Planning Board Meeting ~ July 2, 2025

2025-07-02 · Planning Board · 1:38:37 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board met on July 2, 2025 with three of five members present. It took up a request for conditional use approval to sell pre-owned vehicles, motorcycles, boats and powersports at 184 Brickyard Hill Road, but could not act because the applicant had not shown right, title or interest in the property, which is split between two owners; the applicant was asked to come back next month with written authorization and a more complete application. The rest of the meeting was a working discussion with town planner George Thebarge on the codification of the land use ordinance, covering the 139 issues raised by the town's consultant and the six of fourteen minor policy items he has drafted so far, on back lots, private ways, road standards, driveways, solid waste service and non-conforming expansions. The board discussed the schedule leading to the June town meeting and agreed to finish the codification work before adding new subjects such as contract zoning. John Talbot asked members to send him anything they want raised at the select board's priority-setting session on July 22.

What was discussed

1. 7:35
   Roll call and minutes

   John Talbot opened the meeting and reported a quorum with three of five members present. The minutes of the June 4, 2025 meeting were accepted on a motion, a second and a show of hands, with no changes offered.

2. 7:35
   Select board strategy session on priorities

   George Thebarge said the select board will hold its annual strategy session on July 22 and is inviting the leadership of boards and commissions to give input on priorities, given limited staff and committee resources. He noted the next town meeting is in June rather than April, which allows research over the summer and public participation in the fall. John Talbot asked members to tell him or email him anything they want raised beyond the codification work.

3. 12:50
   Conditional use request, 184 Brickyard Hill Road

   The board took up a request for conditional use approval for the sale of pre-owned vehicles, motorcycles, boats and powersports at 184 Brickyard Hill Road, Map 4 Lot 153. George Thebarge explained that outside display, sales or storage takes the activity beyond a home occupation, and that the application did not include any evidence of right, title or interest in the property, which must be settled before the board can review it.

4. 18:11
   Ownership of the split building

   The applicant said he rents part of a building that was divided in two and that the two halves sit on separate lots with different owners. He said he had spoken with the owner, Eric (?), who had no objection and that he believed an email had been sent, but the board had received nothing. The board said written authorization from the owner is needed, and from both owners if any part of the operation would extend onto the second lot.

5. 23:33
   What the applicant must bring back

   The board told the applicant this is a conditional use review, and that new construction or new parking areas would move it into site plan review, so the application form needs to be answered accurately. It asked for a cleaner sketch or a survey to scale, the number of vehicles expected on site, an explanation of where vehicles for sale would be parked, and completion of the blank items on the form. Signs were said to be handled by the code officer.

6. 28:51
   Neighbour notice, sight lines and use of the site

   The board told the applicant to deal with abutter notification, and to speak with the road commissioner about the entrance and the sight distance required for the speed limit on that road, since the driveway would be in commercial rather than domestic use. The applicant said there would be no mechanical work and that two or three vehicles at a time would be stored and then moved off once sold; the board noted the river is close by and any leakage would require containment.

7. 34:28
   Codification of the land use ordinance

   George Thebarge explained that the town has a contract with General Code to digitize and restructure the land use ordinance, and that the consultant's editorial and legal review identified 139 items needing direction, most of them technical. Some are driven by state law, including mobile home park rules with which Durham's ordinance does not comply. He said the select board endorsed the staff proposal in late May, with staff addressing the technical items and the planning board handling a separate list of fourteen minor policy issues.

8. 39:55
   Why the earlier back lots and private ways amendments failed

   George Thebarge said the ordinance is out of date and confusingly written, which makes consistent enforcement difficult, and that earlier attempts to amend back lots, private ways and roads failed three times at town meeting, largely over whether a private way should be paved or gravel. He said the current proposal separates back lots from private ways and clarifies the roles of the planning board, the code officer and the public works director, without changing the underlying policy in place since 2005. He also proposed that interpretation of zoning district boundaries move from the board of appeals to the planning board.

9. 45:27
   Driveways and access management

   George Thebarge said the access management provisions are confusing about which roads they cover, and recommended they apply to all roads except state routes, where MDOT issues the permits. He noted the ordinance allows a 10 percent grade within the road right of way where most ordinances allow about 3 percent, and that the road commissioner looks only at the culvert and drainage while the code officer looks only at the house, so nothing covers the driveway itself, including base and clearances for a fire truck.

10. 51:27
    Back lots, road classifications and waste collection

    The draft would let a single back lot be served by an access strip and a driveway approved by the fire chief, rather than requiring a 20-foot road as now. Road standards would be classified by the number of homes served, with a minor local street, a local street and a sub-collector at increasing widths and shoulder widths, and a subdivision moving into a higher classification at a later phase would have to upgrade. A readiness-to-serve letter from Casella would be required before final subdivision approval, or the developer would have to show where waste containers will be stored inside the subdivision.

11. 56:42
    Non-conforming expansions and the schedule to town meeting

    George Thebarge said the 30 percent limit on expanding a non-conforming structure came from state rules written for lakefront camps and has no bearing on Durham, and that he has drafted an overhaul. On timing, six of the fourteen minor policy issues are drafted, the rest are to be ready shortly after Labor Day, with public information meetings in the fall, public hearings after the first of the year and the warrant articles ready by about the end of April for the June town meeting.

12. 1:02:10
    Whether to add contract zoning to the list

    John Talbot asked whether the board wanted to put anything else to the select board in July, raising contract zoning beyond battery storage as an example. Members said they would rather finish the codification and the fourteen items first, noting contract zoning would need other boards and the town attorney. No vote was taken.

13. 1:07:19
    Driveways, private ways and subdivisions explained

    In answer to a question about splitting off a lot for a family member, George Thebarge set out the difference between a driveway serving a single lot, a private way serving a small number of lots that is reviewed by the planning board for road design and a maintenance agreement, and a full subdivision with state environmental and stormwater permitting. He said private ways exist in most towns to cover the gap created by the subdivision exemptions and to let landowners do limited development without the cost of a full subdivision, which he put at $150,000 to $200,000.

14. 1:12:47
    Paving on private ways

    A member asked whether a private way would have to be paved. George Thebarge said the current ordinance does not require pavement and the proposal does not change that. Members recalled a subdivision on Newport Road that did not go ahead after a paving requirement, and another project that pulled out for the same reason; the family exemption did not apply because the applicant was an LLC.

15. 1:18:07
    Terminology and the soil erosion section

    The board discussed the ordinance using road, street and lane interchangeably, with the proposal adopting road as the term and defining it to include street. A question was raised about the soil erosion control section being removed and replaced with a cross-reference to an appendix, which George Thebarge said avoids duplicated and sometimes conflicting text. Part of this exchange is hard to follow in the recording.

16. 1:23:20
    Parking standards and the non-conforming section

    George Thebarge said parking requirements are not being removed but moved into site plan review with specific standards added, and asked board members to understand the changes well enough to explain them during the public participation process. A member said the abandonment provisions bury the rule for non-residential uses inside a residential paragraph and should be split out; the paragraph gives a 40-year discontinuance period for a non-conforming residential use.

17. 1:28:57
    Non-conforming uses in Durham, and the Ruby Farm lots

    George Thebarge said Durham has few non-conforming uses because commercial uses are allowed anywhere by conditional use, so the section is mostly precautionary. The board was told that the owner of the Ruby Farm (?) land that had been proposed for four lots is instead applying for a building permit on the retained lot, which does not require subdivision review. Members noted land prices of $70,000 to $80,000 an acre.

18. 1:34:02
    Sight lines at an existing entrance, and close

    Members discussed whether sight distance at an entrance had been verified, noting the draft ordinance would require verification by an engineer rather than reliance on the state permit, and recalled concerns about vehicles pulling out slowly onto a road where traffic moves at speed. The meeting closed with a motion, a second and a show of hands, and a brief exchange, unclear in the recording, about putting an item on an agenda and George Thebarge mentioning it to the town manager. The next meeting was given as August 6.

What was decided

• 7:35
  Accept the minutes of the June 4, 2025 meeting.passed
• 12:50
  The conditional use request for 184 Brickyard Hill Road was not reviewed because the applicant had not shown right, title or interest in the property. The applicant was asked to return the following month with written authorization from the property owner and a completed application.tabled
• 1:02:10
  Members said they preferred to finish the codification work and the fourteen minor policy issues before taking on contract zoning or other new subjects. No vote was taken.outcome unclear

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

• 34:28
  The consultant's review of the land use ordinance identified 139 items needing the board's direction. Most are technical, but some follow from state law: Durham requires one acre for each home in a mobile home park, which George Thebarge said state law does not allow.
• 39:55
  Earlier attempts to amend the back lots, private ways and roads provisions failed three times at town meeting, largely over whether a private way should be paved or allowed to be gravel.
• 1:12:47
  The proposal would not require private ways to be paved, and does not change the current policy. Members said a paving requirement ended a subdivision on Newport Road and caused another applicant to withdraw after spending money on engineering.
• 56:42
  The schedule runs: the remaining minor policy items drafted shortly after Labor Day, public information meetings in the fall, public hearings after the first of the year, and warrant articles ready by about the end of April for a town meeting in the first or second week of June.

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 3 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2025-06-04 Planning Board2025-08-06 Planning Board →All meetings