TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ November 2, 2016

Um, I'd like to call this meeting of the ordinance committee to order. Um, probably the first thing is Paul has uh worked on the ordinance for I got the signage part here. I wanted you guys and um so look, I don't know if you if you've got your ordinance, you can look at the existing signage ordinance and the way that I rewrote it in case you guys think that we need to do something different. The understanding is is that the content of signs can no longer be the threshold with which they are regulated. So we have to find a way to regulate them without having to indicate what they do. So what?

Because in order in order to figure out what they do, you have to read it to know how to regulate it. And that is no longer acceptable by the federal Supreme Court. So So we can't offend anybody. I don't know if it's about offending, but

doesn't make any sense. I wonder if you can put up no trespassing signs anymore. Oh, I had to read the sign. I know. Um the one caveat was that I did is we had some stuff with temporary signage. Um and our temporary sign language and our ordinance and the state's temporary sign requirements around election didn't jive. Um, so I opted for

um for allowing the state rules for temporary signs to take over during election cycles Is that what this 8A is for? Government signs. No, the government signs are are are just pointed away. That makes sense. The temporary sign accepting subsection six above. So placement of temporary signs during an election cycle must comply. If it's not an election cycle, then they move to seven and they have seven days.

The state allowances for six, I believe it's six weeks prior to an election and one week after an election. Temporary signs can be put up both in uh in all state rightaways. So all the stuff within 30 ft of each other the same sign

within 30 ft of the Yeah, there's a bunch of requirements for how that they're supposed to be handled but um that would count for local municipal elections and referendums and in this in the state rideways. So I didn't want to get in a conflict where the town was having to you know people in town are calling about you know the Donald Trump signing is on their side of the town roll versus you know because that doesn't cover that part. So, I was trying to and I and I figured during election cycle, we're not going to get a lot of tag sale signs anyway, which is what the temporary sign thing is supposed to do.

Oh, So, do you have a problem with related services or goods? Yeah, I think you're still targeting content. I know what I want to say. Yeah, the Tora gross a household. You have to read it to see whether it's advertising related services or goods. So, I think you can just say no sign shall be located off the site of the lot. You know,

we wound up with this one in Bowdenham and I we went round and round about it because oftent times um what if you have a small business park off at the end of Whipper and the sign for the entrance of Whip the signage wants to be at the entrance of Whipperwill. It's not on the property for the businesses, but that's where it's located. Well, what do you do with a situation like because this wouldn't allow it.

Well, the covenants wouldn't allow it either. I mean, [snorts] I I think you've got a it can't be located, you know, has to be located with permission, I suppose. But I guess so, what are we targeting here? Like, what's the problem that we're trying to solve with number two?

I don't I don't know. It was just in the original part of our ordinance and and so I kind of wanted to stay with as much I kept as much that was there as possible and I have no idea why why it would even matter if the sign for a business is on its own property or not. If it's on someone else's property, they'd have to have permission.

I think it's trying to get away from billboards. Well, but there billboard laws by the the state. We don't have to regulate billboards. The state already does. then we have or signs that say you know coming up ahead is you know berry farm or something like that

but we regulate the size and the and the number of signs already is it a problem that we need to solve or why not I mean that's usually where I'd like to go too is the question is it what has this been a problem right if not do we need to solve it

but where did we get this did you say it was in it's already there it's already there. It's in our It's already there. I see that. But I mean, okay. So, I took our ordinance and I basically stripped out everything that would violate federal law at this point according to the Supreme Court.

Well, I guess would we want that sort of pro? I mean, the problem would be, I guess, multiple signs surrounding a business, but you can only have three and we're we're restricted to size. 24 square ft. The area actually two the area may the 24 square feet may only be divided up between two signs.

Yep. Oh, okay. So, you can only have one 24T sign or two 12t signs or two or two any combination that doesn't exceed the 24 ft square. Okay. Well, then yeah, right there they can only have one or two. I mean, would it be an issue if someone else's property is advertising for a business that's not located there? Like is it a confusing like

why is that our problem? I don't know why it would be our problem but well I'm thinking of so Rice's Christmas trees. There are signs that start at the get and go and go all the way up over the hill and over to Rice's farm.

Seasonal though seasonal temporary signage. So that's that's that's covered. That is still allowed under temporary signage for seven days. I'm assuming they're going to be there for longer than seven days. [laughter] Public right away, right? They're not on private property.

Yeah. So, I think, you know, number one, the issue is private signs on private property. I don't know if we care if, you know, Juliet lets me put up a sign advertising my business on her property. Why do we care? And it can only be X size. I don't care.

You guys make the arrangement. If Juliet doesn't like it, these guys have a civil deal. This has nothing to do with us. uh you know the the sign's still limited in what it can be, how big it can be and all of that. Um our and so then the other issue is signs in the public right away and that actually um I think six and seven we need to talk about because they think we're off on the state law there. Um we can't discriminate between election signs and other types of temporary signs. I didn't discriminate between election times. I just it's the duration of the election cycle,

but it's not if you read this and that's why I just went and looked at it. If you read the statute, it says six weeks. It's any six weeks during the election sign. No, no, that's not how it reads here. Okay. Who would want to put up a sign? Not during an election.

I read just read it, too. I think it's six weeks prior to the election. That's how it used to read. So that's the section. Temporary signs placed within the public right away for a minimum of six weeks per calendar year may not be placed and they intentionally took that out because you cannot distinguish on the basis of the content and if you're targeting election signs you're distinguishing based on the content. So that was what they came up with.

Okay. Okay. I when I read it, I must have read the old statute that was on the that had to do with and that's why I went election cycle rather than Yeah. So I did I just read that too. I didn't look it up, but I was reading an article and I thought it said six weeks prior to the election.

They changed it intentionally to get around this read case. I don't know if it was effective if it ever got challenged, but yeah. So, we should have one rule for temporary signs in the rightway. And it could be different. I mean, we could just adopt the state standard for our local roads, which is fine and probably the easiest, or we could distinguish between state rightaways and town rightaways.

Yeah. I didn't Well, I didn't I didn't want to get into it too much. If it has nothing to do with the if this is what you're we're dealing with then and I think that we should just do the state statute for all temporary signage.

There we go. I think I'm I'm still then if a business does have a window of selling Christmas trees or the the garden center or something like that. They want to do temporary signs. All right. So then if that's the case, the boosters the boosters mattress sale and the

but yeah I mean a temporary sign may [clears throat] not exceed 4t by 8 ft in size. Oh that's they were larger than ours which is why we maintained our standard for that. KOA sign. Temporary signs accepting subsection six above may be erected for a donation not to exceed seven. All right. So we're eliminating that.

Yes. So, we're going to have to get rid of that. So, seven is gone. I do believe that we can those those are talking about signs in the rightway for the state. Yeah. I don't think this I think we can be more restrictive than the state in size and display.

Yeah. So, that's what one through four do here. So, what's so what's the rule? So, if I want to put up a sign in the state right away, I following the 24 the 24 square feet in the town of Durham? We're we're preempt. We're we're we're being more restrictive than the state in illumination because the state allows illumination. The state height is different than ours. The state size is different than ours.

Okay. So then we can't say placement of temporary science must comply with 23 MRS 1913 accepting the limits provided in one two three and four above okay but you've got that five and six. So are we getting rid of six al together?

We're getting rid of seven. Yeah go away. Yep. Seven would go away. We're getting rid of two, right? Two is no longer. We don't care about two, right? That one's just gone. Okay. All right. So, two is gone. Signs may be erected, maintained on state highways under the main traveler information act. So, I'm not that that one seems fine to me excepting for the provisions for 1, three, and four. Right.

for the rest of town, placement of temporary signs must also comply. um was particular. Did you do you have that one? Yes, that's the one we were just looking at. That's 1913A. So, we also want to make the references to the no lights, no

So do we want to say temporary signs as five would be temporary signs, right? Erected and maintained on state roads, highways and town roads. Uh providing where we're more restrictive, but we still have the provision for provided one, three, and four above for limits.

Yeah. Which are the height, the illumination, and the size. So, we want people to follow all the other rules. So, seven's gone of the state statute, but follow our rules when it comes to these provisions here. All the state statutes except for the limitations in lighting, size, and height are going to be our our temporary signage.

Okay. So, that's what we want to say on the temporary signs. A number five said which should say temporary signs may be erected and maintained on state roads, highways and town roads under the main traveler information acts MRSA 19 1901

through 1925 excepting for the limits provided in one three and four above. Um it'll actually say one two right I scratched out to but but what do we do about permanent signs? I thought that one referred to permanent signs,

and four are the only limitations we have on permanent signs. permanent signage that need to be followed under these under this in that services act? Yeah, there was one thing in ours that the 24 square foot total if the if a sign has the same language on both sides is exactly the same and I didn't know what to do with that because you have to look at it to determine that it wasn't counted as double footage. So if you put Joe's auto repair, Joe's auto repair and it's one the whole board is 24 feet square. You can do both you can paint both sides with the same language and not exceed the 24 square feet even though it's essentially considered two signs. But you can't use language to regulate sign. So I can't say provided it says the same thing.

Could we be vagger and say it looks exactly the same? You got to look at it to tell. You have to read it just to look at it. Who cares if the signs if you got a a 3x two sign and whether it's got language on one side or two side depends on which way they orient it to the road. Who really cares? The sign the physical thing that the neighbors are seeing and the passers by is seeing the same.

Well, but I'm going with what we got in our own ordinance. Now, our own ordinance says specifically that if both sides of the sign are identical, they only count as one side. going towards the square the square footage limitation. So you could do a 3x6 sign

and you'd still have 6 ft square left over to use for a second sign and you could paint both sides of the one sign. But I don't know how to regulate that without reading the sign because you got to determine the language on both sides is the same.

I guess I don't care if the language is on both sides. I care what they the size of the object. The size of the side. I don't care what it they write on both sides. If they write on the legs, if they write on whatever intent of the existing ordinance was is that they can't use language on one side and different language on the other and use the same board to double their content. Okay, that was the that's the what it seems the intent of the of this ordinance is. I don't care what we do with it. So number three kind of needs to change.

Three just goes away. This area may be divided between up to two signs On the same Okay. On Why does it matter if they're on the same? Well, well, how else are you going to It should regulate it by the same applicant. So, if I've got one property here, one property there, I'm limited to one sign of 24 square ft or two signs of, you know, 12, even though I own two separate lots.

I mean, that doesn't make sense. Ordinance. It's not my ordinance. I know. I'm just trying to make it better. Per lot. Per? Yeah, I would say per lot. Okay. So, someone that owns more than one lot can put up more than one sign. Why not? Guys down in the subdivisions will like that because they can put up more than one sign. All right. So, three

have a certain amount of frontage and things that spaces them out. Okay. keep the the temporary signage, but just not during an election cycle, right? Placement of temporary signs shall comply with Okay. Just take out during election. So, can I and I mean not to lawyer this, but it's kind of lawyer up

what I bring to this. Uh, someone has to do it. So, I just rewrote this. Okay, that's good. That's what I was hoping. I just I'm I This is not my Give us a starting point. Not married to this. so forget everything that's on your paper,

start over. So notwithstanding 23 MRS 1901 to 1925 because that already exists. We don't have to say it exists. It already exists. So we're saying even regardless of what that says, if you're in the town of Durham, no sign shall be illuminated with flashy moving lights. Sign shall not exceed 24 in or 24 square feet. Top of no sign shall extend higher. Actually, we should say

no permanent sign. Uh, we don't want any temporary signs above 15 feet either. They can't be because they have separate sign that high. You'd have to You could climb a tree and nail it. You want to do that? Go ahead. Your name's got to be on it.

You don't need to say this because it says, right? But placement of So, that only covers state roads. So, placement of temporary signs in town roads. Oh, there you go. shall comply with this. All right. I like it. That's perfect. That covers it all. And we need an exception for government signs.

Yeah. What's a government sign, sir? You can't I don't know. Whatever it wants. Whatever the government wants to put up for signage. Yeah. They can do whatever they want. The town, the school, any any official government, town, state, federal.

Okay. They can do whatever they want. They have guidelines. But And what was the reasoning for taking out? We had some of the other exempt things in our ordinance were like flags and all that other stuff. Is that just You're judging the content.

So a flag that has no words on it is still considered free speech even though you can't read what it's about. So is that flags are flags are ruled as free speech. I mean there's all sorts or there's all sorts of stuff involved in flags. So it's already that's already

we don't need to put that in our ordinance. It's already say a flag is not a sign. Yeah. If you want to go down that road. Yeah. But you're not going to be able to limit it, you know. So if I want to hang up a sign that says a flag that says vote for Joe,

I'm not going to have to play by these rules. But flags and insignas of any government is like it's going to be handled like any other government thing. It's government the government is exempt. All right. So we need to say it again. Well, but that could be the American flag that's in my yard. That's an insignia of a government, but it's not erected by the government.

Doesn't matter, does it? I think it does. Well, I think if you're treating the American flag different than a vote for Joe flag, I think you've got a problem. The following are exempt of the signage standard. Flags and insignas of any government. So, if the following are exempt from the signage standard, government signs. Oh, okay. All right. Well, sure. Whatever you want to what whatever you want to put in there.

No, I don't know how to get around it. I don't either. I just didn't know if it was something for direction signs. You got to look at them to see what they are. Signs directing traffic, you got to look at it to see what it is. Yard, garage sales, you got to look at it to see what they are. I

So, I think you get around like street signs and directional signs because those are put up by a government. So, it's who's erecting it, not the content of it. So, I think we've got that covered. Um, yard and garage sale signs are going to have to play by the temporary signs rule, which is easy to meet. You can have it up for six weeks.

You got to put your name on it. You got to put your name on it. Um, but I'm sort of stuck on the flag issue. What do you want? Are flags issue or flags higher than 15t? Are they Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. [clears throat] Are flags signs? I mean, is that

No. So what I but again so if I put vote for Joe on a flag I don't have to follow these rules. That's what we're saying. I'm fine with that. But we just need to understand that that's that's not [cough] that didn't make Paul cut though right now. Right. We say nothing about flags right now.

Right. Right. Divided in bigger flags and and in as part of as part of science signs. I don't know. I mean as a recovered politician [laughter] you know people he said use the American flag and put things but you don't see that very often though

and and does a ton of Durham care if it meets the signage requirement. I don't know why they would if the only time you're going to do it is during my point also. But, you know, there's, you know, there's some guy down in Bowden that's got a

American flag on a portable sign and he puts Christian stuff over it all the time, you know. And what's considered a flag? Well, but like under the rules for treating American flags, if you paint your stupid barn the American flag, you're supposed to have it lit like it's treated like a flag by the US government.

You're supposed to take it down in the rain, too. Yeah, [laughter] that would be challenging. See how that works? Unless it's lit. Barnet half mass. I mean, if I have a flag pole and I put a sheet on it that says something, is that considered a flag or is that considered a banner, which is then considered a sign? Like,

well, what are you using to distinguish it? The shape, the content, the colors. [laughter] something hanging on a flag pole is a flag or insignia of any government, don't you have to have to look at it, right? So that so that would mean you could put up anything and call it a flag.

Mhm. So, so what defines a flag? Is it the material? Like why don't we do this? Why don't we not worry about it? Because becomes a problem. That was part of my point. [laughter] somebody puts up an ISIS flag, it will be a problem.

What I don't want is I mean, we've clearly the second we enact this, my American and Marine Corps flag that fly in my yard are in violation of this. And granted, I know you're not going to come site me for it, but everybody's is. What do you

So, you want to make an exception for flags? I kind of do. That's fine. I kind of want to make an exception for flags that fly from a traditional flag hole. So you're saying that the exception that all everyone's our American flags in our yards are not

if we take out this exception that's currently in there because it's a sign. No, cuz right now right now we've got an ordinance that says flags are not signs. If we change the ordinance and take that exception out, flags could be considered.

We've got a problem. All right. All right. So, put just put it back in. And if we and if we find people say a flag or insignia of any government or is that violating the Supreme Court rule? I think like frankly I don't care if you flag the Jolly Roger or the American flag. I don't give a frankly. But so let's say if we tape my language. Um, so why don't we just say, "All right, if it's flying from a traditional from a flag pole,

I don't care what it says." What? But what if it's a flag attached to your house? Attached to a pole. Pole, or like one of those banners, those spring banners, you know, flag things people have. Everyone has one of [laughter] those.

Oh, yeah. What are those? You know, you put them on the I mean, you really define signs. Flags and insignas are exempt. You don't have to say flags and insignas. What do we sign insignas are exempt? A flag is a flag no matter what it says. I don't have to look at what it says to determine it's a flag. How's that?

What if somebody decides advocate? I've got my 24 square foot sign out and I hang my put my open flag pole on the that sign and now increase the area of that sign advertising my business. What if instead of [laughter] getting a sign, I just GET A BIG FLAG that says

I I am not the name of your business. Just add flags. B flags. So, there's going to be an exception for flags. Yes. Let's just if it becomes a problem, we'll have a discussion on how we think it needs to be solved. Fabric flags.

Yeah. Just flags. Just flags. Makes sense. If someone wants to go that hard to violate the sign ordinance, I'm sure the neighbors are probably going to take care of it in the dark of the night. That's what I'd say. Not that we are encouraging that kind of activity.

In the dark of the night clause, it would be fixed. Well, we need to worry about it. So, the next discussion we need to have and Todd, I think you're going to need to bring the recommendation to the select board at the next meeting is a moratorum on um structures and uses under the what may become the new marijuana law. until time the town has a time to determine how it wants to go about developing ordinance in regards to the usage under that law if it's enacted. The state law is going to allow us a moratorum to figure out what to do and it's not a moratorum to eliminate it. It's just to decide do we want to have it in certain areas of town and not other areas. Do we want to regulate it at all? If we don't enact a moratorum

under the the allowance of the state law, it's going to be fair game. And the phone calls are coming and I I just think it might be wise for us to get a little bit of time after the election to determine the playing field and find out how

how long a moratorum can we I don't know what the state laws six months. Is it six months? I was thinking six, but I didn't read that part of it. You could do a moratorum for six months. I mean, the reality is we're not going to have you have to be licensed by the state first. State's not going to have rules and regs to license people for 9 months at least.

But everybody I know is putting in place. There is a huge huge amount of momentum waiting for this to pass to come crashing through the door. Is it Foster's got a moratorum is considering one. Bangor just passed one. I mean they they're all

do we do we have language from some other places that go through conditional use process? It depends and on on the only way I could look at it is like I would look at at every other business and see where it falls and I would assume and I've been telling folks that there would be a conditional use and they would have to come before the board. Um, but it does seem to me it wouldn't be a bad idea to give ourselves a little time to just see what hits the pavement and decide if it wants to be regulated in any particular way or not. We may not want to we may not need to.

This would be for like distribution of marijuana products or like basically retail and social clubs. Okay. Not like growing inquiries for social clubs. Growing is already happening all over. The growing will be legal. Well, we have medicinal already. So,

medicinal expect. Yeah. So, but yeah, I got one company that's already set up that wants to come in to to do Park Palace. Yeah. Smoking Smoking Joe's or something. [laughter] And a head. And a head shop. Oh, you'd be surprised.

Me either. Like I know [laughter] I know the population. I would say especially Durham. Of course, you know, like we're always looking for new. We don't even have a bar. New businesses. Exactly. It wasn't that long ago you couldn't buy alcohol in this.

What the heck? We don't even have a bar. We're going to be smoking on Kona. We don't even have a restaurant. Since I moved here, this town has gone from being a dry town to to selling cuz when they rebuilt the store, that was like a huge push by the store because

that only happened in the south. Nope. No, this was a dry town until what, five? No, maybe 10 years now. Nine years ago. Are there still there might even still be some in Maine? Right. So, I I'm gonna recommend you guys to get some sort of a unanimous idea and actually pass a vote that Todd bring it to the

language that we have a moratorum that we take advantage of the state allowance for a moratorum just so we can think about it. So we can a plan, right? I just think it's a smart move at this point just so we don't wind up getting

Makes sense. Going on we got because the folks that are lying in back, you know, there's a lot of big there's a lot of big people staying in the shadows on on this one that have been financing a lot of what's going on and when it passes they're they're ready to move.

So if we didn't do a moratorum just curious what would the is there a start day one? Anybody that came in to do this that met the requirements under conditional notice would be given a permit to do it after the day after the election or would it be six month at this point right the state law would require them to have a license but the

and the only condition you could put on a conditional use is that they get a state license. So I mean we could choose to deny the permit until they get a state license or we could put it as a condition of the permit. Sure.

Okay. But I think we're smarter having moratorum so that we can decide where it needs to be or and how does that work anyway? The selectman board just approve that moratorum or the as far as I understand the state law is allowing the the governmental bodies to enact the moratorum but any permanent application that's brought forward after that would have to come to the next town meeting to be voted on. So if they decide that they're going to district it, it's can only be in the in the growth district,

any change in definition along with that would have to go to town meeting with our regular information next spring and be approved by the town. It's like fees. The select board can can change and reenact fees and they're in

they're in authority until the next election and then it has to be authorized. If it's not, they they revert back to what they were before. So at the town meeting, residents would have to vote to approve the moratorum. Correct. Correct.

But until that happens, it would be a standing moratorum. Yeah. And if they don't if they if you guys develop language and stuff for a moratorum, they don't vote it in and it just it reverts back to being a regular conditional use circumstance under the ordinance.

What's the length of time for the moratorium that other towns are doing? Well, the state was six months. You can do six months. Can you do you can't do longer than that. Oh, okay. So, it's six months. Well, you can renew, you can put in place a second moratorum after the six months. You do two six months, but

that's a six month start with a selectman vote or six months from the election cycle. I don't know how it works in a town meeting town. I haven't thought about that. No, no, no. I'm thinking Yeah. Are we talking 6 months from

the second vote next week or 6 months from November 8th? I would say probably next week because if you got Yeah. Now I think about Wait a minute. [laughter] Same thing. the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's not October anymore.

You can make one you can make one retroactive or you can make one start on XD. And so the town meeting which is in April, right? Yeah. Which is pretty much almost 6 months after pretty close to 6 months. Yeah. So, can one of you guys find me language for that?

So, give me that to I'm going to make a motion. Okay. that the planning board recommend. Are we having a more Yeah, I don't know. Planning. No, we're an ordinance workshop. Never mind. I'm not maintain. That was That was a good one.

It was going to be good. It was going to be We were almost going to go along with it, but [laughter] own. Does it have to go through us? No, I just thought Todd should bring it forward as a recommendation to him. Yeah, some

Yeah, maybe that's the way to do it. Just Tell them just bring it up. We need to do something. I mean, we've had a general conversation. We agreed that 6 months is that this would be a good idea. The sense of the board is under the bus before. [laughter]

So then it would be up to the select to hate me. [laughter] Oh, they couldn't get it. Yeah. So then the select the select men would would be their job to what they could choose to do. So they're going to send Ruth off to write language for the moratorum [laughter]

selectman's meeting next Tuesday. Um probably not two weeks from yesterday. Oh it's actually last night. Just look at what new lawers doing. That's what I was saying. Describe the language. Call Paul instead. No, Paul first.

Paul first. Call Paul first. Call Paul. Call Paul. What are we doing? Passing it our own. This is more information I've been going through so we can look at it if you would. signage? We one I'll fix it. There you go. Send it.

Oh, these are all Wow. Okay. So, there's a few things in here that I wanted that I felt needed to be worked on that I thought you guys could review because you're hoping I'm doing some of this while I'm sitting around doing nothing else here.

We're going to be waiting for people to show up. This is my whole This is my whole packet. Yeah, [laughter] he's putting together packets. So, one is having a reasonable definition for accessory apartment. The first definition in the list is the one that we have which I think is significantly inadequate.

Um at least it has and and we are getting a lot more because rentals are worth a lot now. We're getting a lot more pressure and inquiry on accessory apartments. I guess the next are we going to try to regulate Airbnbs? We are. But the Airbnbs I know how to regulate Airbnbs and it's under the IBC. They're in R1. That went with the last one. [laughter] I didn't get it. Airbnbs are R1 occupancy. They require sprinkler.

That should shut them off. Wow. You know what? There are R1 occupancy under the IBC. Okay. Why? What's the occupancy? Let me get it for you. Has everybody got one of these? Look, look at accessory apartments while I get Is that 2015?

Yeah, it's the one we're about to go into, but it's still in the 209. It's the same thing. An R1 occupancy is a residential occupancy containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transit transient in nature. End of story.

that's all. Well, no, all the same as an Airbnb. Not to throw a wrench in it, but if I live in my house most of the time and I rent it out, I Airbnb it twice a year. I don't know that the residents are primarily transient.

Well, the definition that we came up with a primary transient is someone who's there for less than 30 days. Sure, but I live there all year. You do, but you're not renting your room. Sure, I might. People rent their whole house.

You're not You're not You yourself are not renting from yourself, right? But so it's okay where the occupants are primarily Oh, sorry. Where'd it go? Right here. residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature.

Okay. So, but the sleeping units, you know, maybe it's me and my three kids. So, all our sleeping units, we live there all year and you are not you your sleeping units are not necessary to come under the IBC rules, but anyone that you rent is. So if your kids you decide to move one of your kids into the other room with the other one while you rent their room for the weekend, you've crossed the threshold.

I disagree with you, but good luck with that. Did you say that's your your opinion or that's actually it's under IBC? This is the what the IBC. The Airbnb is actually under IBC. No, the Airbnb is a B&B like every other bed and breakfast, every other motel, hotel, rooming house.

It's no different than vacation by owner or any of them. Yeah, the RVR. all carry the same these are the rules that the structure has to be built by in order to satisfy that use. So I think all the ski houses at all of these mountains that you don't live in, people used it as their family for one weekend and they rented out the other three weekends that one,

right? So I think so technically yes, they should have to satisfy those circumstances. underneath um our condition of use? They're all under the radar because they don't have to come to us. They just put plug it in online and somebody shows up

and it's everywhere. You know, the credit cards already passed through and they stick them off in Jed's room for the weekend cuz he's gone to a ball, another Airbnb, [laughter] right? sounding like it's turning up to be problems are in like neighborhoods. There's a high churn rate and people who are basically absentee landlords to

right high churn space. You get you get college kids renting an Airbnb for the weekend and grabbing a couple of cakes and going up and having big house parties and then all the neighbors are in an uproar cuz it's the college kids

or the you know bachelorette party. Yeah. or you know the the AARP ski weekend. So anyway, I I didn't I don't know that we need to particularly regulate them other than allowing that if someone is determined to have one or deemed to have one that they would have to come forward for

conditional use as a so as a bed and breakfast and then comply with the IBC rules. So, are you are you attempting or are you suggesting we differentiate between someone who owns a rental property and never stays there and someone who uses Airbnb to rent out

their house? No, I'm distinguishing between anyone who has a rental property that rents it for transient occupancy, which is less than a month at a time. Anybody any particular occupant that stays there for less than a month comes under one set of rules in the IBC.

Okay? Anybody that rents it otherwise comes under a different set of rules. Okay. So, um the distinction is is only made in what's requisite to to the structure by the way that it's used is is enough that we'll if we were to use that as a means of um of managing it is usually enough to stop most folks from trying to do it.

But how do we get it out there if it this is happening? I'm not worried about getting it out there. I'm worried about I'm just worried about having some way of dealing with it when it shows up. It's It's not an easy thing to police and I don't think the municipality really gets anywhere trying to police it. But if it becomes an issue, we have a mechanism with which to deal with it. So, if somebody complains,

if there's a complaint and it's proven that they're running an Airbnb, then they would get a notice of violation that they need to come forward for conditional use for running a bed and breakfast and the structure will have to comply with the IBC rules for R1 occupancies like we do with the the inn down the road. The Royalsboro in is a bed and breakfast that had at the time.

Is this the way that other towns or cities have managed this uh Most town there's a few things small houses and Airbnbs are are pretty much flying under the radar as much as they can everywhere. And so what most of the municipalities are looking for is a way to manage it if it becomes problematic.

Rockland just passed some temporary housing. Yeah. Um Portland's considering one. So what so that so temporary housing is differentiating between a bed and breakfast. Yeah. So I think what Paul's saying is if you look at our definition of bed and breakfast, an Airbnb or a VBO possibly fits under that. So if you want to rent out your room or your kids' room on a temporary basis, then you have to come forward and get a conditional use permit for bed and breakfast. a lot of towns their bed and breakfast definition doesn't typically cover this cover like an Airbnb or whatever and so they're I mean there's a whole range of people are saying screw it I'm not going to regulate [clears throat] at all

New York City actually just prohibited them altogether said no no no Airbnbs no VBOS's no renting for transient purposes none Wow um I don't know I haven't read Rockport ports um or rocklands, not rock ports. Um you know, and some are trying to come up with a you know, a registration or uh

the majority of the issues are going to be the coastal communities, the recreational communities, places where this would be an advantage to rent your room out or something. So, Rockland has got tons of it going on. Camden, all the coastal communities. We're not

It's happening here. We're not seeing a lot of it. It's going to continue to move forward. You know, it's one of those things if if we have a mechanism for dealing with it, should it become problematic, I don't find it necessary for us to do more. Well, what if we add Airbnb to our definitions of bed and breakfast

and just so that it's there? That's probably too specific because if Airbnb folds and then someone comes up with a different they're bunch. Oh, was that a specific There a bunch. Yeah, Airbnb specific. Yeah, jeez. I would guess.

I mean, so bed and breakfast establishment is defined as a commercial building that accommodates for a [clears throat] fee travelers and other transient guests who are staying for a limited duration and having sleeping rooms. So we need to eliminate commercial building

maybe commercial and indoor residential and or residential industrial building would be a terrible place to have [laughter] some folks like them but but so at least we have some language to fall back on if it does come as a complaint.

Yeah. Yeah. So, we should do commercial and or residential. Do a residential. That's true. Yeah. If you just say building, that would All right, let's do that. I like that. Oh, I guess just building. Yeah. Not commercial or residential, just building. So, it covers industrial.

Yeah. In case someone wants to open up a I don't know, steampunk B&B or something. an agricultural building with a Oh, yeah. You could sleep you could sleep in a barn, right? Well, you could. So, it's considered a home church.

What's that? Masting Corner Church. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, they wouldn't have to come to us. No, but they would still have to come to me for the sprinkler system. Well, they Yeah, we didn't exempt home occupancies, did we? All right. What do we do with them?

they still need CEO. define home occupancies. Home. We got define homebased businesses. I hate this ordinance. Mhm. So that actually should not say home. No, it should say homebased business because that's what we have a definition for.

But if they're allowed then we don't have oversight. But it should not say home occupations. It should not say home occupation. I would agree with that. A homebased business is allowed if it meets the performance standards in article 4K. If the homebased business does not meet the standards, then a conditional use permit is required. We have that definition in our ordinance under um table uses.

Right. Right. So should we move that to our [clears throat] definitions? No. Why? We have one. Homebased business. We have a definition of home business. That's right. I'm sorry. So, let's make it a home based business and not a home occupation. Yeah. Because home occupations don't exist anymore.

licensed by the state if they're providing food? I think I believe they do. I'm pretty sure they do. M do you get food in an Airbnb? I think it depends. Depends on the host. Maybe. Right. Maybe not. [clears throat] Wow. All right. So, are we good with that for now then?

Sorry. I took us down that was good path. Good. Um accessory apartment. Did we Did we read through that? So, well, better. [laughter] No. Let's go. Did you already do it? So, no. So my issue is what we did is we we used to have all this crap in the definition and we took all the crap out and we put it in the performance standards, right? Because that's where it makes sense. And so now we're putting more performance standards back in the definition. So I don't have a problem with the standards themselves. I would just rather see them in the standards rather than in the definition.

Okay. I just needed I just felt it needed more defining somewhere and I didn't know where else to put it since how we added um the definition we have is pretty inadequate. Why is it inadequate? Because all the confusion that comes in about duplexes and various other things and how to how to

why would it be an issue with duplex? I mean it can only be located on property with a single family dwelling, right? So if you've got a duplex, you can't have an accessory apartment. Right. Okay. Yeah. But is an accessory apartment and a single family dwelling a duplex?

Well, then that's an issue with the duplex definition. We didn't have one. I just why I started going after one of the recent ones we considered the question was raised can the accessory apartment have be two-bedroom, threebedroom?

Yeah. So, if we want to limit the bedrooms, then we should have that conversation, but I think it should go in the performance standards, not the definition. Okay, that's fine. I I'm I'm happy with that. I just these this what I tried to do in the definition here was outline where we were having difficulty finding a clear line between

types of structures. Well, could they be in both in the definition and in the standards? Well, I would agree with I would and the majority of the of the dividing line should be in in the standard and not necessarily in the definition. So we've got So one thing you've added is one sleeping room or bedroom

um on a property with a single family dwelling. We already had that conforming to minimum lot size. So beginning. Yeah. And we kind of reworked a lot of that whether or not a minimum lot should be allowed to have an accessory apartment. And the general consensus on the intent of this development of accessory apartment was that it was intended for a minimum lot with one house to be able to put in an accessory apartment.

Yeah, but we did a whole whiteboard thing about what zone and how many acres and all of that. So, so we've got currently we've got accessory apartments shall not be permitted for any non-conforming structure or use where the nonconformity is due [clears throat] to the use of the premises as opposed to non-conforming dimensional requirements. So, currently we'd allow it on an undersized lot where it does not meet the setbacks,

right? And so, we can change that. I just think we change it here in the performance standards rather than in the definition. Okay. the policy question is do we want to allow accessory apartments on non-conforming lots when does it become become non-conforming. So, it become non-conforming because of the accessory department or

is it a conforming lot? I don't think you can make it non-conforming with the accessory department. So, like if I've got a house that's basically grandfathered, it's on an undersized lot, it's grandfathered, so it's lawfully non-performing. Should I be allowed to add an accessory apartment over my garage or whatever? Same thing if I've got a lawfully grandfathered single family that doesn't meet the setbacks. You know, it's 10 feet from my neighbor's property line, but it was put in place before any setback requirements are. Should I be allowed to add an accessory apartment?

And if you do, do you have to comply with the additional frontage requirements under um under the rules that we have now? And that's where the confusion comes in. and starts talking about adding more housing to a lot requires adding more frontage and more acreage.

What did we do with this? We had a whole We did have a whole thing. Do you still have a picture of it on your I do. I do. I have a printed picture, but I redlined everything in. Yeah, we just don't have that card. Well, do we want to look at a couple of the others real quickly before we go back into this rabbit hole? You want to just keep going?

I would rather not have this rabbit hole until we know what was around. And I think the last time we were talking about this, the accessory apartment is we were looking at lot size and it was like you would need more you would need a bigger lot to do an accessory apartment than if you did a duplex.

That's exactly And I'm trying to find a way to sort some of it out. an accessory apartment in a in a minimum lot. All of the spatial requirements that are necessary for increasing that's what we were looking for. The way I feel the accessory department

ordinance was intended was only a conforming but where it gets confusing in the ordinance is when it starts for multif family housing duplexes it starts to add additional stuff into play. Yep. Well, it's not as necessary for more frontage more and 45,000 square feet more lot and actually in one case it's more than that.

So I say no not allowed on non-performing lots. Do we differentiate sorry but do we differentiate between duplex and two family dwelling? Like I find that I feel like we use them both and I don't understand we're getting to that point.

Okay. I would rather not talk about accessory apartments until we see what we've already done. All right, let's Can we do that? All right, just keep the language in mind. So, let's move to multif family dwellings. The ordinance calls for multif family dwellings only in three places in the entire ordinance.

and it it it gets very confusing. We have one under the under the definitions. A single structure containing three to six dwelling units where each dwelling unit is designed for residential house and occupancy by a family living independently of other families in the dwelling units.

but we identify a duplex as having certain capabilities under our spatial requirements in the royal residential you know um and that was also confusing. Mhm. Um so I took two family under our definitions I wanted to take two family dwelling out and replace it with duplex a single structure containing two dwelling units on one parcel of land such building being designed for residential use and occupancy of two families living independently of each other. This does not include accessory one-bedroom apartments.

So why are we changing it from two family dwelling to duplex? because we use duplex as a as as a a a term under our spatial Well, we probably should not do that then. Well, it's this is where it gets difficult. It's trying to determine

that dwelling is a definition and under that is single family dwelling, two family dwelling, multif family dwelling, all of which relates to dwelling unit. So, so if you look under multif family dwelling on page 48 of our ordinance. Okay. So for land use for use our use table multif family dwelling southwest bend. Yes. Rural residential

duplex. Yes. Duplex only. So that shouldn't say that. It should say no. But we don't have duplex defined. Then we should have two family dwelling as its own line. So multif family dwelling should be no in rural residential and not for protection. Then you'd have a separate

line item for two family. That's what I did with the duplex in the in your paperwork is I took I change that's what I changed. So two family should be yes, yes, no, and yes. So here's what I have. I put the duplex in. Yes in the southwest bend growth. Yes in rural residential. Yes in aqua. Okay. Multifamily dwellings southwest bend cer code enforcement review.

Actually that should be I mean um that should be planning board. I'm sorry. And rural residential no but currently multif family dwelling is yes in southwest bound. Nothing's required. But a m see that's the hard part because if it's not a duplex and it's a multif family dwelling it's got to come in under subdivision renew. You can't build a three family on a single lot without coming before the subdivision.

Yeah, I agree. So it's in conflict there. So then that needs to change, right, to planning board. So here's what I did in this anyway. So now multif family dwelling. So this will say planning board, then it says no everywhere else, right? Okay.

And then duplex, which is what I put here, is yes, yes, and yes. I would just change that to two family dwelling and leave it the way it is. Cuz then you've got single family dwelling, two family dwelling, and multif family dwelling.

But does a sexy apartment count as a two dwelling? Two I think the difference is going to be I mean so a two family dwelling is um one bedroom. Okay. Yeah. You're not going to have the limitations on the it doesn't have the limitation on the on the subservient size requirement where you can't be 50% more than 50% of the principal dwelling and all of that sort of stuff. Okay. So it's [clears throat] I think that one will be fairly easy to navigate. So, but I think you should, as you suggested, Paul, and I think what Mindy is just saying is to the definition of two family dwelling, we should say does not include, you know, a law, you know, lawfully approved accessory apartments.

Well, that's what I had. Yes. I think that because I think what becomes confusing is when you're looking at the minimum lot size requirements and they're, you know, it's like they're differentiated and it's less restrictive with the two families. So then you could say somebody could say, well, can't I count my accessory apartment as a two family and then I don't need to add as much

acorage. One confusion here. Okay. To so to add to related work though in our um district requirements. We're using multif family housing and duplex. And that's the other thing that changed. Okay. So we need to change language to match all of those.

Yeah. I wanted it to stay multif family housing all the way through. Multi family dwelling dwelling dwelling dwelling the paperwork that I just gave you. I changed it. Okay. To housing. The idea was is that to change it everywhere.

So it's no longer multifamily dwelling. It's multif family housing everywhere in the ordinance. But it's going to be multif family dwelling. No, it's going to be multif family housing. But what about this definition that we just the

right she mentioned multi family. I understand she's reading our existing ordinance and I I'd offered to change it from multi-family dwelling to multi-family housing. I guess I would rather keep it single family dwelling, two family dwelling, multif family dwelling.

All right. If nobody feels strongly about because that's why we kept the two family dwelling and not duplex to keep it all dwelling because we have housing place housing with dwelling. Yeah. And I eliminated in my definition, I eliminated the three to six because apartment houses can have as many as you want. I don't know why there was a restriction in our current definition for three to six units.

Well, because I think we're prohibiting six unit more than six units. Don't we have a line that anything not specifically permitted is prohibited? more than six apartments in one building, right? I don't understand the need for that. If it's got to come under subdivision review, are you trying to eliminate large scale apartments? Is that the idea? But so instead of building one big building, you build lots of little buildings because you can still keep building them as long as they're six units or less, right?

Uh not on the same lot, can you? So say you can't. It just says that it's restricted into the number of units one unit structure and 25 ft of additional road footage each unit. So, we've pretty much done it through dimensional.

I mean, it's just it's a little hard. I mean if if the idea is to make an a dividing line of nothing more than six units. I'm not finding the six unit reference under the under our current definition on page eight multif family dwelling single structure containing three to six dwelling units where each dwelling unit is designed for residential house and occupancy by a family living independently of families and other dwelling units.

any determination that you have to stop. You can only six. Yeah, you'd have to have more buildings. So I thought we were trying to move the requirements. You'd have to have more, right? You need more buildings, but you're if you have a big enough piece of land, you're still good to go. So I thought if that's the case, why are we bothering? What would it matter if they did them all 12 units all connected?

Yeah, we don't care. I mean, but then it's so if you get into something I mean, even six units is big, particularly for Durham. You're losing the sort of residential character of Southwest Bend. Whereas if you've got if you can't have more than six units in one building, you're limiting the size of the buildings. I don't care what

But the thing to understand is multi multif family dwellings are coming in under subdivision review. Sure. So the sub under subdivision review, you've got a little more room for that type of protection, right? Well, you can't make someone if I mean if they want to do a 12unit building, you can't make them split into two six units.

No, that's not But you can you can use screening and other things to maintain the royal character. So you've got more oversight on multif family than you do on duplexes and other things. So I don't know what I guess the point is is that if you have those protections already in the portion of the ordinance that would be used for review.

Yeah. I don't care. I just want to make sure we're not eliminating things that have unintended consequences. Feedback here, guys. Then we can help. So building larger [clears throat] than six units, I think it's going to be defi, it's going to be limited by the plumbing, the uh septic design. Anyway,

this whole 20,000 square foot per unit. I mean, that's a big chunk of land. You're going to have, right? So the question is, if you've got a big enough property for 12 units, are we going to require you to build two six-unit buildings or we going to allow you to build one 12 unit?

Doesn't matter. Do you care? I don't. So the yeah I mean what Roy did down on Pinkerbrook Road with six unit structures is no less offensive than if he did down them with 12 unit structures. Right. it just be double the size.

Well but he did it anyway on the same piece of property. Well so the impact and all the other stuff that comes into play in as far as a municipality is concerned Mhm. is still there. Has it been this definition for a while? Three to six.

I don't think we played with that. Does it matter? I don't recall. Um, well, are we stopping? Are we stopping at 12 because of uh subdivision state review? No. How big do you have to get before you wind up in 15? Nerpa. Is that nerpa?

Is it 15? What is it? That's the for storm water management. Okay. Come to the state review. State review. I found a problem though. What's the problem? We don't have that same dimensional in rural residential transitional district that we have in the southwest bank growth.

That's right. They're not allowed. It's not allowed in southwest B. It should be allowed in the rural residential. It should only be allowed in multif family dwelling. Southwest Bend. Yes. Right now. Southwest Bend. Yeah. But not rural res. Duplex only. Okay.

Duplex only. Duplex only. Yeah. So, we're just going to say no. We put in a put in duplex. All right. Good. That was part of I misread it. And the duplex. I think I moved my finger down. [laughter] Good. All right. Well, why don't let's just leave it like it is for now then. All right.

If it's So, it's up to six. Three to six. Just won't. Yeah. Right. Yeah. But I think of things like townhouse condominiums and stuff like that. It's not uncommon for them to do quite a bit more continuous. And town houses actually are nice from a code perspective because you've got a lot of you've got a lot of access to fire protection and fire spread and there's, you know, there's a lot of

building code that gives us plenty to work with. I'm surprised we haven't seen it. Well, I'm expecting it. you know, the way that the that section of town is growing, Pink and Brook in in that area is it's it's going to come.

the rural character, I mean, you can destroy it as well with lots of six unit structures as you can with much bigger ones, but All right. So, we'll leave it. All right. Next, what else did I have? Is that it? Um, me for now. Okay.

You seem like you're waving a white flag. [laughter] I know. I know this stuff is coming quickly for us to try to get it solidified and I'm wanting to bring together all the stuff that we've decided to present for changes because we don't have much time left to get us together.

This uh feel like we move forward be general provisions. Is that Oh, yeah. something we should look at. Yeah, cuz most of it doesn't apply except for one little piece. There's a very strange thing that we wound up with in our order is this general conversion crack. Um,

most of it's in paving, which I think is already covered in roads. And the only other thing is this silly little approval criteria E. Mhm. which is the um sunset clause on conditional use. Pretty sure we did. Okay. I just I'm just double checking because I'm sorry if my memory isn't what it what I think it once was. [laughter] It may not have been.

I'll send you the red line I did. We had gone through a lot of that. Do you do you want me to Oh, I was going to say I have the picture we took of the black. I just wanted to make sure that we got rid of this section cuz this is just sort of stupid.

Yeah. The road part needed to go in roads and the other piece could be done. Should be I think we talked about it at the last meeting and then we were like, "Oh, Ann already moved that or somebody already." I think I did and I think

so. So, I need someone is going to do roads. I'm working on I'm getting in on roads, but I'm trying to go really slow and carefully because it's so many pieces. There's so many and actually Paul flagged one of the pieces that I said, "Well, we're doing this." So,

that's perfect. But yeah, it's I've got the table mate. You must We can give you a copy of that. So that's we went over that last time. All right. So you have the latest red line version, I believe. So of the ordinance. All right. So you have the master copy done.

So maybe our next I don't know that I want that level. Next maybe next meeting we can work off of that copy instead of Can we plug it in and put it up on the screen? Yep, we can do that. I mean, I'm willing to bring my laptop if there's a way to plug it in.

Well, just you could just email it to me and I can put it on the screen on my laptop. Okay. Don't trust him with his laptop, though. [laughter] No, it's actually Mine's wireless. You don't have to plug We can't get on the wireless.

We're not Well, you don't need wireless. It's just Well, for other things, All right. So, do we want to call the meeting and head towards our next meeting in what? Two is it two weeks? When is our next meeting and is it actually going to happen?

Well, that's the thing. We need to decide. We are set. We should because we next meeting is going to be it till after Christmas. We need to do the red line work at the next meeting in two weeks. Then we can just take off until January with the red line. I get a chance to go through it while you guys are off partying for Thanksgiving and Christmas and enjoying yourself like normal human beings and that's

and you're stuck in the office. So I don't have that other meeting. When is it? It's November 14th at 6:30. The Monday. Yes. Monday. Sorry you weren't here when we at 6:30. Yeah. And it's really going to happen if I show up at 6:30 and I leave work early so I can get here.

I am early. I am potentially race through traffic and risk my life and almost die. [laughter] I may not be able to make that meeting cuz my husband's going to be out of town probably. So you're partying. What? Your husband's going to be out of town. So you are like

I'm going to be partying with a toddler. [laughter] Bring her. Bring her across the street. Babysitter. We can all take turns. Bring her please. I don't think anyone wants that. Uh really. Her bedtime is seven. pretty damn painful.

That's silly. She'll get kind of cranky if she misses her bedtime. Like [laughter] can't tell that from her mom. So the 14th here, right? Not at the Eureka Center or the fire bar Store store. Yeah. So are we good? [clears throat] to return.