for a duplex against two acres for a single family, which will no longer be allowed, and it currently permits only one accessory dwelling of limited size. His draft, aimed at the least possible change, would allow two accessory dwelling units on a single family lot, or a duplex with one accessory unit, three in either case.

57. 2:58:57
    How narrow the change can be

    A member reading the summary argued the law requires allowing only one additional dwelling unit on a lot that already has one, a maximum of two, with three required only where there is no existing dwelling, and that Durham should not allow more than it must. The chair said he wanted the change as narrow as state law permits, and George agreed to look at the underlying statute; he noted MMA has no draft language yet and is itself struggling to work out what the legislature approved. Members also noted the law does not remove the need for subdivision approval.

58. 2:58:57
    Road acceptance language

    The second ordinance item is clarifying language on town acceptance of roads. The point was raised at town meeting that the ordinance does not say whether or how the town accepts roads, and the last attempt died because a developer was not convinced his existing road would not have to be brought up to new standards, with the select board chairman asking for language on that.

59. 2:58:57
    Broadcasting meetings

    The plan to make the Eureka Center fully internet accessible so meetings could be held there with more room for the public is on hold because of the complexity. The chair had discussed an interim arrangement with Devin: recording with a webcam on a computer, streamed live to YouTube from the fire station, which has wireless, or recorded at the Eureka Center for later broadcast.

What was decided

• 1:47
  Make Tyler and Ann voting members for the evening, giving a quorum of five. The chair asked for objections and none were raised.passed
• 1:47
  Allow Tyler to vote on the Deer Creek Crossing application, having read the minutes of the meetings he missed. Ann (?) stated she would abstain because she had missed the site walk. The other members agreed.passed
• 1:47
  Approve the minutes of July 13 as amended, adding wetland delineation and wetland resource permitting to the list of potential peer reviews. Moved and seconded; approved on a show of hands.passed
• 24:27
  Require, as a change to the plan, that a right-of-way be extended from the end of the hammerhead to the abutting property line so that land is not left landlocked. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 35:29
  Do NOT decide now whether the stormwater detention basin must move out of the resource protection district. The question goes to the peer reviewer, who will advise whether it stays as designed or moves, on the understanding that a major redesign is not contemplated. The applicant accepted. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 51:59
  Modify the soils condition so that the engineering peer reviewer considers and advises whether a high-intensity soil survey should be required, rather than requiring one outright. The applicant accepted. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 57:40
  Require the applicant to have MDOT address the offset of the subdivision entrance from Patriot Way specifically in its permit comments, rather than commissioning a traffic engineer's letter for the peer reviewer. The chair announced 4-0.passed
• 1:02:49
  Send the drainage concerns raised in public comment to the engineering peer review. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:02:49
  Hold the survey accuracy question, and with it the preliminary approval decision, over to the next meeting, the applicant to produce an up-to-date certified boundary survey before the board votes.tabled
• 1:02:49
  Drop the condition requiring verification that there were no timber harvesting violations. The applicant produced a signed certification from a registered Maine harvester that the 2019 harvest on map 7 lot 32A complied with the liquidation harvesting standards in Chapter 23, which the board accepted as the certification it wanted.passed
• 1:13:52
  Drop condition 5(d), which would have required a satisfaction of judgment to be filed on the earlier violations. Moved and seconded; the chair announced 4-0 with one abstention. Members had been unable to establish from the town manager's letter whether the select board's March 22, 2022 vote covered only the money or also found the on-the-ground work complete, but concluded the lien is discharged and the site clean.passed
• 1:19:13
  Include the wetland delineation in the peer review. After a show of hands the chair said he thought it may have failed and then that it had failed; the count read out is indistinct in the recording and does not clearly match that conclusion.outcome unclear
• 1:24:25
  Rely on the DEP and Army Corps of Engineers permits for the stream restoration, the existing crossing and the new crossing as meeting the appropriate environmental standards, the town's only further review being a shoreland zoning permit. The chair called the vote but the recording carries no result.outcome unclear
• 1:24:25
  Impose NO condition on impacts to the schools, the superintendent's letter being taken as a sufficient answer. Members explicitly declined to vote on it.passed
• 1:29:28
  Have the Durham code enforcement officer review the standards applicable to the part of the project within the aquifer district. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:29:28
  Have the code enforcement officer inspect the property for any current zoning violations. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:29:28
  Require a 120,000 gallon capacity water storage pond for fire protection, meeting the ordinance standard in full rather than the 36,000 gallons proposed, and require it to be located outside the right-of-way extending to the property line. With the full pond no sprinkler system is needed in the houses. The applicant agreed; the chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:29:28
  Require the final plans to show all areas intended for clearing, to support the stormwater management assumptions and the required buffers. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:35:22
  Require MDOT permits for the intersection, the road commissioner having pointed out that the existing permit for a house does not serve. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:35:22
  Approve the condition addressing the standard for the road extension as written, with southwest corrected to south. Approved on a show of hands.passed
• 1:35:22
  Require an engineering peer review of the road plans, the stormwater having already been dealt with separately. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:35:22
  Require clearing limits within the individual lots so that lot owners know what they may and may not cut. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:35:22
  Require the deeds to put lot owners on notice that they may not cut in certain areas. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:35:22
  Require an engineered site plan for each of lots 6 and 7, showing the grading of the house so that it does not extend into the wetlands, with a fresh engineered plan required if a later builder wants something different. The applicant accepted; the chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:41:08
  Approve conditions 15 to 25 as a block, covering engineering cost estimates, the six-month deadline for filing the final application, erosion and sedimentation control and peer review, a street name from the addressing officer, checks with the Natural Areas Program, Maine Historic Preservation Commission and inland fisheries and wildlife, a bank letter on financial capacity, a DEP stormwater permit, review of the covenants against the town attorney's template at the applicant's expense, and a performance guarantee. The chair announced 4-0 with one abstention.passed
• 1:41:08
  Do NOT vote on preliminary approval of the Deer Creek Crossing subdivision at this meeting. The board deferred the decision to its next meeting, when it expects the certified boundary survey and the planner's revised final draft of the conditions.tabled
• 1:51:53
  Hold a public hearing on the Celebration Tree Farm conditional use application at the next meeting, although one is not required for a conditional use, and hold a noticed site visit at the farm on Wednesday, September 7 at 5:00 p.m. Put to a vote and agreed.passed
• 2:47:00
  Mark on future agendas which items will take public comment and which will not, so residents know before attending. Agreed in discussion; no motion was made.passed
• 2:58:57
  Bring back revised language on the state housing law and on town acceptance of roads for the September meeting, drafted as narrowly as state law allows, with informational meetings in October and November and public hearings in January and February ahead of April town meeting. Agreed in discussion; no motion was made.passed
• 2:58:57
  Adjourn. Moved and seconded; the chair announced 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.

Worth knowing

• 40:50
  The Deer Creek Crossing subdivision has never had a certified boundary survey. What was submitted was a survey prepared for a previous owner, which itself notes areas where title is not clear, and a CMP easement found during the title search does not appear on the plan. Unclear title around the edges could also change the open space calculations. The board declined to vote on preliminary approval and required the survey before its next meeting, which is when the 60-day statutory decision clock runs out.
• 1:08:44
  The board could not establish whether the town has actually closed out the judgment against the property owner. The select board accepted $25,000 against a court-ordered $50,000 fine, plus $1,245 in legal fees, at its March 22, 2022 meeting, and the lien was discharged, but no satisfaction of judgment has been filed with the court and members could not tell from the town manager's letter whether the select board voted on the money alone or also found the cleanup complete. A resident on the site walk had objected that equipment remained on the property. The board dropped the condition anyway, the code officer having confirmed the site is now clean.
• 2:19:16
  The Celebration Tree Farm application stalled on what the converted bus legally is. The previous code officer's cease and desist rested on Durham not allowing a second dwelling on one parcel, and the current code officer said that provision now conflicts with a state law passed in March. Members canvassed dwelling, recreational vehicle, campsite and bed and breakfast, and asked the applicants to define the primary use, since a guest who rents it to go shopping in Freeport does not obviously fit an educational facility. The bus sits inside the resource protection district; the yurt and barn do not.
• 2:53:05
  A state law taking effect next July will require every single-family zone to allow up to three dwellings on a lot. Two Durham rules cannot survive it: the two and a half acres now required for a duplex against two acres for a single family, and the limit of one accessory dwelling. The planner's minimal draft would allow two accessory units on a single-family lot, or a duplex plus one accessory unit. A member argued from the summary that the law only compels one extra unit where a dwelling already exists, and the board asked for the change to be drawn as narrowly as the statute allows.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 2 passages of motion language, against 30 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2022-07-13 Planning Board2022-09-07 Planning Board →All meetings