TranscriptPlanning Board ~ Public Informational Meeting ~ November 15, 2023

coming out this evening it's now 6m uh this is the housing information uh meeting for the planning board and I will just quickly introduce we have a quum I'll introduce the members jul kinger Al Pon Brian Illinois Tyler Hutchinson myself John talit and our staff planner extraordinary uh thorge of ours so we have a quorum we can go ahead and begin uh this is an informal meeting so the other thing we probably need to vote on is at the end we have to vote to a Jour so U so why are we here the goal

tonight is to provide you all information on uh what we're calling the housing uh land use article uh if you're familiar with some of the stuff that's going on the last year and a half the official name of the state is affordable housing something or other LD 2003 that was passed back in 200 22 and was supposed to take effect

in July 1 of this year and then the state realized that there's a lot of U work that needed to be done and pushed off the implementation date to 1 July 2024 so um the name is affordable housing on the state law this is not what that's about there's two parts to the state law one speaks specifically to affordable housing the other that I would say speaks more to uh increasing density in places like Durham so the affordable housing piece when they talk about apartments and other things does not apply uh for Duram so put my glasses on read my note covered all that

of faces look familiar we started this process back in the summer of 2022 and anticipation of that July 2023 deadline we had a meeting like this October of last year in here uh to talk about what was going to be our plan or our recommendation for land use article change to incorporate this we got well into that and then in January February uh the state sort of finally released their guidance on implementation and we realized that despite having worked with the state up to that point uh track we were on wasn't going to wasn't going to meet their rules so this summer we stopped started all over again and spent the summer and

uh up until about now working on a new version of our implementation and uh just in just large Our Town planner will'll give you a good description of that um but a couple of things that are important about it as we were developing this last year and this year a couple of things we took into consideration one is the comprehensive plan that the town developed and approved I believe in 2018 so it's about 5 years old and that's uh been a great

guideline in how the town and the the planning board and we've looked at new or uh new articles and um developing new ideas for the towns we try to incorporate those ideas from the comp plan into what we're doing here the other thing obviously we had to stay within relatively guidelines from the state there's not a lot of leeway here but we did put a Durham spin or have put a Durham spin on what we're doing here tonight and the other thing we tried to do is to keep it simple as as simple as possible the actual LD 2003 is uh is

very complicated and the guidance that the office of Economic and Community Development State office that provides guidance on those things didn't help a lot but uh District the ls and the pl board kind of work through that stuff so as we've developed this thing he Mr bar has worked closely with that state organization that publish the rules main Municipal Association so we've gotten outside opinions of whether what we're planning and what we're talking about will uh will meet the state requirements U so where are we in the process tonight's meeting is all about giving you information on our proposal and then letting so that you all are familiar with it in a broad sense and you answer any questions you might have on it take any comments you might have on it uh and we'll take that back and take a look at we're doing we'll then write up a in the next process would be to write up uh a more formal uh

article U I guess I should have started with the end state which is if this goes forward the it will be approved or disapproved at the town meeting on the 6th of April so our Target date is is April 6 in fact it's probably late February to get it into the uh Town report and so on and so forth so over the next couple of months we'll be finalizing this there's another article out there on solar that Conservation Commission has been helping us with uh and they'll be meeting similar to this here in the near future uh okay so uh we'll put together that proposed article send it to the select board the select board will um

bless or tweak or whatever the the final draft the final proposal send it back to us the planning board we will then hold hold a formal public hearing so another meeting it's a little more formal than tonight's is going to be and that has to be no more than 30 days before April 6 and no less than seven days before so basically the end of March there'll be a public hearing a formal public hearing where everybody get a chance to comment and then it will go for the town vote on the 6th of April uh and I think that's probably what as much as I want to talk what I'd like to do next is pass it off to Mr thear who will go into our proposal uh and and give you some detail I would I know I'm assuming everybody's here may have questions or comments that you want to do I'd ask you to hold those until he's finished and then we'll open the floor to questions uh and then we'll kind of close it with question comments

from the members of the planning board U so the only U comment I've got is this is being filmed it's not being live stream but it is being filmed uh Kim Our IT specialist in the back is using her own phone so I just ask that you speak loudly uh so we can capture your comments on the video uh and it will be shown on YouTube tomorrow Kim give would take sometime tomorrow morning uh if you want to see and hear yourself talk and and so with that I have never watched myself do that uh so hand it off to George thank you John as you explained the planning board had been working on this since April of 2022 when the law was passed and so this is the culmination of a year and a half of work on this and uh so we're going to do is present pretty much everything that's on the handout is I'm just going to summarize it and then we can uh get to the to your questions and coms so um okay so the law itself requires

for derms situation uh in towns like dur new law says that on any vacant law you must allow two dwelling units and they can either be a duplex which durm currently allows or two Standalone single family which Durham is not currently allow durh they have to be attached but under the new you either stand alone or attached maximum of two units are required by the law on the vacant law and you can have the current minimum lot size of 90,000 Square fet not required in that if you own a two acre lot you don't have to put two houses on that's correct y this is what the the state law requires the town

to so the second part of the very complicated law that applies to Derm treatment for develop blocks so if there is an existing single family dwelling it's kind of depicted over here on the right uh then you must allow two uh additional fully sized housing units which can either be attach one attached one detached or one of each is the language that's in the law so we're interpreting to say that if you have an existing single family you can either add one separate unit or you can add one

attached and one separated that's what the law stipulates in the case of a developed lot the state is saying You must allow at least three fully sized loow units and the only restrictions that you can put on it beyond what you would require for a single family dwelling is an increase in the lot size and we're going to look at that in just a moment uh in derms current ordinance if you're doing a duple have to have another extra Halfacre so the minimum lot size jumps from a single family at 90,000 sare ft with just over two acres to 110,000 Square F feet which is just over two and a half acres so really

Durham's current regulations are in substantial compliance with the intent and with the requirements of the law the state is saying but you have to do more and the more that you have to do is all that full siiz unit and AOW the flexibility of having them be attached or detached so looking at these requirements the planning board looked first at the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan has a section on housing policy uh and goals of that plan are to encourage and promote affordable decent housing opportunities consistent with the other plans of the goal our goals of the plan and to accom goal um it contains

both housing recommended housing policies and then recommended strategies for achieving the policy so the first one is to maintain the current housing stock uh and then to and one way to do that to get investment in the existing housing stock is to allow accessory departments for income purposes and it requires however currently that they be attached to within or in a an accessory building like a garage or a barn and so this really recommends encouraging that option to continue to allow a greater diversity of housing options the plan points to the elimination of the Southwest Bend Ros District this area that we're in right here down to the Southwest Bend uh down to the uh new brook and royalsborough Road and on either side of that it used to allow uh three and four unit multi family housing with the repeal of the growth District that was taken away but the comprehensive plan continue to recommend that the board the town

continue consider allowing that anywhere in town in the rural uh rural residential district uh but to make sure that they're compatible with the existing housing uh so you see examples of this in other communities and in GMS ins to allow an accessory apartment with uh with a duplex and if you have a big Farmhouse theoretically that could be broken up into four units and still look like The Farmhouse from the standpoint of community character the uh comprehensive plan also recognizes the increase in tiny homes and the state law actually regulates that uh in in addition to this new housing density so it recommends implementing those requirements and then uh finally to support uh efforts to develop Workforce housing it suggests adjusting the requ for uh a duplex why do you have to have 2 and a half acres versus 2 acres and unless there's some objective reason then it seems to make sense to just have to be a straight two

acre minum law size so that's in that's been in the comprehensive plan it was adopted in April of 2019 and so that is kind of the framework for all L use policies that the town might pursue so in addition to looking at the comprehensive plan recommendations as John indicated the uh planning board also did a public participation process that included uh citizens survey and there were four questions just general what are your concerns two of which were are you concerned about children uh they say graduating from school not being able to find housing in the community uh on the flip side if you have retired par parents that you want to come help with your school children uh then are you concerned they be able to find housing and then on the flip side for people that are are have other concerns such as Town's growing too fast increased taxes those are things we hear all the time and then finally the town's rural

character is something that's called for in the comprehensive plan and how are you concerned about how that's changing with the Housing Development so the bar chart down below pretty much cataloges that there was uh uh people are more concerned than not about the lack of housing opportunities for family members but they're even more concerned about the potential impacts of uh of housing on services and the town's character so as a followup then the question becomes okay how do you address those concerns and so a fifth question was added to this very short simple survey that said okay in the town's approach to responding to this new state requirement do you think option one should be less restrictive to encourage the housing options or on the opposite end of the spectrum be more restrictive to limit growth which of those based on your concerns is is what you would recommend that the planning will pursue

and pretty much you know if you lump the neutral and less restrictive together versus the more restrictive it's a pretty even split within the community in terms of how people do about 216 people responded to this survey and that little cap shot of public opinion seemed to be pretty divided so from that the planning board then uh as you guys deliberated it and gave me direction you wanted to really take an approach that tried to address both concerns both the concerns for housing availability and the concerns for impacts on community so the way that was

response and there are two the first one is to follow the comprehensive plan and so that would say allow more accessory Apartments but make sure that they fit into the character of the neighborhood and the community and the way that that is currently accomplished and would be continued with the additional allowance of of a second accessory apartment is that they would had could be no more than 50% of the floor area of the main dwelling unit and and um you'd have a maximum of three housing units which is with the state New Standard and by having those smaller units fit into the existing structures uh then you can hopefully uh address some of the issue of compatibility with existing with existing neighborhood well at the same time uh providing more opportunity for housing options so that's the first part of the planning board proposal and then the second part is to follow the state law this this would not be enough to satisfy

the state law because the state law says you have to allow any developed law two additional fullsize housing units you can't restrict the size of that according to the state mandate so the second half of this would say as Allowed by the law to address the housing impacts if they are going to put in a duplex and a separate single family dwelling on the same law this would apply a 2 acre uh laot area per each of

those dwelling units so to build a duplex and a single family Standalone on the same law you would need a total of six acres so that basically is the uh proposal that the planning board is currently considering to put before the select board for presentation of the April 2024 town meeting if that passes

the town according to mma's Legal as well as the Department of Economic Community Development this concept would beet the state flaw we obvious have to look at the detailed language that doesn't so finally if that does not pass at town meeting then the new state law will go into effect on July 1 of next year and that will allow two single Standalone single families on two acres and it will allow a duplex and a standalone on and which is the lock size that is currently in the or so that's basically the proposal and you want to take it back question I will do that I just to add a little bit to uh what George said I think it's important to note that um whatever is done you can't just cram more houses on a lot you still septic has to pass uh still have to have the setbacks from your neighbors uh there are things that the state has said you restrict course you can't add additional parking requirements but it's

not somebody just can't come in and start cling houses on they still have to fit for lack of a better term okay so we'll hand it off to you all now a couple of simple rules uh please speak loud enough so that Kim can pick you up in the background there um and just be

polite to everybody I don't it's not been a problem in a couple of years in Durham uh we're all a bunch of polite folks uh and then please just don't beat a dead horse but feel free to ask questions we don't have a lot of people so if you ask a question you think of one is that's want to build on what somebody else ask uh we'll give you another shot at it so with that I will now open it to

name is Nathan leder I live in town and I have so many questions but first of all I keep taking offense to the fact that when I keep hearing that this is confusing the governor signed this ld23 into law two years ago and I got to tell you that there's Builders and investors that are not confused the confusion came when the government got involved and started putting what you I'm going to quote the chairman a Durham spin on it when we started spinning things around and adding things that's when it became confusing this proposal of increasing lot sizes was never proposed at the last public hearing meeting because I went to it and I watch every single planning board meeting furthermore the planning board has never put together a proposal in a public meeting that I've been able to witness on YouTube I've never been able to watch you guys deliberate or come up with this proposal this proposal was handed to you by a town employee and

you went with it I can keep going failure to pass the planning board proposal in red you're now swaying the voter you're now telling the voter who may have no idea by the way you quoted a survey that only 216 people took part of it on the 2020 census there was 4,173 residents of durm that's 5% 5% of the people answered your survey and you took that and ran with it and then now you put on this paper in Red by the way which the FBI has done studies plenty of studies that communication is sometimes 70% nonverbal you don't really need to say anything to get your point across and so when you pass this out to the other 95% of the residents of Durham

and say that there's going to be a failure and in red that if you don't pass what the planning board has proposed there's going to be a big uh oh red failure you're swaying the voter and that I take offense to because I'm very very conservative and I believe in democracy you're swaying the voter telling them that this down here is really really bad where the governor signed in the law two years ago and implemented and it took 2 years for the local governments to come on board with it is bad why is all of this in red and all of this is regular letters so somebody who has no idea what we're talking about they're immediately going to look at this and go oh option one I must vote for it so I take offense to that this was never proposed this whole new increased lot sizes was never proposed last year it keeps getting changed as we keep going and kicking the can down the road further and further and further and I

don't understand it I'll have many more questions but I got to take a deep breath and let everybody else time okay does anybody moving on uh go ahead okay I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things that he said um my name is Heather Roy I live at um 777 Hollow Road

I do remember being at a planning work meeting where the lot um increase was discussed and I think it was brought up by hand in fact um so I just want to put that out there that I I actually attended a meeting where that was discussed at at a plan board um meeting and second um in the past we have also had conversations around language neutral language so I appreciate that comment um I would like to say that 210 people responding to the survey is very very close to the amount of people that we have at town meeting which are the people who will vote on this and so while there are a lot more registered voters um that survey captured about the same number of people that show up to vote um and so I just wanted to put that out there good evening my name is Susan KS and I live live at 6:35 P Brook Road and I my question is about the the option on the right um it's all a little brief to me I'm just

curious it essentially is kind of saying you need six acres to have three dwellings currently it's two acres for a dwelling is I'm simplifying it more than it needs to be but really you're now saying um it needs to be six acres for three dwellings is that is that fair to say yes and and it it surprises me that that

in in the um the nature of the of the law not not wanting to to make it um such an increased lot size for for dwellings um I'm just curious why that option is out there I I I I guess it is to preserve the quality maybe and of life the um respondents um indicated but I I was just curious why why is it 6 Aces why

isn't it five acres or why isn't it maybe you know four and a half acres I just wondering where that came from I think in K and George and everybody else can correctly if single family now is two acres and another single family is another dwelling is two acres and another dwelling makes it six acres mean two four six right and but I but again I think the intent of the law is to to make it so so more people could Access housing without a bigger piece of property yeah she speaking now you'll get to turn again so I I guess I I was just concerned that

there's improvements in this going to be more accessibility for additional housing if someone wants to live over a garage or if someone has you know maybe an in-law apartment but for um purposes of of a of a full- siiz dwelling um not many people can afford six acres in town if they wanted to have a family compound let's say or or something so I I was just curious why why why it had to be

that large uh just clarify where the number six acres came from is that under the state law you can increase the lot size for each unit you cannot make it more than the base lot size of for in every l so Derm it's two acres we could that require two acres for each of those units so that is the maximum that the town could require under the law it doesn't say that you could not require less but that's why it's came out at six acres that's the maximum that the town could require uh did you have any more no thank you uh Miss birdie wait yeah I'm Paulie down I guess that's to clarify that we're trying to keep the rural character of Durham so having six acres in my opinion helps to keep that rural character and George actually would you you want to go back to the survey results

them yeah so the bottom two questions here where you can see people are more it's my understanding that part of the reason why this was discussed is is not only to preserve their Royal character um but also because of the impacts to our services

that we can provide and if there aren't there's no further restrictions put on this like the impact to the school the impact to the municipal services that are provided without a little bit more restriction which follows what this data is saying the majority of people see how much more dark blue there is on those two questions versus the top two questions right um is that they I think that that is encompassing like a holistic View and not just looking just the ability to increase housing but what the implications are of increased housing on the town as a

respect everybody's opinion about this survey but you could the survey is means nothing to me 5% of the people answered the survey you're going off a survey you can't just the number is fine if that's how many people vote and that's how many people took the survey but the people who show up you you have no idea you know the first of ball who shows up to vote these numbers are just like arbitrary to me whoever signed up and went on the computer if you want me to tomorrow I'll make sure that every single one of my neighbors and every single person I know uh in Durham gets onto a survey and I can I can I can manipulate this survey I can go around and do Grassroots knocking on doors and make people do a survey on my phone and I'll change these numbers for you tomorrow if you'd like me to I got nothing to do besides my three children but I can I don't want to hear about the survey because it 205% of the Durham

residents voted on that's why we have votes that's why we have election I think that's that's a very good point here's my question though lg23 was implemented why because we have a housing crisis in man people need places to live the there's nothing on the market and the cost of borrowing money for first-time home buyers is through the roof so what you're basically saying to somebody who already has a 2 and a half acre lot is too bad you can't do what the new law is trying to fix because Durham doesn't want to be a part of the solution Durham wants to restrict these accessory dwelling units we don't want to add more houses to our properties we want to continue the problem of the housing crisis that we have here in Maine which is why LD if you look at the authors of LD 20003 the reason it was implemented was because we have a housing crisis in Maine people need places to live and when you go to

the 6 acre lot you're basically telling people that already own property you're out you can't do anything here because we're we're going to increase the lot size and so you're alienating every homeowner they can't do anything about it and the reason I'm frustrated is I like this answer I was already told that I could do something on my 3 acre

after but I okay yeah that's a whole new ball of wa we don't need to get into it in a public forum but I was already told something and I was dra dag down the line for an entire year being told to wait and wait and wait and wait and wait until what the town of Durham gets their act together this was passed and signed by the governor two years ago okay um M Roy I have a question I

have questions about specifics okay we'll get to those Ken did you ra did did you want to ask a question do I need to speak on it nope you're good okay good um having said that I do would like to build on one point the gentleman said which is um the planning board doesn't decide this the select board doesn't decide this what happens is the the people you all plus everyone else will vote on the 6th of April and so uh whether you like it or if if you like it you vote Yes if you don't like it you vote no but that is the great thing about a democracy you're scaring people though with failure to pass the plan I didn't recognize you sir I didn't recognize you sir well I didn't recognize you and they send my comment about polite people go ahead um polite people is when the town of durm tells me I can do something $130,000 later that's a problem that you're going to hear from trust me and the planning board didn't

implement this the town planner did Sir and handed you a packet I'm a taxpayer and I'm a voter in this town and you didn't do this work he did and he handed it to you in a packet and I watched it happen we appreciate your comments but you're done for this time M

about the things that you presented things um you talked about how the accessory apartment the 50% thing and there was a picture up there and one of the um things was in accessory structure which was not attached yes this does the 50% apply to the accessory apartment and to the accessory structure to each accessory apartment okay so what's over the garage can only be 50% of the unit on far right and attached be more % the

same so each one of them be no more than 50% based on the per okay and so let's say someone put the accessory apartment that's part of the existing dwelling in now does that become the totality of the square footage that could then be applied to the accessory apartment would that now be 50% of the tot yes it's it's

it's based off the original approved as an accessory apartment okay thank you my other question is when someone's trying to do this is this an application or or is this a permit that exists by code enforcement review or is this something that comes before the planning board uh it is purely a code enforcement off officer review if it meets those limitations under the current ordinance if it doesn't meet those limitations let's just say it's instead because of the footprint of the garage or an existing addition it comes out to be instead of 50% it's 52% they can go to the planning board and have that review so generally the ru the only perm that the code officer can isue must be no more than 50% okay and then if there

can you go to the next picture that has the house and the right what regardless of the additional agage but just just the extra unattached dwellings what does the driveway situation have to look like are when we're talking about that the standards apply does each one of those get their own driveway or do that entrance have one because this leads to the roal character type thing right where like if that's a two acre lot with 300 feet of Road frage are we now going to allow two driveways with two separate dwellings across that 300 fet or does this still have one driveway access that branches off to the existing dwellings there are no driveway limitations no driveway limitations okay okay and then and maybe this isn't a question for you maybe this isn't a question for the assessor is how does this get taxed is that taxed as one property owner and you want me to ask the assessor that question I knew that's what you're G to

say no I think the basic answer is that the assessor is going to assess the property based on the ownership so if one person owns the whole thing they're going to get the tax bill for both units there's a condominium of this where each of them own the individual unit and they own the land in common probably each it's basic basic understanding okay and just one other comment that I would like to make about this is that um it has been my experience that town employees are doing work that has been requested or directed for them to do no

one that works for the town in my experience is showing up presenting anend uh for our town and so I just think it's important for that to be recognized thank you say I appreciate your comment about the driveways I don't think we ever discussed that in our meeting before and that would be a hardship you know given this is an affordable housing issue um that would be a hardship for some trying to implement one of these one of these

options here it's a good you're welcome can I speak because I'm not a resident you may speak I do have a question please identify yourself I'm Alan PL code and if the uh the driveway would come into effect I don't have my book in front of me which I nor would like to read but if there are two Parcels on one driveway with the subdivision minus the asphalt paving uh Road into sou Road this is just one parcel one one parcel but two houses on one driveway requires a 911 address so it would be it would have to be named a private road and if there are two parts two houses on a driveway um now I think that this lot which has a minimum of 300 ft of Frontage so these amendments pass you know whether it's the variation that

goes into effect if the town does not pass this or if this passes there's still going to be a 300 Foot Road F and that one law will meet that 300t road and so if those two houses each have their own individual driveway they're still going to be just serving each one house but if there's one driveway for both houses there are now two houses on one driveway okay will it require a subdivision would re subdivision it may require the approval of the private road if it's going to be a common driveway we have to look at that to see definition are yeah that's good question but in any case this is just saying this is one

condominium it's a lot of um how how would you parcel that out if you got two houses or three houses but it's all continuous land so how how is it split far as taxation if especially when somebody buys one house so how are you going to split that now you're going to have one which is what Ann was trying to suggest it doesn't need to be a split of that land they can have under just it's called house miniums but theoretically legally and I'm not a lawyer either but my understanding is is that they could each own the footprint just like in a Condominium Association of the house and they own the land in common so so there wouldn't be any the only thing they'd be buying or selling would be the individual units and the joint rights of the land that serves just like just like a regular who get tax for they each of the owners would get taxed for thetion and again not the assessor either but that's just my basic understand but if

one of them decides to sell sell one how you going to split that they wouldn't split it they just like a just like selling a condominium you don't it's the same thing I think is a condomini situation regulates the same question Todd kind question I had so this model would that allow let's say a private entity to buy the lot and then build hous sell the three houses to three separate owners but the private entity is still retaining ownership of the LW okay now under the law it specifically says this does not exempt people from subdivision requirements so if they were to create three units in a fiveyear period they would have to go to the planning board and meet all the subis requirements so so I'm asking this for just for my edification not I got you moment all good questions so um if I buy the lot and I build a house and then I for some reason I don't Envision doing this but decide I want my in-laws to move in with

me so I build apartment next to it um that's not going to go through the condominium house aminium whatever thing but if I were to buy a lot and then immediately put three houses on it and then sell Tod a house and sell Heather a house and sell the gentlem in the back corner a house now that's kind of bit like subdivision type Behavior without dividing the lot and this would say no you need to go through the planning board to get a sub because at that point you're trying to subdivide they create three separate dwelling units and I think that even includes the accessory parts they have to get they do

all three subdivision Sor wouldn't doesn't our present subdivision withis subdivision concept make more sense than this just let me explain that Durham's basic plan unit development is simply cluster development and so the ordinance the ordinance allows you to go ual lot

in subdivision to have instead of two acres and 300t of Road Frontage if you set aside land is open space you can shrink those lots down to one acre and 150t that's all that's all the Durham's this whether it's better or not that's that's another issue

no he's asking for for a whole theoretically sense again just this is what the law requires you to do you require them to split these into separate Ro um this is a followup of the cluster development so we have multiple subdivisions in town where the lot sizes have been shrunk because of the open space is this saying that on those lots because they are less than 990,000 square feet you could not do this okay um there another specific provision in the somewhat complicated law that says uh this does not abgate the requirement or the limitations of private covenants so if in all of these subdivisions that have been approved over the last 30 or 40 years there is a statement in the covenants single family only this

so so can we take that same question out of the subdivision I live on a 1 acre lot I have no interest in doing this I'm just saying for an example I live on a one acre lot not in a subdivision I don't have two acres would the would would I not be able to do this because I don't have any any covenants right I own my lot my house is on it you could still do left side op

I could I think you could do the accessory parts with one if it's grandfather been a non-conforming law the state law also says that the towns can make their own decisions on how they're going to treat nonform laws but baring any Express limitation on it then I think you'd be able to do the accessory apartments on M for law but I would still have to be able to meet the septic and those requ the well requ that type of thing okay Mr

I was just GNA ask a question like in the current subdivision system I think George might have answered it if we already have a subdivision 12 unit 12 one acre lots that those one acre lots are now going to be able to all add an accessory dwelling and turn it into a 26 acre well

currently they can if it's not restricted by the U uh homeowners covenants however was also when you talk to two different lawyers you might get two different answers whether or not yeah but particular on these types of compe issues if there is a 10 law

subdivision those individual Lots entitled to putting in an accessory apartment without going back to the planning board for an amended subdivision and why that is important is because they approve a subdivision with 12 single family homes certain number of driveways they do a traffic review to see how much is it safe and so some lawyers would argue that no any change in that subdivis has to go back to the planard lawyers would argue anything that's permissible under the zoning on that law they can do without going back to are I don't think is really clear on that question of what triggers a subdivision re so an example what would that more with an example that if you have a 13 or 13 housing subdivision and then

all of a sudden something like this passes and people do want to put the access how does that function look for the town of durm where does the rubber meet the road on that does that come to the planning board or they file for

curious at what point does it get to the someone has to make a decision ultimately whoever's issuing the permit has to make the first decision may or may not go to I have the authority to ory from that most likely on that question I will

M are there Provisions where you know I'm all about the buffering right like I I have no problem with what happened as long as it you know meets the requirements and I feel like the the most steadfast way for us to preserve our rural character is through buffering and so does the law

include any type of provision to be able to put those types of requirements on this so that if the town voted for more more density it could also require buffering around that my reading of the law is that anything that apply to a single family home all single family homes you can apply to this you cannot apply something that restricts it different than what you apply to the single family if you require buffering of all single familys you could requ I don't to just say these all have to be buff we do have that though right in our we do I mean I I feel like unless you go before the planning board those are things that are addressed at the planning board like for site reviews and stuff but I think only only in subdivision interiew so in all of the things all of the sections of the like the noise the lights you know that type of stuff that's in the regular ordinance not just applying to subdivisions

there's no buffering requirement there other than meeting setbacks corre okay and so we can't apply any type of buffering to this unless it already exists to what is existing again doesn't specifically refer to buffering but it talks to spatial standards so if you were to say this has to have a 50 foot buffer along the property line that's adding a standard measurable spatial standard that doesn't apply to a standard sing family do thank you thank you sir Kevin K speaking Brook Road I have just a couple of questions I want to make sure I heard right where currently I gu it doesn't matter what was I guess what matters is what is and is it correct that you this town requires 300 ft of Frontage for any structure to be built on is that true that is the minimum for every it is so if you've got a lot that's 180 ft up against the road goes back to 120 ft and then widens out to 900 ft that's not aailable

lot unless it's grandfather so if it existed in that configuration since 1976 then it would be grandfather LW and he would issue a building permit for one house on that law and for the new configuration required by law okay so now let's throw a mix into

this which I think they're going to help me understand where does commercial building come into play there some one of these El structures somebody bu it builds it whatever and decides to put in a Ford factory or machine shop anything commercial any nonrenal use has to go to planning

spoken have a I don't have any question I'm just here to okay I didn't want Mr 18 foot could build his own and make his own corre that is middle till what gets wide and now I have Road prve any new lot that you create including the split of an existing one we have to create 300 Road Fage and as Todd is pointing out you could get approval of a private road and create new road Fage for that back and that road would need to be built according to State specs I guess to spec okay if you

have a particular lot I would strongly encourage you to meet with either Mr the barge or the code enforcement and say this is my lot this is what I'd like to do this so how can I make that work right now I don't want to do it I'm just thinking never say never right never never say there's another generation

with them get it and WR because I've had conversations with him my question is can I build a duplex with a detached accessory dwelling unit on a 3 Acre I conversation with you privately I don't we will if you want to have it you'll have it private well that's already on public so when this goes on YouTube it to in a conference if you're here just to be argumentative no I'm here because the town of Durham screwed me over that's being argumentative whatever you whatever you dictate is argumentative I guess these gentlemen this gentleman and this uh kind lady who sits on our select board can follow up with multiple questions I haven't used any profanity I'm very passionate about where I'm sing right now statements right now I'm making factual statements and if you're calling my Integrity question I say what I said was you can have that you keep interrupting me simply because I'm more passionate than these other individuals

who are being very kind I'm very passionate about where I sit today I haven't been rude and you keep cutting me off and not allowing me my time because you like what I'm saying I will I will address comments and questions but if you want to have I said that discuss you will have offline with Mr thear and or the co fine and I would love to ask another planning board member who again apparently I'm being told was involved in this proposal and my point is being proven all of these questions are being directed to the town employee I'd like to hear from our elected officials I'd like to hear more from our town uh planning board that's all I'd like to hear from thank you Miss

remember what I was going to ask does anybody else have a question I remember right now sorry considered this kind of goes back to the buffering thing right but and and and this is part of of the overall impact of like how this is going to impact our Municipal Services um this is preemptive like for everybody else to be thinking about but in the position that I sit on this lebard this is a conversation that we're having and that's around solid was oh Alan I think you actually this this comment um that if if we go with the future of what our Solid Waste contract looks like all every trash receptacle has to be 3 feet apart and so when this is is coming together are

those things being considered because that is a municipal impact because now these this could potentially have six trash cans that all have to be free V apart at the roadside and if it's not a road a private road then that that's something that the trash gets picked up the way it does now which I'm not saying we shouldn't do I'm just saying those are implications that are coming and is is there forethought and planning is that conversation taking place around us as well

whenever we do future subdivisions Cassel which is our existing huler for recycling and waste had presented to the select board that they're going to go to a more mechanized system and they're looking at providing two 64 gallon containers to

each household and those would have to be Space 3 ft apart the reason most have to be space three ft apart because there's an arm and grabs that container and it just dumps it in to the appropriate uh Bin within that unit this is to eliminate the workman's comp issues that cassella has with people having to guys on the back of the truck plugging things in so one of my certainly one of my concerns is especially it's not it's it's really more with a subdivision is Cella going to be able to go into subdivisions or not and then that's considered a private Ro I don't know whether that is something that will be addressed I think it certainly will be because if you have close to my house I'm not it's just an example there are 12 at the end of a dead end Road fortunate it's at a dead end Road there are 12 houses in there you're going to have 24 containers that going to have to be

and they're going to be lined up so where is it more advantageous safety wise to have been picking up at each individ indidual household I certainly think that if it's on a main drag it's on 136 or yes because we have another subdivision down here six houses it's really a big safety concern but it's one of these things that we have to look at and be proactive about it and not reactive about to I I think to your point is that we need to look at it for some minut we need to consider it for this we're in great luck and that Miss camper is on the solid waste committee and I'm sure she will bring that that up going forward that's but that's a good question any other questions so that's 96t for those 12 if you consider on that side on that side the container I think we're wandered off

hole okay any other questions about the housing I just have a clarification question so with these two images here of Joe Roy Brook Road um I might have Mard earlier I thought that someone said something about existing lot versus new lot could you someone explain that a little bit more so this is what you can do on an existing l but if you can't do that if you buy a new L

newly created lot or an existing lot image on the left or on the right both of them okay so if someone has a six acre lot that's vacant right now then they would be able to do that devop but if you have a two acre lot whether it's or not access if your goal is to build a house with an accessory apartment currently on a vacant lot you have to build the house and then separately add the accessory apartment you can just say I built this 3,000 foot house and it's 1500 foot UNS if you had two and a half

you're referring to the accessory apartment so if you had a you want to build a house and you want the second floor to be an accessory apartment is that what your yeah I'm trying to understand what the options are for someone who has a two acre lot and is looking to build more than one unit and how what what that process looks

then they can build a single family and two accessory parties if it's a it accessory Apartments total of three Maxim and if those units are no are not less than 50 50% or less of the floor area of the main dwelling then they have to add two acres for that unit so where I get a little confused is to bacon lot I build a 2000 foot house but the intent of building an accessory dra so then do I after after I build my house safe now I want to build a 1,000 foot accessory off the get go can I say I built a 300t structure and 1T an

accessory 2000 I don't the difference between a duplex isus house with access the size so it just can't be split to choose between one of these to go with one article or are both of these going to be an option that's what I'm trying to figure out right now they're together they're a

package this is one there's no option okay this is the option is yes yes or no yes or no okay in one Collective thing and and then if it's no then then the result would be what's on the bottom of the pap okay yes got it thank

to build for say a Sixx or fourx or Sixx if you have well setic is there no provision and why isn't there a provision isn't isn't there isn't there already that scenario down on 125 close to the line wasil can under the current uh land use

ordinance no but if there was a interest in changing the land use ordinance uh that is something that could be brought up but we what we're addressing now is is the implementation of this well it would fully address what the state wants us at this point fully

okay moving on to anyone else have any State one thing the planning board does when something is new comes to us we don't arbitrarily decide as a planning board well this is this is our opinion and we stop there we have try to get the public involved as much as we possibly can and one of the best ways that we thought we could was through a survey you know surveys are what do you do with them well it's tries to give us some guidance and we're using that survey along with the comprehensive plan because comprehensive plan is not the ordinance that is our guide the ordinances are what we the only thing that we can really enforce so we're trying to do the best we can and that's what we did with this we took that survey and we came up with this we had many discussions on this believe me and I could certainly go back and review this and tell you exactly when this was on the agenda and I know a lot

of this scenario was printed up like this and it was presented to the planning board we've had let me say we've been talking about this for over a year so I I don't want people to feel that we go in this willy-nilly and we just come up with these arbitrary ideas we do do that we try to get the public involved as much as possible that's why we're having this public meeting and one of the unfortunate things is granted I know there are what 3,800 voters in this

town but 150 people come to town meeting and some people why did they vote that in but they never town meeting and votee on different things so it's all about getting involved and I would certainly encourage anybody if you're frustrated with certain things that are going on town get involved in a committee you can learn a lot and a a lot from that and you can learn a lot more sometimes what you think you may know which is that's why I've been involved for many

little bit can you refresh my memory when you sent the survey out how did you send it out and how many it's thing about sending a survey out is how how do you present that to Town's people and I know we have it we have it on the the town website but not everybody has that I don't recall if we I will take a shot at there were there were a couple of ways we did it not as Alan said it was on the town website mention any times the survey we brought it up at our our meetings uh we also posted it the survey itself on uh the get and go door because that's where a lot of people go with the Durham so I was posted there I was posted the town hall and I stood at the November 22

election for eight hours uh at a little table there uh answering questions and trying to get people to come over and see me but I think they they thought I would sell me something and just Alan just as a footnote to your comment it's been my experience I've been in Durham for about 46 years and everything's fine with everybody it seems unless it's in their backyard then all of a sudden it makes a difference and yeah and I I know that for a fact um

so one of the things that I don't think you want to feel too bad about is when people don't show it's it's like not voting in a presidential election we live with the results and it's unfortunate that we don't have 1500 show

up at at town meeting it's been like that for many a year so hang up uh sir yes I just want to follow up on Alan you said that you used the comprehensive plan can we go back to the slide where the comprehensive plan tried to get duplexes on a 2 acre LW the comprehensive plan actually suggested to go in the opposite direction on 2 AC

the only reason I'm asking to go back is to make sure that I didn't read comprehensive plan we shouldn't be adding ages to D colle we should be going back down to the two acre two acre loss George it just worked a second ago which is opposite of what we're proposing tonight I will take that one uh just to show you that we do do something um I don't doubt I never said you don't do anything I never said that the uh as George said earlier comprehensive guide is a plan and there are U contradictions

for lack of a better term in the comprehensive plan talks about increasing housing availability it talks about maintaining the rural character um and there are some other things that apply in that and so what we tried to do is as we did this and with survey you'll see that the survey the major 57% said we want to maintain the real character I.E have more less less density bigger loss and so I think that was where some of that discussion came but so I guess that's my point is there's a contradiction in the in that particular area if I may just follow up you may follow up I politely um what is the legal ramifications of this guide is this a guide that say some of us that show up use or is there a is there a legal um what am I trying to say a binding agreement that says that we why have it if we don't follow why who is it for and what does it do is it is it simply a guide that we can throw out

whenever we want or is it a guide that we're legally bound to kind of follow when it says amend the land use ordinance to allow duplexes on standard 2 ACR long it is a guide so it's not a legal requirement for your specific question thank you sir I saw a hand I was going to answer that question because you know how much you may do a better job than I very much stand on um the comprehensive plan was a voter approved plan and as we make ordinance changes they are supposed to be in line with the comprehensive plan as its guide so with this being sorry I'm speaking you may you finished I had

something else before that but I forgot where it was he'll buy because I interrupted you I apologize okay I I'll write it down as I think I just want to know if are we now if that's a voter inative thing are we going against 3.1 that says amend the land use ordinance to allow duplexes on a standard 2 acre lot and now increasing the lot size we're going against the comprehensive plan as I read it you but you're stopping at unless there is an objective basis for requiring a larger can you please explain the objective basis to me the basis from the position that I sit in is what I said before in looking at the municipality and the impacts as a whole the the this The increased density of the housing isn't just going to affect the lot itself it it brings with it impacts to the municipality as a whole that that requires and and we can look at data to show that as our population has grown our town government has grown our school

has grown our need for municipal Services has grown and and our town solely relies on the taxpayer to fund all of these things we don't have any um business infrastructure that contributes to our tax tax base so you can't just stop at the sentence right there where the impact simply talks about the land itself or the density itself that that can't just be taken out of context there is an entire impact that happens regarding this in taxes though aren't the taxes going to increase as the structures get put on each lot the assessor is going to clearly increase the tax on that homeowner who now has three Standalone structures the taxes are going to go up you're going to make more money that is an argument it hasn't work that way and what

that is a whole argument and being a devil's advocate for that is that how many of I remember our principal at DCS getting up at the budget meeting not the town budget meeting at the school budget meeting and saying that it seemed like in whatever year it was um every hous sold came with a first grader and it was a joke when he said it but the the implication with more housing is is all of the additional kids and all the additional teachers that have to get hired and not one tax bill not even the highest tax bill in Durham for a resident pays for the cost to educate a child for the year and so I'm I'm just asking that when you're you're making your arguments you're also considering the other impacts that are involved and I would like to say I think that's what we did but any other

sure any other question if not I'm going to turn it over to the planning board and and get their comments so Julia would you like to go first yeah I think that um I would like to take this back and discuss a little further with the board

well that's one of the reasons we have public meetings like this it always brings something certainly something to our attention that we might may not have already had in discussion which is a good thing that's it's all about the communication the lack of communication do or nothing so as Julet said it's something we will continue to have more discussion and we may refine this even more I some of the the questions about driveways and if they're brought up now

better to resolve them now versus oh what if so there will be further discussion communication is always the hardest part this is why we do this um try to plan so that we can um get public input and react to it and refine things

the meting so thank you all for being here today and all your comments and we certainly take them into consideration and delate it further the future Tyler um I think even here in this small subsection we sort of had an echo of our also small survey subsection like I would never contradict that is true like you never get as much input as you want um I

personally also think we should flexibility and my response to that would be I'm would consider not voting for our own plan but this is just a plan that we've come up with over 18 months that seems to reflect most of the people and however it ends up coming out in the end I think is again going to be governed by some 10% 5% of the population and clearly there's some people feel strongly in one direction towards opening it up to the bare minimums where we can as as the state would legally allow and some that want to maintain as much of the roal character as possible so I encourage anyone who feel strongly either way to go talk to your friends and get them to come out and vote your neighbors um which because if we get full participation and whichever way the chips fall that would be

probably have spoken enough so I will close with that uh and with the last thing is this is not the last we'll work on a plan board you're welcome if you think of questions after this or whatever uh send them to George you'll see future meetings public hearing and so on forth down the down the road so please reach out and the key is

here as a builder and I'm not looking for any work I can promise you that I say no three times a day um I just think that the conversation of affordable housing is a farce in the state of me um the codes that we have to abide by are such that it's impossible to build affordable and with this whatever solution from the state coming down was in some people's eyes a glimmer of hope for maybe we can be a little bit affordable but then you throw the restriction on a law size is kind of a kick back to we kind of want this but we kind of don't which I get both sides I don't know I just I get frustrated with a whole piece of affordable housing because there is no such thing so that's

daily I live on Old Road okay did you want to mention your company in PH no I do not I'm going to say no I was going to feel bad if you left please don't call 2025 you open Pandora's Box I miss Roy I just wanted to I did think of a question but I can wait it doesn't no let's kill it now okay so when when the article or the ordinance is this an ordinance is this yes it will be in the form ofin okay

um and so my question would be is if we if we're putting specific language in that says the number the square footage required then we do some reconfiguration of what we allow for a lot size in the future how would that then do you do you see what I'm saying so like should it read the buildable lot like what we have

as a standard for a buildable lot because what if three years down the road we change that how you know what I'm saying I just should it be like more General and say the requirement for a buildable lot versus a actual number that's there in case that number changes no it can't be changed without going to right but if we went to town meeting and we passed the size of a buildable lot to one acre or one and a half acres versus the two acres and we changed the amount of Road Frontage needed is this language going to be General to what a current

buildable lot is or would we then have to go back and change both of these things is my question making sense IES you're saying is say build of a wat size versus six acres or two acres or whatever it may be it says area size currently is 90,000 ft that will St and then it's going to add a provision for minimum build or minimum area per loan

so basic minimum lot size is is 90,000 square feet and then they'll have to if they're putting in accessory Apartments it won't have to be any larger lot if they're going to be putting in a full siiz Welling unit in addition to the single family then they'll have to add two acres if they go with three they'll have to add six acres so so it's going to size 6 acres is going to say 90,000 ft per unit and if you change that to

180,000 then this is one of those where you have to go find this it would be more than one place that you're going to have to go and change that's what I was asking you're going to have to come into this article or section I guess it is of the land use ordit and change it from 90 to whatever uh the new or is thank you I know I'm a late did you just wake up or a long day I I didn't mean to be watch that's why I like that's how I anyway there wasn't much topic on the driveway which I talk about the driveway which I was questioning too so the 300 ft restriction hit on a little bit but then it was kind of like it wasn't talked about is that right you guys didn't have really blame for that is that I think we need to go back and look at the driveway question specifically whether be a separate or Ranch off type of thing and then on the town proposed plan for the

say garage apartment above that's to be 50% of the house you would be ta say your house is 2,000 sare ft the apartment over the garage can be a th000 yes and the garage space doesn't else I know I know we got a little extra time John um so I'm trying to phrase this as a question or statement just kind of get a thought out there in the scenarios we have here in front of us the four um this bottom left one the vacant lot of what the state would require is there a mechanism the planning board or anyone in town or planning board to consider saying maybe we're fine with a two acre lot having duplexes but not adding the third unit and then taking a larger lot approach for the third like saying our option is bottom left and top right rather than top I'm just asking that no and I'm

not making a suggestion I don't want to things like that I'm curious if that's well just to remind everybody we were there we were earlier this year were and the concern was too complicated yeah yeah this direction you can certainly go back yeah so many yeah no and that's where I'm just asking I've seen several iterations at different meetings so I'm trying to organize them in my head and I didn't say sheet from the last meeting exactly remember that's good point you said that's one of her that's what I was thinking when I mentioned that and then it turns into the conversation of attached versus detached and it was the three completely detached units which was what Todd was saying that that then just becomes three separate lcks and that that yeah I remember all of that that was a very lengthy conversation yeah it's scratching up back my okay anybody else I'm looking at you you're good anybody

and I just want to say to the volunteers on the plan board thank you for your work for sure what they the big BS good anybody else Want To Praise us if not any other questions and if you do have specific questions or want to follow as as I ask you to U please do that after we adjourn with that any motion any discussion if not raise your hand if you say yes we have