Planning Board Meeting ~ May 4, 2022

2022-05-04 · Planning Board · 1:58:08 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board's first meeting after the annual town meeting, opening with the election of officers as Ann Torgosa (?) stepped down as chair. George Thebarge reported the town meeting results: of four proposed land use ordinance amendments, the appeals jurisdiction and the fee schedule passed while the resource protection map changes and the roads and backlot access clarification were voted down. Most of the evening went to a sketch plan for a 13-lot cluster subdivision off Hollow Road, where the board raised the stream crossing, the quality and usability of the open space and trails, lot buildability, the wetland delineation and the wellhead protection district serving the elementary school. Rather than treat the sketch plan as finished, the board required an updated plan in advance and set a site walk for the 12th starting at the town office. A proposed amendment to the Bowie Hill subdivision was held up over whether Parker Schoolhouse Road is an abandoned road or a private street, and the board discussed involving the Conservation Commission in subdivision reviews without settling it.

What was discussed

1. 0:16
   Roll call and election of officers

   The meeting opened with roll call and a quorum, followed by the annual election of officers, a new chair being needed because Ann Torgosa (?) was stepping down. The recording does not capture the election itself.

2. 0:16
   The board has no secretary

   The bylaws require a secretary who is not a member of the board, and the person who previously did it is gone. The initial feedback from the interim town manager, Mitch, was that no town staff member could take it on, and George Thebarge will handle packets and codes work. The chair said mailings and similar work push it beyond what volunteers should absorb and that he would go back to Mitch about whether a clerk could be paid for a few hours a month out of the board's budget. Kimberly was taking minutes that night, and a member suggested simply advertising the post to the public.

3. 5:26
   Minutes of January 5, February 2 and April 6

   The three sets of minutes were taken together. One correction was noted, that the workshop minutes give the next meeting as May 3 when it is May 4, and members said they should be accepted as amended.

4. 5:26
   Town meeting results on the ordinance amendments

   George Thebarge reported that of four proposed land use ordinance amendments, two passed: the appeals process defining the board of appeals jurisdiction, and the fee schedule, which he will now prepare with the town manager for adoption. The resource protection amendments were voted down, so the zoning map stands as it is, and the roads amendment that would have clarified approval of roads outside subdivisions and backlot access was also voted down, so road maintenance agreements will continue to be required and the code officer and road commissioner will keep approving those plans.

5. 5:26
   New code enforcement officer and memo to the select board

   The town has hired Alan Pullman (?) as code enforcement officer, starting the next day and phasing in over a month while he finishes at Mechanic Falls. George Thebarge also circulated a memo to the town manager and select board chairman on two issues raised at the last workshop: what jurisdiction the planning board has over school impacts when it reviews projects, and clarification of the growth limits and what would trigger a review of a possible moratorium or cap. He has arranged to present to the select board on May 10.

6. 10:43
   What the informational exchange item is for

   A question was raised about whether the public can comment on the two projects listed. The answer given was that a sketch plan is a discussion between the developer and the board, with public comment opening at the preliminary plan stage and the site walk. On the informational exchange item, George Thebarge said it has been in the bylaws since 2006 but has not been used recently, and is meant for people to raise issues to be addressed rather than for a question and answer session on a report.

7. 10:43
   Resident questions on impact fees and plan revisions

   Heather Roy of Hollow Road (?) asked where the ten-year figure discussed at the workshop comes from, since the memo says only that funds collected are to be applied to planned expansions within a reasonable time frame. She also asked whether a revision to an approved subdivision plan carries a public hearing. She was told that once a previously approved plan comes back for revision it is opened up to be reviewed in full, and that the impact fee question would be carried to a later meeting.

8. 16:22
   Reporting back to the select board

   The chair proposed giving the select board feedback after each planning board meeting, either attending in person or sending a summary of what was discussed and what came up in public comment, to reinforce the line of communication both ways. A member suggested using the slot the select board keeps for reports so it goes on the record. The interim town manager had already invited him to do it.

9. 16:22
   Thanks to the outgoing chair

   The chair publicly thanked Ann Torgosa (?) for her service leading the planning board, noting she remained an active community member and had promised to return.

10. 16:22
    Scheduling a workshop and a site visit

    The board needed to schedule both a site visit and a workshop on changes to the codes coordinated with the comprehensive plan, and the chair asked members to have their calendars ready rather than cramming meetings together.

11. 22:07
    Involving the Conservation Commission

    Juliet Caplinger proposed making the Conservation Commission an official reviewer of subdivisions and other applications, as the go-to body on resource and environmental issues. Under the proposal the commission would attend site walks and provide comments and questions, treated as more than ordinary public comment though with no veto, and would not have to act as a body or wait for its own meeting schedule.

12. 22:07
    Whether to formalise it, and who checks wetland lines

    Some members thought the commission is already welcome to participate and questioned whether anything needed formalising. A suggestion that the commission could go out and check wetland lines drew the response that the code enforcement officer must remain the official responsible, and George Thebarge said the board should consider whether verification of a wetland delineation belongs with a paid contractor under the escrow system rather than with volunteers. The item was left to be picked up alongside resource protection.

13. 27:13
    Escrow system for technical peer reviews

    The town has collected escrow on applications but has not used the system. George Thebarge said he had spoken to at least one engineering firm about doing technical reviews, and a member noted some towns keep a list of approved third-party consultants.

14. 27:13
    Hollow Road cluster subdivision: what a sketch plan is

    The chair set expectations before the first new business item: a sketch plan is a very informal first step, required for a cluster subdivision, with no engineering design done and no formal vote on approval. Its purpose is for the board to learn about the project and pass on concerns, with a site visit and then preliminary plan approval to follow.

15. 32:17
    Planner's review comments

    George Thebarge flagged the access to the site from Hollow Road; a major stream crossing on a feeder brook where an existing crossing just downstream is already a flow constraint; the net residential area calculation showing the cluster does not yield materially more lots than a conventional plan; the relationship of the lots to the proposed open space; the usability of the trail system and its interconnection with other trails; and the suitability of the building sites once lots shrink from two acres to one.

16. 32:17
    Retained land, wellhead protection and past violations

    The applicant proposes retaining land for future development with a 50-foot access, which the planner said needs discussion in relation to future phases. The public well serving the site also serves the elementary school, so under the ordinance the school must be notified of the subdivision application. There were code violations on the property in the recent past which went to court; George Thebarge said the violations have been corrected, he inspected them himself, and the town manager confirmed the fine was paid.

17. 32:17
    Cluster approval is discretionary

    George Thebarge told the board that cluster approval under Durham's land use ordinance is discretionary, not an automatic right, and that if the board does not consider the plan meets the intent on open space and lot relationships it can determine it does not qualify. A member said his concern was that the sketch plan shows no square footages for the lots, which matters because the cluster allows the average lot size to be reduced substantially.

18. 38:15
    Applicant's response on lot sizes and open space

    The applicant's engineer, whose name the recording renders inconsistently, said he had been reworking the plan that day and the lines will change significantly. He promised all lots are larger than 45,000 square feet and the open space is one to one, noting the additional test that over half the open space must not be wetland. The wetlands run along the perimeter, which he argued makes a good buffer and trail corridor.

19. 38:15
    The stream crossing and the old culvert

    The concept is 13 one-acre lots on a road looping through the higher land to minimise wetland impact. The engineer said the stream itself is only two to four feet wide but sits in a significant gully, and the existing crossing is a 15-inch culvert that has been there since at least the 1970s, creating a bottleneck. His intent is to size the new crossing for a 100-year storm as a large arch and remove the old culvert so the stream can run more naturally.

20. 43:18
    Road alignment and the abutter's right of way

    Asked why the road sits where it does relative to the abutter's right of way, the engineer said he had already swung the road in and moved the first two lots to the inside, so no lots front the stream and the right of way is the first thing off the road. Members noted this means the plan in front of them is already out of date.

21. 48:58
    Wetland delineation and a third-party check

    The delineation was done in January under snow cover and the surveyor returned within the last two or three weeks to confirm flags in the back corner. A member proposed a third party review the delineation, not redo it, given the violation history on this property and other recent wetland violations on subdivisions in town. The engineer said the delineator was the one he usually uses.

22. 48:58
    How peer reviews would fit the three-phase process

    George Thebarge set out his recommended approach: give preliminary approval subject to peer reviews of wetlands, traffic and engineering, with those reports coming in with the final plan application so the applicant can respond to them before the final hearing. Where an issue looks likely to fail a subdivision standard outright, the peer review should be done before preliminary approval instead. The engineer said that as a developer he would want to know about any changes to lines well ahead of time.

23. 54:05
    GIS review of the site

    A GIS check turned up only the 100-year floodplain and the 100-foot stream setback, with other apparent designations turning out to be map layers rather than features on the ground. A site walk was expected to help identify any significant wildlife habitat.

24. 54:05
    Trail layout

    Members wanted the trails located so they interconnect rather than ending and forcing walkers onto the road, accepting that a road crossing will be needed somewhere to complete a loop. The engineer said his intent is to keep the trail along the top edge above the stream and tie into existing roads and trails left from the property's former use as a gravel pit and laydown yard.

25. 59:46
    When the trails must be built

    Members asked what had been required at Bowie Hill and whether trails should be in before construction starts. George Thebarge recommended treating the trail as project infrastructure: get an engineer's cost estimate and include it in the performance guarantee alongside the road, rather than tying it to certificates of occupancy, since houses will be built by different builders. A member wanted it also tied to the first permit so it does not become an afterthought.

26. 1:04:47
    Aquifer protection and application corrections

    The board asked for the aquifer protection district and resource protection boundaries to be shown on an existing conditions plan, noting the application currently shows the district as rural and agricultural when part of it is aquifer protection. The cluster box also needs checking on the application form, and the school superintendent should be notified sooner rather than later.

27. 1:10:00
    Is it really a cluster

    Allan Purinton questioned whether the plan creates a genuine cluster, since the land counted as open space is undevelopable anyway, so the effect is smaller lots rather than fewer houses. Others argued that without the cluster there would be the same 13 lots, no shared space and no connectivity, and that clustering reduces impervious area and runoff. Members agreed the board has discretion and that the test is whether the open space provides a real benefit to the people living there.

28. 1:10:00
    Connecting to neighbouring subdivisions

    A member noted an abutting subdivision and suggested that where subdivisions adjoin, their trails should be tied together to build a network. The board suggested asking the applicant whether his client would commit to interconnecting trails if a neighbouring subdivision went ahead.

29. 1:15:07
    How the net residential calculation works

    The calculation deducts wetlands and steep slopes and takes 15% off for right of way, and half the remaining land must be open space, of which no more than 50% may be wetland. The rule exists to stop applicants designating wetland as open space to satisfy the requirement.

30. 1:15:07
    What the violations were

    Asked to describe the past violations, George Thebarge said there were two: a business operated on the property without a conditional use permit, and a foundation constructed within about 80 feet of a stream in resource protection where the setback is 100 feet. Both have been resolved, and members noted the existing plan for the property is not currently in compliance and will need updating.

31. 1:20:08
    Whether to hold another sketch plan meeting

    Because the plan is changing substantially, members did not want to move to preliminary review without seeing the revised sketch, but also did not want to add a month's delay. Options debated were another sketch plan meeting, a site walk with the updated plan circulated in advance, or both.

32. 1:25:29
    Reviewing the plan before walking the site

    Members argued it is no use turning up to walk a field with a plan they received that morning, and that the public attending the site walk should also have seen it. The engineer offered to have digital copies out the next day. The submission deadline for the June meeting was noted as the 18th.

33. 1:30:55
    Site walk arranged

    The board settled on meeting at the town office at five o'clock on the 12th to go over the changes, then driving to the site together, with the updated sketch plan delivered by the end of the week and posted online. The intention was to keep the indoor part short, cover only the changes, and take whatever time is needed on the ground.

34. 1:37:03
    Bowie Hill subdivision amendment

    George Thebarge explained the ordinance requirements for revising an approved final subdivision plan: any change must be approved against the same criteria and standards as the original, creating new lots requires going through preliminary as well as final approval, and a boundary line change can go straight to final. He also noted the board does not have a copy of the approved plan, which must be submitted so the amendment can be properly referenced.

35. 1:37:03
    Parker Schoolhouse Road

    The plan shows Parker Schoolhouse Road as a presumed abandoned road, but George Thebarge said the town recognises Parker Schoolhouse Lane as a street with three addresses on it. Because land on opposite sides of a road, public or private, cannot be considered part of the same lot, the proposed transfer of 7.6 acres to the abutter across the road may not be possible, and the abandonment assumption needs clarifying by an attorney.

36. 1:43:19
    History of the road

    A resident explained that her house was the first lot in there and needed 300 feet of road frontage, so 300 feet of road was built on their half of Parker Schoolhouse Road, after which an easement was granted from the other half for a further house lot, leaving the frontage arrangement tangled. Members agreed this is the key question and that the applicant should get an opinion, one saying he would rather it was not at the town's expense.

37. 1:48:38
    Workshop topics and timing

    The workshop will cover how the comprehensive plan aligns with the ordinances on residential growth impacts, and comparing the subdivision ordinance against the comprehensive plan. A review of the bylaws, which are sixteen years old, including the secretary requirement and whether a member must physically attend every meeting to vote, was added as a lower priority. Members targeted the week of June 6, 6:30 to 8:30 at the town office, with the exact date to be fixed once members have gone through the plan and the ordinance.

38. 1:53:43
    Notice requirements for the site walk

    Heather Roy (?) raised a point of order from the ordinance about abutter notice and posting for site walks, and asked that all the boxes be checked. George Thebarge worked through it: section 6.6 sets a notice period of not more than 30 and not less than 10 days for the preliminary plan, not for a site walk, and for the site walk the general public proceeding requirements apply, which come down to posting at least 48 hours ahead. He acknowledged the ordinance sections are somewhat contradictory and should be looked at.

39. 1:53:43
    Posting and close

    Kimberly was asked to post the site walk on the calendar with its purpose stated, and members and Heather Roy were asked to help spread word of it. The chair thanked those present and the meeting closed.

What was decided

• 0:16
  Annual election of officers, with a new chair to be elected because Ann Torgosa (?) stepped down. The recording does not capture the nominations, the vote or who was elected, though someone was chairing from that point on.outcome unclear
• 5:26
  Accept the minutes of January 5, February 2 and April 6 as amended, the amendment being to correct the workshop minutes where the next meeting is given as May 3 rather than May 4. The recording does not capture a vote or a result.outcome unclear
• 16:22
  The chair will report back to the select board after planning board meetings, attending in person or sending a written summary of the projects discussed and the public comment received, so the two boards stay in communication.passed
• 22:07
  Whether to make the Conservation Commission a formal reviewer of subdivision and other applications. Members were divided on whether formalising adds anything to the participation the commission already has, and raised whether wetland verification should instead be a paid technical peer review; the question was set aside to be taken up with resource protection rather than decided.tabled
• 1:30:55
  On the Hollow Road cluster subdivision, take no vote at the sketch plan stage but require the applicant to deliver an updated sketch plan by the end of the week, post it online, and hold a site walk on the 12th at five o'clock beginning at the town office to review the changes before walking the site.passed
• 1:43:19
  Take no action on the Bowie Hill subdivision amendment. The applicant must first establish through an attorney whether Parker Schoolhouse Road is in fact abandoned or is a private street, because if it is a road the 7.6 acres cannot be combined with the abutting land on the other side of it, and must also supply a copy of the approved plan the amendment refers to.tabled
• 1:48:38
  Hold a workshop at the town office in the week of June 6, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, covering how the comprehensive plan aligns with the ordinances on residential growth impacts and comparing the subdivision ordinance with the comprehensive plan, with a bylaws review held back as a lower priority. The exact date was left to be locked in.passed
• 1:53:43
  Post the May 12 site walk under the general public proceeding requirements, at least 48 hours ahead, rather than under the 10 to 30 day abutter notice period, which George Thebarge said applies to the preliminary plan stage and not to a site walk.passed

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

Worth knowing

• 5:26
  Of the four land use ordinance amendments put to town meeting, only two passed: the board of appeals jurisdiction and the fee schedule. The resource protection amendments were voted down, so the zoning map stands unchanged, and the roads amendment was voted down, so road maintenance agreements will still be required for roads outside subdivisions.
• 5:26
  The town has hired a new code enforcement officer, starting the day after this meeting and phasing in over a month while finishing at Mechanic Falls. The planner also sent the town manager and select board chairman a memo on the planning board's jurisdiction over school impacts and on what would trigger a review of a possible growth moratorium or cap, due to be presented to the select board on May 10.
• 1:15:07
  The property proposed for the 13-lot cluster subdivision had two code violations that went to court: a business operated without a conditional use permit, and a foundation built within about 80 feet of a stream in resource protection where the setback is 100 feet. The planner said both have been corrected and the fine paid. The public well serving the site also serves the elementary school, so the school must be notified of the application.
• 1:43:19
  The proposed amendment to the Bowie Hill subdivision cannot proceed until the status of Parker Schoolhouse Road is settled. The plan treats it as abandoned, but the town recognises it as a street with three addresses, and subdivision law does not allow land on opposite sides of a road, public or private, to be combined into one lot.

Elsewhere

← 2021-05-19 Planning Board2022-06-01 Planning Board →All meetings