TranscriptPlanning Board Public Hearing ~ February 15, 2023

Caplinger and myself so we have a quorum for this evening's meeting uh note there on the agenda that you've got a copy of this is not a regular meeting this is a special meeting to discuss land use articles that will be voted on at the town meeting on the first of April so we've done the roll call determination of a quorum are there any amendments to the agenda foreign

there are no minutes to accept so you know part of our thing is informational exchange are there any Town officials who want to say anything that is not on the agenda seeing none any residents who want to say anything about things that are not on the agenda

um the agenda says about coming here or is there a chance to talk about it later basically the agenda says review of graph State rules for lb 2003 public comment will not be taken now we're just gonna we're gonna discuss that George Our Town planner is going to give a presentation on it and then we'll discuss it a little bit but we will take comments on that as part of the public hearing which follows that okay that answer the question okay any others from residents any non-residents all right so then continuing business going on to the um view of the state comments for implementation uh we got something that I about a week ago today and Mr DeBarge in your packet this is the bars did a great analysis of what the state is saying about them and the implementation and how they impact uh what we are recommending be done are proposed to be doing maybe it's a better way to say it Mr thabarge if you would like to

just give a quick Spiel on that sure let me just first clarify and explain why I'm wearing a mask tonight this is covet Corner we are both exposed my wife has an active case of covid so I'm wearing the mask I've tested today negative suggested

clearly so that you can all hear me through this mask good sound on that right Okay so just to start uh this discussion by the planning board of the draft rule that has been presented by the Department of Economic and Community Development uh in April of last year the legislature passed a law requiring all municipalities to adjust their local zoning laws to allow more housing units on individual Lots wherever single-family homes are located and allowed within the community in June of last year the planning board identified this as one of the topics that they wanted to address for consideration for ordinance amendments the comprehensive plan adopted in 2018 by voters here in Durham contained recommendations for consideration of allowing additional housing units on individual lots that are very much in line with what the state legislature has passed the decd economic and Community Development Department working with the

state attorney's General's office has been working on how do they interpret and Implement these rules of the new law since last summer and they've just released them a week ago and these rules are intended to clarify what the legislature adopted as the law and give guidance to communities on how to how to apply them in their local ordinances and there have been many questions coming up to four issues of clarification and so

the legislature delegated to the economic and Community Development Department the authority and responsibility to develop a rule and administrative rule that will be applied and enforceable rule draft rule which is going to go to public hearing on March 1st and will likely be finalized in late April after the Durham town meeting and I put in the packet only those parts that apply to Durham there are other parts that deal with communities that have large affordable housing projects growth districts and so I just included the parts that have applaud to Durham and highlighted the parts that affect the draft amendments that the planning board has recommended to the select board and what I'll do is just go down through uh the sections that are in the packet highlighted did you just give a brief explanation and then the planning board you can ask questions on the details after that so section uh three b1b

of the rule indicates that for vacant Lots the two required dwelling units could be a duplex two single-family homes or a single family home with an accessory apartment uh Section 3 b1c indicates that if a lot has one dwelling unit two additional dwelling units must be allowed and could be either attached to the existing structure detached from that structure or one of each

section 3b1d in the green highlight and I apologize with the printing it may be hard to uh to read that in the green and I will read it for you it indicates that if a lot has two existing dwelling units a third could not be added unless the municipality allows it this interpretive rule basically treats Lots with two existing dwelling units like a single family home with an accessory apartment or duplex the same as the law treats vacant Lots which limits it to um section 3b1e states that a municipalities that a municipality can allow more units than required by the state under the new law section 3b2b addresses situations where

a lot becomes vacant through demolition of the existing structure and the town could either say we're going to grandfather that law and allow treat it as if it still have the single family or you can say once that building is removed we treat it as a vacant lot the state has left that policy decision up to the local communities

municipalities may not impose larger dimensional requirements for the added units except that a lot area per dwelling unit can be applied section 4b1 requires municipalities to allow accessory apartments in the same configurations as for those additional units on Lots but it also in 4b3a

indicates that the mizpali may not apply lot area requirements to accessory Apartments for B3 BNC requires that municipalities be no more restrictive on dimensional requirements for accessory Apartments than single-family dwellings but allows communities to be less restrictive for those accessory environments uh Four B three D requires municipalities to allow accessory apartments on non-conforming lots of Records so if you have a single family home on a one acre lot you can add you're required to allow an accessory dwelling Durham currently does that

4b3e does not allow municipalities to require extra parking for excess redwelling units and 4B 4B allows municipalities to limit the size of accessory Apartments that was not clarified in the law and that is a new interpretation and ruled by the becd proposed

are in the Draft rules and as I said the state is going to be conducting a public hearing on March 1st and they may change some of this as a result of their public input process but as I stated earlier their rule won't become final until late April which is after the town meeting I have requested an advisory opinion from the eecd on the draft 2A that's uh that has been proposed by the planning board and I have advised the planning board that you can request a review by the municipal attorney as well and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions yeah George before you continue there um so you've heard reference to 1A and then 2A so it's actually a typo in the stuff that George just went over what he just went over applies to the second set of Articles so that's where you see 1A should be 2A 1B should be 2B and that is

for the affordable housing stock kind of self-explanatory but there's any confusing this pertains to the articles on affordable housing uh article 1A and 1B are on resource protection and I do apologize for that title when it says requires municipalities to be no more restrictive on dimensional requirements correct for assessment what does that mean well what it means is that if you like for example if you have a uh and it's it applies to both the single family as well as accessory Apartments if you have a setback of 25 feet from a property line for a single family you can have 50 feet for a duplex under this law okay

yeah and same thing for accessory Apartments you can't require larger setbacks from property lines or other dimensional requirements than you apply to standard single-family homes and then on the one that said clarifies the municipalities may not impose larger dimensional requirements for the added units accepted a lot area per dwelling unit can be applied yes so you can't and you know it's interesting that they did this but they said you can't require larger setbacks but you can require an extra lot size for the additional units so for example Durham requires two acres for a single family dwelling so theoretically and Durham has only has historically only required an extra half acre for a duplex so it's 2.5 acres for a duplex this law says that the the community can could require four acres for the duplex or even six acres for uh two three units but you couldn't make it four acres each for the extra units

so you can you can require an area per dwelling unit but it cannot be larger than you would require for the single family dwelling okay according to the law your questions and we will do that during the public hearing part I'll answer questions on this as well

discussion the board wanted to see this have opportunity to consider it and you could have discussion and see how this affects you or judgment on what you've recommended and or wait until after the public hearing and included there as well so uh is this the appropriate time to discuss the articles uh no I think what we'll do is do the public hearing so we get all the input from the folks that are here and then we'll close the public hearing and we'll as a board discuss the Articles okay

okay all right then we'll move on to the to the public hearing and just for every I see a lot of familiar faces so many of you have been in our public hearings before so this is a formal a formal process we have a lot to cover this evening so we will allow you to come up and make your comments address any comments or questions uh to the board any questions to me and I'll be determined who the appropriate person is to answer that I would ask that we not beat a dead horse um so if somebody has talked about things in great detail um you may get up and say I agree with the gentleman or lady who was just ahead of me keep this thing going because I said there's two three articles that we have to to discuss this evening so we'll be there just a second so are any questions about and if you would uh raise your hand and speak loudly so we can is there a mic back there so please speak loudly so we can pick up

your questions on any of the mics here and Folks at home can watch it on YouTube tomorrow so this will in fact be on it so with that I will open the public hearing at and you can you get one shot and the other thing I need to say this isn't a discussion so you get I like to have one shot come up with all your questions all your comments and then we'll let somebody else uh come up and have that discussion so

yet I'm just going through the world the affordable for because I I have questions about that but I also have questions about some of the other there's an excellent an excellent question so we're going to cover there's actually six five articles before us tonight thank you for asking that so there are two articles that pertain to Resource protection that's 1A and 1B the reason for two is that in last year's Town Meeting those who are there will remember there was a article before the the town to take land out of resource protection and the consensus and That Was Defeated consensus seemed to be we want to at the same meaning consider putting land into resource protection and as part of to and then also take land out of that so what we've done with this one this came up at the and I think the Conservation Commission who's got some folks here this evening came up at the uh information meeting they held back in

December and there was a recommendation that we do a article that basically covers the whole thing it would put land in if approved land into resource protection and take land that has no business being in resource protection take that out if that fail if that passes excuse me we will not go to 1B which is which is only taking stuff out if that makes sense if 1A fails then one

B would be up for a vote which is to remove the land that is not uh should not be it's not covered by Wetlands floodplain any kind of uh other other issues and so that would take that out of the process we'll do something similar with affordable housing in that

um article 2A is uh if you remember we did a survey back December through I guess a better part of January on uh what there were three options out there when we came to a vote by the planning board in January we elected a four or two of them one is that follows the comprehensive plan and it's probably less restrictive in that it may allow a few more units and the other one if that fails we'd fall back to 2B which

basically mimics the mimics the state law so and it's important to note that it is a state law so if both articles fail then it diverts to in the code enforcement officer has to enforce the state law and I think George has covered that that fairly well that's been up on the uh the website as well so does that answer the question and then the third the fifth one is there was a request from the selectman to clarify the last year's town meeting there was a concern about who can approve a private road becoming a public road so the fifth article basically just says for a private road to become a public road it requires approval by the Selectmen tell meeting vote town meeting vote Our Town Meeting thank you very much yes thank you we're trying to avoid the selective piece so thank you by Eric town meeting that's right George orange clarifying question on that V so like on 2A and 2B if two a passes

doesn't matter what happens we don't vote on two we just withdraw too okay and if one a passes we just withdraw 1B yeah thank you okay and all right so uh I will officially open so if I have questions on all multiple articles do you want all do you want me to do all of them no no we'll take one article so we'll go we'll go through one article and then close the public hearing on that article go through the second set of Articles close the public hearing go to the last the roads I think is is article three and then we'll close that and then the board will discuss among themselves and at the end of the day the question is is there enough is there a reason to to change what the board has already approved back I think in January so um that's kind of where we're giving new information given additional input do we hear anything tonight that would cause us to change our vote from back in January

[Music] and when we close the public hearings that is it if you want to call me bad names you have to wait outside to do it okay so again we're going to try to keep this thing moving so please keep your comments and questions short and with that uh I think the first one up is 1A and let's give you a chance to to digest again this is you've seen this on the uh webpage the town web page so a lot of you've already seen this stuff so with that I will open it up and please state your name and address and we will begin anybody have any comments about resource protection

my support for 1A as written it plays out pretty clearly all the changes that are outlined in the town comprehensive plan which is approved in 2018. we've had public hearing with the Conservation Commission participation with the community a lot of Outreach George did a lot of great work of mapping answering questions so I think that a lot of due diligence has gone into crafting uh article 1A so I just

advocate for continuing forward with it as written and as accepted back in I think it was January by the um any any other questions or comments comments or questions sorry Devin I just want to make sure he's picking you up on the mic um so also agree with 1A and I would

um consider to reconsider um sending two questions a 1A and a 1B to the select board as their Reformation I think that a select board member at the last informational hearing or whatever you want to call it was the one who suggested that and the select board

is the board that put that warrant out in the two phases versus the one which seems to be you know the general consensus um can I clarify your comments so you're saying that you are requesting or recommending that we go forward with just one a and not both one a and one B right

from this left or chair um because I was very I advocated relentlessly for this meeting tonight because I felt like last year you know whole email but um this this is actually an email to the planning board um stating that we meaning the sweat board against is written by the select board chair should either vote to send final language to the voters or not as presented by the planning board in Town Fair and so he himself is saying that decision is in your hands and I think it's been

very clear people that have attended all the hearings and what um What the residents want and so I would just like for you to reconsider that recommendation until he said send 1A instead of both um if both go George I would just asked that you making I think it's really important that we use neutral which I do see that a lot of that has been you know changed and I appreciate that thank you I would I would ask that if it goes that one key where it says to establish your criteria and child mapping errors but rather than that say era it says outdated

and then hold on let me just make sure I got it all oh and so and then does this card get included with last sentence resource Protection District boundary to Corrections having errors so these releases if it's possible and

um that I would like to mention at this point so she's correct so what the outcome tonight is a recommendation either if we change it or stick with it that goes to the selectman I believe they're going to vote on it on the 28th

of this month and they've been clear in that what they will vote on is either they will not tweak what we're sending them so they're not going to change the change the language they'll either send 1A and 1B as they receive them or they'll just send 1A or just send 1B or send neither one to the town for approval on the first of April of the town meeting so they I guess for them it's either an up or down no changes vote on the 28th does that make sense if not I probably couldn't explain it any better somebody else can try but um John do you want us to comment

to um to the decision on this one yep okay so any other comments on sorry uh 1a1b resource protection together so if we could not just one a 96 foreign before but if if this has changed what are the allowed uses in that area of the land resource Protection Agency what would be the allows land users

that in the land use ordinance as the uh we're going to be sending out a letter again to the affected property owners and in the letter the Conservation Commission edited it and it says that in the ordinance on available on the town website it references the section where it lists the permitted uses in the resource Protection District basically what it's not so much what is allowed is what is prohibited that really has the biggest effect and the biggest effect of that is basically you can't build residential or commercial structures or establish those uses if they're there now they're grandfathered but you would not be able to build new houses there or duplexes or put in a a business use but

forestry farming recreational activities those sorts of things are permissible in the resource protection forestry correct yeah agriculture correct so I was at one of the earlier meetings and there was an invitation to get more information which you you would provide and I appreciate it um and I just want to make sure I understand it I'm reading from the email I got and Mr DeWitt as requested I am sending a detailed information about the proposed realignment of resource Protection District as it relates to your property I run around Pond Road expansion in this area is primarily based on the beginning with habitat data multiple retailing a composite value of six or more prefer evaluations by the main Department of Inland Fisheries and wildlings correct and the major driver of that scoring is identified Landing turtle habitat and I didn't know what a Blanding turtle was and I found it interesting so I

actually my son-in-law pointed it out to me and we did a little research went on the state of Maine website to find out about this little guy and range and habitat of the Blanding turtle according to the Maine's website Maine's population occurs only in southern York and Cumberland counties and Landing Turtles are found most frequently in complexes of small Pacific weapons and vernal pools so after I looked at that I kind of re-looked at the mapping on my portion of my book because I'm interested it's my you know and I don't understand you know I I guess I'm not against resource protection and I don't want to hurt a turtle but I think I'd like a little more information about where these Turtles are because I've been there almost 30 years I've been all over that land and I haven't seen any signs of any Turtles and so I

guess I don't want to see the same mistake made it was made maybe prior where different land was designated as resource protection shouldn't have been maybe we need to relook at it and have some way to make sure the boundaries the way they should be if it means pushing it back because there are wetlands back there and and there are other names I you know I'm not speaking just for myself I've talked with a lot of the Neighbors in the area and other people that have got we're not against resource protection but I mean but let's take a little time and look at it you don't want to make a mistake and and I I can't support it personally the way it is now until I know what's happening with that thanks

George to make the resource protection we taught you I thought I took it as you were talking new structures you also cannot do a garage you can can you do a an extension on a house if it's in resource protection there are limits on expansions of existing structures and basically the expansion of those structures is limited to 30 percent if you go to the board of appeals you can apply for expansion up to 30 percent if you want to go beyond that you have to go to the planning board as a conditional use for an expansion Beyond 30 so you can do expansions of existing structures within the research protection yeah sir I just wanted to ask the follow-up question and let you just commented on so supposing that new resource protection area worked into my existing lot where I have buildings would I be able to do anything else there or would I have to go to a special permission you would to do an expansion of that you

would have to go to the planning board or the Border zoning appeals to do an expansion and it uh the the easier one theoretically would be the 30 percent from the board of appeals if uh if you were not able to get that and there's some pretty clear standards for that can't have impacts on the groundwater those sorts of things but beyond that it goes to the planning board and they do a complete review for traffic noise all of those things which for residential use or even agricultural probably is not going to be a problem but you'd have to go through that process that's why I'm hoping that we can take the time to make sure that we're putting the boundaries in the correct place because I noticed that the boundaries kind of infringe on my existing lot that I don't know what the reason I just want to make sure we don't make a mistakes can I just clarify one piece that I don't think that applies to agricultural

structures right it's residential I'm sorry you're correct so I don't know what you have on your land but if it's agricultural you can build new agricultural buildings and expand agricultural buildings okay well but for building right but for for buildings I don't know yeah thank you that's good clarification so I want to be clear on that thank you well tight folks we're gonna go through everybody once and then we'll we'll get back to it

and um as I attended the first meeting or the only meeting I went to prior to the information on what I guess it was called I like about the six plus rating for habitat and I said well you know it's probably a great place for Animals this is wonderful um but then when I got more details and I found out it was about a turtle that has never been seen there might not be there and then I researched how the turtle their habitat and what innovators of the most what I found out was they like wooded areas wet areas and then like Sandy areas so I started thinking about the land that we're on and it's a hay field it's not any of those things so I don't think the public knows that because I didn't know that and I know I was just an individual that requested more information so I think that's kind of new information for me it's probably new information for most people to be honest and as I think about what's allowed

contractors many of them stirring up the hay three times a year might travel a mile from where they're seeing your water um right around ponds probably close to that about a mile away I don't even know if they've been there um can there be any comment on that what's the study on that and does that make sense to the Layman that's actually hearing this hey I think I will defer to uh Mr Roy

who was the first to speak is on a Conservation Commission and is a professional one so if you can comment on that without without endorsing one thing or another just it is he's had his shot at that it is found there during the survey so it is the northernmost occurrence in the state of Maine so it's a kind of a distinct population um they utilize the diverse habitat array including Wetland complexes vernal pools forests and the stream that runs through mother feels their Auto burn around ponds they have been found again in State field yet they utilize the edges of the stream along Hayfield as well and and what would be more dangerous for a turtle uh regardless of what's more dangerous I'm just comment on the fact that they are there a lot of regulations make um uh kind of find the middle ground and don't want to impede on really important uh economic factors like culture and Forestry which are very

important these days so there's oftentimes exemptions for those two categories across the board and I'm going to kind of cut it here and what I was reading is that one driving over the side of the road so I would take a tractor will be 10 times more dangerous where it's going over the entire field I'm going to kind of cut it off here again we're getting more into a discussion which is not the purpose of this if you have a question um

though yeah yeah and any other questions about uh uh the resource protection nope sir you guys or whoever moved this moved it from all the brook all the way passed by I'm 900 feet in so I'm in Regional protection according to this new thing so my land becomes pretty much useless the 72 Acres that I've spent my whole life earning money and paying for this my retirement home uh so you're telling me what's resource detected I can't even build a shed up there is that what it is that true no is it vacant land currently that's right is it vacant land currently no I've I've built I've built 900 feet back but I got somebody to make it there to go back 4 200 people and pass all the brook which I plan to always keep that in protection and I would sign something to that but I do not want to be told what I can and cannot do with the property that I have that was never in resource protection

and like they said you got Jefferson I got two fields on both sides both sides and I don't understand why that isn't resulted who comes up with this it's not is it a state thing is it a town thing there's a you you take one property and take it out put it put another in I mean there's a so many square miles I don't understand the process can I explain the process Okay so process came about when the town updated the comprehensive plan back at the 2019 town meeting in drafting the comprehensive plan the town took the state of Maine data for natural resources which included flood Plains areas that are required to be in Shoreland zoning Wetlands of 10 or more Acres habitat around high value or moderate value waterfowl and wading bird habitat what year was that a value Hey sir let him finish that's quick and easy 20 2017 was the latest data that the state that the state provided to the town and

that was the basis on which the towns looked at and the the sixth criteria was the areas rated as having a overlap of uh habitat values as evaluated by the Indian fisheries and wildlife department where they looked at Deer yard habitat waterfowl habitat

wetlands and and where they saw an overlap of these areas they gave a qualitative valuation based on a scale of going from zero to I think it might be 16 or around that and so when the comprehensive plan committee reviewed that state data and and try to make a decision on what to recommend to the voters it was a long process and the conference of plan committee basically said in order to be considered for resource protection you would have to score at least six or more on that system so it put into the comprehensive plan a recommendation that the town consider resource protection for those areas which are six or more or require cluster development as an alternative so in this who determined the six or more in the first shoes and Wildlife the state department of inland fisheries and wildlife and and as far as the cutoff that was the comprehensive plan committee recommendation to the town meeting in 2019 and that was adopted

unanimously attack right now I would have no idea this is going on I realized that you made a sent me a letter but I I thought it had to do with the uh the new state law that allowed the housing attack on Landings it depreciates my property from 200 000 to 50.

anything else no I would I want to keep the keep the process not that not that we're not concerned about what you're saying but I want to keep the process going so someone who is not spoken I think is the gentleman right there uh I will order uh Patriot leg um so my property is in an area where part of it per the per the proposed map

uh my part of my property would be coming out based on the screen previous map errors on the screen running between my house into school um I think that the Jesus is kind of a question about because the set the my research Vector is based I believe on the 100 foot stream buffer um the map shows the stream directly on my property line with the school property which it's not it's pretty well into the school property so if I not

that I firmly want to but if I wanted to do something on my property that uh you know regardless of the current status of the resource protection or future status of resource protection and supposedly based on 100 foot buffer from the Stream if I wanted to do something that was 100 more than 100 feet away from the stream uh is there a way to go about appealing that process if the map shows that part of my property and resource protect them

Amendment for that but I can answer that in general I think what he's asking is there an appeal process if once this is done so yes I think it's important to understand that this mapping is done at a very high level and we've used the best available State data but it's not a ground survey and so there are going to be some variations you know the streams where they show even on the topographical maps you know are you know within this room you could have a variation of 50 feet so if there is a question what's shown on the map basically is a flag for the code officer and a property owner when you're considering building you need to look at where the stream is you need to make sure you're 100 feet away from it so if there's a question about how the map shows that's different than what you see on the ground there is a process to go to the board of appeals to get a determination from them of where and you

show survey data that shows this is not in 100 feet then the code officer can issue a permit okay just a little bit so we can pick you up on the mic right Road considered a wetland or a stream you can appeal that as well is that correct if you are in a grieved party yes

a property and the other property owner is going to be building too close to the stream you see that you can you could file an appeal if you thought that the permit was issued an error around for folks are there anybody else the gentleman in the back I cut you off earlier I just wanted to know what year it was okay

she's been she she just go first she had it second time around we're not going a third time so please come up with your questions now so shows so if only half of your lot is being green all right so there but there's other things that especially since I heard you say out loud that you always wanted to keep that protected and you're also worried about the value and you're also worried about the value that's a conversation that you can have a third because the town has recognized that that so there may be a pathway through tax incentive programs and a conversation with the assessor about what the value of your land is going forward I I intend to do that so for other people

her finish talking and then you'll get a second chance resource protection applies during this anymore so to where it is half of your piece of property is in resource protection your entire piece didn't now become in resource protection just the part that they have determined is in your blog it doesn't affect your whole piece of property well maybe it does if the whole thing is green but if the whole thing is not written it's only the green part

and the gentleman uh please um we'll just assume that you asked me and I directed it sorry yeah I am desperately trying to keep control being able to see the information that you have on the turtles so that I know because I I mean I and it would be helpful that's it that was a fair question so I believe his head nodding was that he is willing to share that with you okay so there was somebody else who wanted a second round yes I just wanted to talk quickly about uh the six plus co-occurrence model

um in instances some of the speakers that I have brought up about the turtle being the reason it's in the six plus there are um I'll look at you in just a pen there are a number of reasons why things score points and you can look at them if you want in order to break that sixth plus threshold there's no one resource that causes it to score six points and the example of an endangered species like that Turtle it only scores three points so there are other overlapping resources that cause that value to increase um so the design of the co-occurrence model is to say while these individual things all overlap in this area it shows that that area might have a higher higher value so it's not just one indication um and and as for the like the discussion on resource protection um you know when we talk about things being in resource protection that still allows certain activities so it's not that that

area is not a resource protection it's definitely no matter what anybody does there's going to be impacts on natural communities so resource protection is to limit certain personal impacts in the case of Forestry and agriculture things grow back um if you harvest them and you can regenerate a new forest and things like that whereas a Walmart parking lot is there for a long time so it's always a balance in land use is what so the the kind of happy medium that folks have found is protect forestry and agriculture limit commercial and residential development so I will stop you there there's a court there's a first round question right behind you it is plus models something new

you answer that question uh the six plus model is not something new it's available to all towns and towns can choose to use how they apply it so so you can choose to use something yeah some towns can could say we want to protect everything with a score of two um you know the state's recommendation is if you're going to protect things a score of six is the place to consider um

protect everything two or more 16 and one or 16 and one so it's just a way to help communities quantify put a quantifiable value to a resource and then see where it accumulates is that is that really why can you set your name too sorry Todd bullier let's make sure

um is that why our recess protection is changing because we're using a different model than we used to use to 2005 the town had those criteria that I mentioned flood Plains areas Shoreland zoning flooding Wetlands of 10 or more Acres those were the criteria from 2005. this

latest round has added the waterfowl within 250 feet of the waterfowl and then the six plus have been are proposed to be added in the current comprehensive plan in the six plus with a recommendation in the comp plan correct

round okay thank you very much to me I heard about it last time I'm learning more now blood turtle is what three points and this in the scenario where where we are not around to be score 12 and it's six plus or do we score three plus internal or is it like what's where where was it is

ask somebody else thank you is there is George or okay let me let me take a stab at in joke and also respond so the mapping that was provided to this town from the state included these maps that were prepared by the state of Maine in the fisheries and wildlife and they deal with entire habitat regions and So within each Community they provide a digital copy of their ranking system Maps and basically it's different shades of green in terms of the lower the value it's it's yellow and then it gets progressively darker as the score goes up to a very dark green that data was taken by the greater Portland Council of governments at the request of the comprehensive plan committee and they took all of the values over six and provided those as a layer of six plus they did not provide the town with a gradation of every individual one one through 16 or however many it is they just basically took lumped everything

six or more and we don't really have any way to tell on an individual piece of property exactly what that score was we have the regional assessments that's how it works I mean I find it interesting that it's very quantitative but then it gets very squishy it the technical term is qualitative versus quantitative but the qualitative valuation was based

on quantitative data so you're correct there was some subjective judgments in terms of where to draw those numbers but based on scientific data yeah I do really want to keep control of this thing you're not just you know I go home and we just have a discussion but uh is there anything else we'll let that gentleman ask another question uh well we're Victory way I just have a con unless I'm once I'm reading

um after you know beyond today I think there's going to be a selective delineation of what where the six plus comes into play on the map versus the other criteria that may be helpful for the discussion is you know trying different areas of maps can be difficult but um you know that's just a potential recommendation unless I'm misreading your map but I don't see it holds a second though

Maps out there that show where's there maybe I misunderstood the question okay so at the December 6 public informational presentation meeting we had about 10 different maps showing those different gradations once it went through that process to this point then it's all going to be resource protection so and after December 6 everyone who came and others who contacted me I was able to provide that very detailed analysis of anybody who requested it I can still do that for you if you're interested on your property and basically give you those individual layers but to bring to town meeting 10 different Maps it's really important that the voters know exactly what they're voting on so it's been boiled down to two maps one showing areas that will be added and one showing areas that will be removed whatever the criteria is based on but we do have the data available yes to folks we do have the data and it has been discussed in a

public meeting before and it is available so can I also go back um George gave us the answer about what we got from JP Cog but I suspect our friends from the Conservation Commission actually have the data on the six plus and I was wondering if we could ask askular area he's been desperately raising his hand to get my attention I very much appreciate also

there is if you go to beginning with habitat and you go to there's a co-occurrence map that will show you exactly the points that particular area men inhabit of my phone I can show you that'll give you this is six to eight is this 8 to 12 is this you know it'll it'll give you the the more nuanced area as opposed to a homogeneous picture that you're getting on this connector so that data is available and you just go on the web and look for pro occurrence

sorry so wait um oh this might be throwing a monkey wrench in it but if we were to say we were gonna put stuff in resource protection that had to rank uh eight plus or a 10 plus theoretically like this gentleman's property only 50 of it might go into resource protection is that not true I think it's the other way around right oh so a lower number is no not as friendly to the environment no if you went higher if you went higher less land would go that's what so that that's the question like and so what's the you know what was the reason for the six if it if this if the score goes all the way up to 16 is it is six being very restrictive and getting put a lot of property if we say the discussion when we we get to I mean that's good well this is related to what we're talking about right now and okay George you wanna why did we choose six the comprehensive plan committee which included representatives of development

interests agricultural conservation went through a process had a public participation and basically made that recommendation to the voters and that was what was approved discussion about whether we want to change anything the answer is we could you could tonight make that that change if if the board so so chose is a recommendation to the to the Selectmen yeah I guess my question is if does it you know what would be the consequences and benefits of that

you know why why why sex you know is there you know does that really protect a lot of animals or would eight be good too but put less land in resource protection well I'm not sure I can answer I think that to your initial point was it throws a monkey wrench at it it probably does in fact do that so if that's the consensus of the board we'd have to go back and take a look at different maps in the whole nine yards so yeah at this point at this point in the process a month or less from town meeting if you were to go in that direction what you would probably want to do is take the beginning with habitat six plus off the table have that reviewed in more detail after this vote but you can't do the type of gradation can we hold that discussion until you know after this so

they're asking the crowd the gentleman's got his hand up the back uh just if I could make the state law requires our ordinances to be in accordance with our comprehensive plan and I believe that our comprehensive plan the comp plan well I think that's the yes if we have to follow the comp player then we should produce it yeah so we'll yeah we can we'll finish that discussion I think when when we're done here are there any other comments or maybe not

research it scientifically or some of these other factors that because the worst thing that could happen is you you cause something to happen on somebody's property that will affect them and their defendants and it may not be right let's just do it right and I don't you know let's not rush because we've got a town meeting because if you have to postpone it or do something to make it okay it's all right yeah got it thank you and wish the horses if he's not dead he's dying on that one and I don't mean to be flipping but we've heard that particular comment

to let everyone know like this process has been going on since 2017 went through the plant comprehensive plan was voted in 2018. there's one Hearing in 2021 and then two in 2022 this one and another one so it's been a multi-year process getting to this point in gathering that data so it's not happening in the last two months

uh thank you so I am going to close the public hearing on articles 1A and 1B and I'll ask the board do we want to discuss this now and whether we're ready to make changes or wait until we've done the other two I'd say we stick with this before we move to housing okay well it's fresh so at this point this be a discussion on the with the board members um and that is not open to the public comments so um thoughts and comments what I have one

that they do agree with the citizen we heard regarding changing errors the word errors to something else um I don't know if out dates or outdated Works um I was wondering what you think about mapping so for protection of natural resources and to correct dated mapping crossout errors

because I agree it's not really errors right it was the data that they had back in the day we have people whose properties the resource protection is based on floodplain that's not flood plain in my opinion that's an error in mapping but it was a floodplain yes it was based on a flood plain map that was inaccurate

if you want to say inaccurate mapping that's fine I mean I don't think just to say based on dated mapping really conveys this inaccurate work for others versus errors where does it say Arizona but back in the day was it an error yes it wasn't in floodplain they knew it was an error in the day no they didn't know it was an error but it was an ERA that was it's an error now discovered it is an error now well is it air then but they just didn't know it I'm not sure we need if there's any accurate work I mean that as much as I love semantic discussions does that does that work it's getting closer but it's not

inaccurate mapping let me just delete that word into correct mapping based on inaccurate floodplain data liked it see that is everybody okay plane data is that a considered a minor change for her are there any other changes before we decide whether that's minor or not I mean is there a desire on the part of the board to relook 1A and one B well I

did want to talk a little bit about that um per system that mentioned that do we the planning board have the ability to only bring 1A to the select board or are they expecting one to be as well I think those are two different questions I think I think can I take it I'll take a shot at that yeah we have the ability to get rid of both of them if we want to do that yeah um but I think if we remember why we went with two of them which is if you believe that it that there was inaccurate data that we needs to be fixed what the intent was and the request at the last town meeting was give us the opportunity to vote on adding as well as removing and uh but I personally think it's unfair to have people kind of penalize may or may not be the right term but their land is covered by whatever term we just came up with inaccurate error or whatever um so the goal was to give give the town the opportunity to vote to add which is

what I took away from last year's meeting if that fails still I'll have the opportunity to remove land that should not be there for whatever term you want to use that's why I supported that so in general two options in general terms one b just takes out the incorrect areas thank

you it keeps everything else as is yes so if one a fails then we still have an opportunity to correct whatever term we came up with errors inaccurate whatever yeah their talent is not weird to establish clear criteria to correct mapping errors

mapping well we talked about taking it out of the explanatory text to say to correct mapping based on an aggregate floor plane data but if we take errors out of the capitalized text then that it doesn't make sense it's like an incomplete sentence correct

um well it's personally I like having the errors in it the errors in you know I could see people understanding this and want to correct the errors and and voting for it the person I don't see to be honest with you that's pretty minor Point whether it's an error or whatever whatever it was it's in my mind we're into somatics there [Music]

um and the turtle habitat right now is being characterized as an error as having been not researched appropriately and all of that and I think language is important what would you recommend I recommend exactly what we came up with just getting rid of the word errors in both places I'm good so the second one would just say draft amendments to Resource Protection District to establish career Criterion to correct mapping

since we kind of agreed to eliminate the word error there is that it considered a minor change or do we need to vote on that forwarding that article this has been forwarded to the select board so you should vote to recommend a change okay then do I have a motion to change uh

article 1A 1B excuse me to say to see if a town will vote to enact amendments to the land use ordinance and zoning map as set forth well I'm sorry I cut the discussion off is there a consensus that we want to forward two articles [Music]

going to forward that article should definitely forward both articles I was convinced at the last meeting it's the right thing to do it for both okay okay so in that case we're voting to change uh the wording on article 1A to say to see if a town will vote to enact amendments to the land use ordinance and Zoning maps map as set forth the document town of Durham millenius Ordnance as a is adopted a town meeting April 2 20 April 2 2022 proposed revisions for town meeting April 1 2023 part 1B draft amendments to the resource Protection District to establish clear criteria and to correct mapping no errors Article 2 and the official zoning map to revise the resource Protection District criteria and Boundary to establish clear clear criteria for inclusion of property and to correct mapping errors based on inaccurate flood plain data yeah I

wouldn't say errors there drop error in both cases line in the correct mapping based on inaccurate floodplain data yeah I'll make that motion but we also text me or the yeah favor of uh 1B is modified raise hand 4-0 okay now uh Julie you were mentioning a 1A explanatory

right there yeah so scratch that all right okay so we'll need a vote because that's one B because we're eliminating the word errors so we need to vote on 1A because in the what Julian's referring to is in article 1A the very last line uh it says correct mapping errors that she's asking to eliminate the term errors yeah okay do I have uh so I asked for a proposal okay delete errors out of that do I have a second second I have a motion and a second any further discussion if not I'll raise a hand if you vote Yes okay we will forward article one a and one B to the Selectmen with the changes it has noticed and Mr do we want to give any sort of explanation about the turtles and the process and why we're forwarding it as is a lot of questions about it you mean like verbally at this meeting right now or yeah I mean you raise some questions

say that I rushed the vote on that one is what you're saying I'm sorry well we haven't voted to move to pass it on yet right we just literally just did yeah we did so we can we can re-look it we have the right to revisit it thank you I I mean I it's more of a comment but I I would like to say that I've heard what people have said and I I was in some of the people's shoes that voice concern tonight I wouldn't be that happy about it either just I mean nobody's happy with new restrictions on their property right that's why you know again but I just don't go on a property by property basis that's why you look at the overall goals of the Town through something like a comprehensive process because if everybody was coming to this and had their say over what gets imposed on their individual property we would have none of this yeah but I guess what I my concern is that it's based on large-scale mapping that might not be

super accurate and yes they can appeal it but it's uh the onus is on them and they're gonna have to spend money to to prove that out so it's just unfortunate I think so would you have us do no resource protection I mean it it's all based on High level mapping

the the number six that's getting added is I'm not confident that it's been proofed out enough why based on that based on conversations and stuff so based on conversation because what I heard is that ifw has been on the ground and has seen these turtles in his mouth this that's what I heard I heard that scientists have done their job and Property Owners very understandably are not happy with this and maybe haven't seen a journal that's what I heard tonight

made me question if how accurate the boundary is based on what what I heard tonight like I said about revisiting the vote and if you remember I voted no that the very first meeting on this particular article but I don't necessarily like revisiting those once they're done and

um not to say that we shouldn't do that this evening but also the fact that six was in the comprehensive plan if there if it wasn't there I would I wouldn't say that we just pulled that out of our butts but it makes me more comfortable that back in 2019 it was thought through we've heard discussion we've had a bunch of meetings uh going back to October about

six so I'm comfortable leaving that there but is that do we need to revisit the vote we just Revisited I guess is what I'm asking I don't think so I I I'm comfortable leaving it there I think that there's been a lot of discussion on it and uh but you know I think people are educated and they're going to vote what they think is appropriate a voting day and I would say that the town is a great planner right now who's in The Code Enforcement guy who are open if you have it's down the road you have a question about what it does to your your land or the impact or what can I do now that that and I do remind everybody this is just one step the selectman will decide what gets forwarded to the town meeting and the town will vote on one a one b or neither one so I would just always as always say get out the vote however you want it

affordable housing and uh I'll reopen the public hearing to discuss amendments to a and 2B and the same thing the intent here is that if 2A the reason we have two is if 2A fails we have 2B and 2A is or 2B is mimics the state law so if neither one passes the state law uh trumps so I'm open to whoever would like to make public comments more questions or you get to go first this time

your name so that we can because we gotta we take minutes off the TV and so yeah um all right so I I went through the new regulation and the proposed to aim to be that were provided uh there's a few areas where I think the proposed language doesn't align with the new regulations that I wanted to point out uh my concerns of um the first one I'm going to mention I'm not sure I'm actually not sure if this is a football or not but the the date of the of the generated regulation here it's uh 4363 regulation of tiny homes it appears to be part of the new regulation I'm not 100 positive that's the case or not but the the language says a municipality shall prevent a tiny home to replace their erected on an individual health lab we're seeing you'll be able to draw and girl out or as an accessory structure subject to all football and use requirements as single-family bonds or accessory structure I didn't see that

addressed in the proposed language so I wanted to in in 2A or 2B so I wanted to mention that um okay um it happens to be just the previous numbered regulation as I was thinking through to speak about things 2B this is in 2B

if the language is two additional drill units for a maximum of three units and then in parentheses States subject to subdivision requirements uh it wasn't clearly why subdivision requirements would specifically references this as well as Shoreland zoning and minimum lot size laws so under main law and under the local subdivision regulations if you are creating three lots or dwelling units or commercial units within a single three-year period and the language says by division construction lease or

otherwise so if someone were creating had a single family and we're adding two accessory units theoretically that would require a subdivision approval so that's why the language is in the legislature and in here subject to subdivision requirements if they're not triggering subdivision they don't have to do that if they are treasuring subdivision they do

come up but if the homeowners association does not allow accessory units then accessory units are not allowed this does not overrule state law it is not overruled H for whatever reason HOA Covenants okay so I guess by comment on this one would be there may be some or not uh you know there may be helpful to have some clarification on that statement s

title is looks like this is some carryover language from the existing ordinances the title is accessory apartments and just to align with the languages [Music] accessories section device accessory Apartments 5.1 B includes a limitation where the main dwelling limit the main dwelling units will have at least 1500 square feet of floor area um it's my opinion that the state law would

not allow us to include that limitation in our ordinance I think that's over restrictive uh I I believe that this falls under the 1500 square foot that we have in there that's a carryover it appeared appears to be more restrictive than the new state laws

that the accessory Apartments don't I see 50 of the poor area of the main unit my my recommendation would be that we would revise that language to include the minimum size which the state law is a 190 square feet I believe

the minimum size of 190 square feet so that's what I'm going to stay a lot my suggestion so my suggestions for this portion of the ordinance would be that um you know we have a range of minimum to maximum for accessory dwelling in it Vice referencing square footage of an existing home

elimination of the requirement that there be a existing home of 1500 square feet which I don't believe the lines at all part of the main residence or located in a separate building whose primary function is not as a dwelling unit such as a garage or Barn um the state law specifically says that a

must be allowed whereas allow structure um needs to align with that because right now it's directly in conflict with it um apply to the 2A languages else sorry I will let you sorry I found the language here it says um one dot C space a new structure on the lot for the primary purpose of creating an accessory drawing whereas our language in the ordinance as proposed states such an Etc have to be

purposes anything else Mr billiard so I believe you're stacked already just a couple questions if we're going to create three different dwelling units on a Toyota they all going to be retained under one ownership water protection could have 10 bedrooms in those three room three houses on Accessory units you're going to have enough hey you've gone it says here that you're going to have to have septic and appropriate water for all that

and who's going to own that it's a touring a lot you got three different buildings how many different septic systems on a Toyota honest it it has well this does not um override any the setbacks all of that stuff to include if the septic that you want to do if you want to add one accessory unit if your septic system isn't sufficient and there's no room to put another septic system the code enforcement officer will not approve it plus yeah same thing I'm sorry stop taking water Yeah so basically it has to be you know it has to have bathrooms it has to have all that stuff so and what

that's around ownership defer to George on that one I don't think it precludes it's rentals is certainly well you answer George I'm your question is what who will own it say you had two different that point where is the where's your front is coming from so if you currently have a duplex can those units be separately owned a condo so it'll be the same

but also casa case law says if there's a functional division of a lot so yeah you're essentially getting three lots out of one if we do this you wouldn't create Three Laws it's called a functional division your this allows you to create three loss out of if we do it this way three units

about three Watts no there's okay there's this principle called functional subdivision which says so you have a conforming two acre lot with all the road Frontage and all that you put three units on it they're owned separately there's case law in the state of Maine that says essentially that can be transferred separately and the town and the state and the assessor and all of it has to treat those as pre-existing so you are this way you are essentially you are able to now if somebody May condo it they may own it and rent it but there's nothing to say you can't sell off those houses separately and then eventually it becomes essentially three lots that can be transferred separately isn't it not a Time trigger to that though it has to there there isn't specifically a Time trigger to it yeah correct

I mean and honestly who cares if they're on separately if it's if you've got three four thousand square feet houses on one lot even if they're on the same how does that feel does that feel like but most people on the certain book from it yeah not to have a discussion on this I mean yeah your point is your point is taken and I I will go to uh the challenge is whether

we have our own ordinance or not this if if I come in and I want to put do whatever this says and or Durham doesn't have an ordinance then what I'm going to say is but the state law is the state law I mean that's not his name more commonly done but not to say that you have to end up that way they'd be like condo so the kind of law if you're kind of calling the property the lot that would stay as kind of like one unit that might be jointly owned by three people with a Owner's Association and then just the building it's each building itself would be a lot a condo so each building will be owned by

separate people they would yeah they share the 300 Road friends will be retained to blowback Condo Association yeah that you have a minimum lot size per dwelling unit and so instead of three acre or set of two acres for three units you need six

that's that's an option if we want to get it when we get to the end of this we have a discussion do we want to start but you know start all over again yeah you're saying Ian you if you if you separate them then they have to or if you're going to retain ownership all into the same person like you have a couple accessory units if you want to put three separate units three separate dwelling units not 80 use right and Adu is different it's smaller they're you can impose others three separate let's say two thousand square foot houses you have to have six you have to have six acres and uh this is the subdivision law 4401 definitions and under the definition of a subdivision e through 4E says division of a tractor parcel of land into three or more lots and upon Each of which Lots permanent dwelling structures legally existed before September 23rd 1971 is not a subdivision are you suggesting that was struck down by Court

a court decision yes so there's a case and now I can't remember what it's called it was on a Coastal Community and it's called a functional subdivision yeah but that is a functional subdivision it says that those buildings were put there and a lot of lakefronts you know they have the Cottages yeah so but I think there is it has to have existed before 1971. according to Maximus subdivision law right there is a case that says this is not subdivision okay

exception to the subdivision law there is a separate case that talks about when subdivision doesn't apply also but at this I mean for for my clarification for 2A we're not talking about a single family an additional single family home we're talking about accessory duplex in an accessory yeah or a single family and two accessories yes two ways but not not a single family that's right houses

that's what 2A says doesn't follow exactly the state law with 2A we would try to follow the comprehensive plan which talks about accessory units versus standalone single-family units retain the character without having as Mr Beulah said have a whole bunch of extra houses there well you I don't think you can you can put that limitation so the the single family with two accessories or one two family with an accessory I don't think the state law allows you to put that limitation George summarized that earlier tonight yeah but I had that question four to a if the new

um whatever thing from the state if it conflicts with anything in 2A do we have to go back and look at that okay so can I address because will brought up that question about you can't limit the sizes okay so the the new advisory or ruling that's been issued by becd that we received last week there was a clarification in there to this very question

[Music] uh this is on page nine of the agenda of the agenda packet 4A is what will was referring to in terms of the size that's the minimum size or maximum size of a tiny home correct one not 190 square feet must be at least

190. yes okay and it says b this is the new language that's been added by the attorney general and dec-d unicipalities May set a maximum size for accessory dwelling units in local ordinances as long as accessory dwelling units are not less than 190 square feet so that says that the town can have the 1500 square foot requirement and a 50 limitation

because if you say in the ordinance you are going to allow two accessory units with a single family dwelling the language saying You must allow multiple units doesn't say you can't do that it just says You must allow structural structures with dwelling units so there are two different pieces here right there's dwelling units right and there's adus correct those are different and we can put different restrictions on them so under dwelling units so again we're talking single family homes right under dwelling units which is 3b1 the law contains one existing dwelling Unit A municipality must allow the addition of up to two additional dwelling units the dwelling the dwelling units may be within the existing structure attached or detached from the existing structure or one of each so that says detach from the existing structure says you can have three single detached single-family homes under this section which is different

from the Adu section right but the way the way we've written two-way and if 2A was where did we voted on yep it allows a duplex and an accessory unit or a single family home in two accessory units that's all that's allowed under two ways and accessory units can only be 50 percent of the house and the house has to be at least 1500 square feet yep so we can't but you can't have three 1500 square feet and I'm saying the weight and this was written right in complete fairness to George this was written before the regulation which are much more detailed than the ordinance we were sort of guessing when we drafted this the regulations distinguish between a dwelling unit and an Adu and I don't think that language that we've added in number seven is legal on this dwelling units section of the ranks I would recommend that you request that the town attorney gives you understand

want to do this yeah why why would it say under four sides if that's what you're saying is true distinction yet count as a dwelling unit this the rags are treating them separately and the rules that apply to each of them are different so for example for a regular old dwelling unit you can require increased um lot size right you can't do that for an 82

we have to allow three full units but we could if they're very big you know three houses we can say the property has to be bigger yeah it pretty much would have to be anyway to get the so theoretically you could add accessory dwelling units to the three units if they're not counting his dwelling units no they are counting as dwelling units I think this is a combination a accessory telling units is a subcategory of dwelling units and it's a subcategory that is subject to different right but they would count as dwelling units yes if you limit those dwelling units two accessory units they're still dwelling units we should get an interpretation of that because I I think if we could do 2A that's the cleanest okay so in in your interpretation where adus are not different from full-size dwelling units what does the language in B 3D one B two mean well that's why I'm saying we I think we should get an interpretation

what page are you on man uh page seven basically top of page seven C two right two c two it says detached from the existing structure yep which says the additional dwelling units multiple may be detached from the existing structure but that's we're we're uh we are allowing an accessory unit to be detached you're allowing the regulations but you're only allowing an Adu right so you're not allowing well again

right so dimensional and setbacks yeah again that's why I think we need to get an interpretation of this and not try to do it ourselves but I don't see anything in here that says that a dwelling unit has to be a certain size

restrictions on the dwelling unit size so I think we're good but it would probably be wise to get investigation if you're going to put three units on that one two weeks You're Gonna Change you can change the combustion in general yeah you are who wants that not me I would say the state of Maine is there a lot you know what about the state of Maine okay they they can take the legislature

thank you yep okay uh the gentleman in the back there yeah I I just want to do it um to make an additional statement but I think that personally I think it's important that we do incorporate coordinates changes that and exercise the areas of additional limitation that we want to do that we're allowed to do so that we don't leave it open to

Someone putting uh 3 000 square feet accessory dwelling unit a lot size of the accessories without incorporating an ordinance that includes limitations on the size doing that the the thing that Todd's talking about the code enforcement officer is going to have to approve you know things that

sometimes would stay alive we don't incorporate ordinance changes that recognize the new state law I think that my opinion is it's important that we do incorporate organizations that are in compliance to the new state law and include limitations where those limitations aren't compliance of the state law

comply with water and wastewater yeah there's no doubt about that I mean the state says that Elizabeth I I think well not nothing in this is like like John said if you want to you're going to have to get a building permit and you're gonna have to prove

that you can get a well on there and septic system on there and if you can't then you can build it yeah and we what it does change is what size you know setbacks a lot of houses written it it wouldn't change any of that all it does is allow it and it limits I mean I keep hearing three three thousand square foot houses but you know that's not what we're saying here we're talking about 50 percent of the existing house floor plan and all that all that other stuff so I want to be careful that we just don't start you know selling that the ordinance is going to allow 3 000 Square you know three of them on two acres

it's an additional separate house on a tour of the lot which is not part of what we're talking about on 2A because I think that language into a violates the rules as they're written okay but as there's two ways written now what by whether it violates rules or not in what Todd's saying is something different

would be in that case is an accessory unit so an apartment above a garage apartment on the second floor or a single unit and two accessories George do you agree that 2A yeah MMA attorneys but what about your comments when we say like under 19 100 Chapter Five Section 350 we talk about

1A should say two-way of the draft amendments yeah what about all of those things that you know can you point to a specific one that's your question so any of them okay do you want so I'm just on the front I'm just on the page two yeah page two thank you um under uh chapter 5 Section 3 b1b so we talk about part two a would allow single family home with two different correct but it would not allow two single family homes correct so right there is that yes because this says the language that we have proposed says you can either have a single family with two attached dwelling units to comply with the state law but more importantly to follow the comprehensive plan secondly you could have a duplex with one accessory apartment to follow the comprehensive plan recommendation and be consistent with the state law because you are allowing three dwelling units they are accessory dwelling units but in

my opinion they count as dwelling units and I've asked so can we just talk about a municipal ordinance may not establish let's step back just a second though but we can have this kind of let's we still have a public hearing going so is are there any more public hearing comments

hearing we'll have that discussion Heather Roy hello Rose I do have other questions I'm completely invested in this conversation because this was definitely one of my questions also so I'm glad that it's been addressed um I feel like the way the way to avoid the situation

the changes that have been made for are proposed to be made under both A or B I don't feel like it like addresses these things in a in a way that is not going to present challenges I feel like we need like really and I know that if you make an ordinance too specific then you can get yourself in trouble that way also but um like one of the things about is it building envelopes that we're talking about what you know what I mean like I feel like those things raise questions when it says minimum lot size and we're talking about acreage are we talking about building envelope for these different as well and if that's clear great just show me where it's clear or help me understand the definitions and that's fine I just want to make sure that those types of things are really clear um

increase the bridge is situation where we get one two or more houses on a two lot and that will absolutely change the world character of Their Own um one of the things that I would ask a planning board to please remember as we move into this phase of when this goes into effect is that you can drive down um a country road and an entire like Business Development can be back and because it's buffered so well you would never know it so I would ask that whatever this ends up looking like as like the stewards of what Durham is going to look like even if somebody wants to do a huge development if they have the ability to do that in an open field I know 25 foot tall trees are really expensive please make them plant them I think that buffering is the only way that we're going to be able to be seeing our rural character um hold on

don't know what the rules are about septic systems but like let's say that this was a vacant lot and I know you can only do two one of these a lot before getting into this situation where we're addressing these things how do they determine like if you know can a septic system be I mean like you can build a septic system to serve an apartment building or school or whatever so how how does what

if they just want to put all three of these units into one septic system there there has to be rules that govern that yeah it's based on bedrooms septic system well they'd have to have a really big septic system or they'd have to have two or three septic systems and if it didn't fit on the lot then they couldn't have those units

weren't getting close to well their way so and so then reading it this way one of the other things that I was noticing was that um let's say that someone has a house and they do an accessory whatever detached not detached block and that exists and then they come back later and apply to do the third that's they actually that now triggers subdivision but because we didn't do it at the same time how's that going to then be dealt with depends on the timing so if it's more than five years and then it would trigger subdivision no it's more than five years it would not turn your subdivision

one because there are other exceptions to subdivision there's a family subdivision there's other exceptions but all of those things like that that all been looked at and addressed in I just feel like the changes that we're making to this are really small and it scares me that we're we're overlooking some of the the details that need to happen but just making these small changes I mean they're big changes but I just don't feel like to clarify a question on that if you say someone not that they would but say they built a house and then two transfer units all at the same time retained ownership of all of them that one trip subdivision right based on the new proposed language if that got voted on if you have a single family dwelling and you add two dwelling two accessory apartments and you rent those two accessory Apartments you still own the property and the single family so you've only created two new dwelling units so

you're not triggering subdivision right you can create two New Lots if if the existing lot is your homestead you can create two New Lots if you give it to a family member or two in a butter or to think there are exceptions to subdivision and those apply to the division of a property by dwelling unit or uh or commercial or all of it but if you added accessory it's not really dividing the property right well the definition of subdivision includes multiple dwelling Construction

over the aquifer to protect but now we're going to be in a position where are you allowed to have a yes okay so I guess maybe the differences between accessory and dwelling unit but like we're splitting our law into three now splitting it into three walks which brings me to my wall it's probably not my last question

this is it this is the deal is this the stuff they're taking public comment on the thing that they they are taking public comment on that okay is that something that like anybody can go make public comment on so one of the things that I really feel concerned about is the rate of growth the very last thing that's on page 10d and it says that accessory dwelling units do not count uh towards our permit total for the municipal rate of growth ordinance that's really scary to me because if we were now putting three potentially three families into what used to have been one permit and that's all going into I always use the school system as an example but that's all going into the school system and that's not counting towards that number I think it's 45 I'm not sure I can't remember what it is where it triggers our um you know we can enact this thing the more electronic there's 45 more minutes for the moratorium and it doesn't

control over that but I I would ask that you know you know officials and whatnot really make an effort to make a public comment on that at the state level because that's that's really going to impact um the school system our property our taxes because you know so much of our tax code does go to the school and the fact that Freeport has like 142

need to get considered anything else to keep this moving I'm sure there's a lot more all right one more question from the gentleman the back um so just a another 43 64 World War figure event 4364 B 3 zoning requirements take your perspective accessory dwelling units so this is

30A 4364b that I printed it's about out of the package States accessory dwelling units Municipal zoning ordinances must comply with the following conditions a at least one accessory drawing unit must be allowed on any law for a single family dwelling unit is the principal structure

qbi Noise reiterated States the vein dwelling unit must have at least 1500 square feet of floor area I think that that is in conflict with the state law all right and any others going going gone the public hearing is closed so I'll open it up to board discussion

where do you want to start with whoever starts it so I don't know if you want to keep fighting about whether 2a7 is legal or not I can walk you through it if anyone wants to hear it I don't think anyone does but I think we should get rid of 2A all together as I don't think it provides enough protection and if I'm right that seven is illegal um what will happen is a landowner will come in and they will want to build their free single families what do you mean by seven is illegal I'm not sure what you're referring to by seven so in 2A section 4.1 A7 24. I think that's in conflict with the new Rex 24.

4.187 main law and I assure as hell hope it isn't uh because every day I think you know 2A does offer us a lot of protection it doesn't allow three big houses on two acre lot in and I actually think we should get rid of 2B and just go with QA or just have two so and if let me let me walk you through this just before

you don't believe it without understanding okay go ahead and store Augusta yeah George go ahead well I was just going to ask you the question if 2A does not pass does not the very thing that you're concerned about happen under 2B or the state laws to be fails well let's let's start right because Ron doesn't believe my interpretation which is fine he doesn't want to hear me explain my interpretation but I'm going to go ahead go ahead I've heard it but I so all right so seven okay

same same page all right page 24 4.1 A7 right that tries to limit the number of dwelling units to a single one single family with two accessories and accessories have size limitations on them right or a two family which I believe in our definition has to be a joined right and yep plus an accessory correct which accessory also has a limitation yep yep so going backwards to page

yeah see this is the the state rag it says basically you have to allow these dwelling units to be attach within attached detached or one of each right here's this this is on page seven right up here okay yep okay so we're already not complying with that because the two family has to be I don't know you're gonna go slower I'm not ready to follow you okay well I think one existing going of up to two dwelling years [Music] two additional dwelling units yeah but nothing in there says that it ha it can't be an accessory unit or we can't make it I mean so that it is all right so first of all it says they may be detached yeah right and we're allowing success and so then follow me down to 3A which says you cannot establish dimensional requirements four dwelling units allowed pursuant to this section this section does not deal with adus pursuant to this section that are more restrictive than the dimensional requirements for

single-family houses then you go to the definition wait less of us one by one okay that is we believe that is in reference to setbacks okay of dimensional requirements so then you go to that and it says dimensional requirements page five you highlighted it means requirements which govern the size

of structures size and placement of structures yep I'm focused on size right because adus have size limits right you don't I don't think we're done yet because there's the neck there's the section further on they're different adus so this section four deals with adus section three deals with dwelling units

adus are a type of dwelling unit so adus you can put size restrictions on yeah take your time whatever you're ready yep okay uh I'll reconvene the meeting as Devin said uh we're having audio issues so speakers you know as loudly as you can uh and when you listen to it tomorrow it may not be as clear as it was a few minutes ago so I forgot where we were so I think Ian if you would continue here's my proposal I would get rid of 2A I would focus on 2B I would have

two family dwellings which is an attached I would add a minimum lot size for two dwellings on a single lot and three dwellings on a single lot that are double and triple tar minimum lot size I would and make it clear that that does not include adus it's a dwelling that is not an Adu and then I regardless of whether you agree that we can't have a um you know a requirement on the main dwelling unit I do agree that it's cleaner if we just have sizes in there so I would put a minimum of 190 at a maximum of 900 for adus and then I would take out um I think we need to take out and see subsection C because I think that conflicts with the rules so that's what I would do to 2B any thoughts on that Ron um I've got a question okay so is the main concern with 2A and not following the

state is that we are not allowing more than one single family home correct is that the main issue right with what we're talking with what your interpretation is as far as it not yeah right so we're not allowing three detached single-family homes of any size right so instead of scrapping 2A all together

what if we amend the sections that deal with that which is I think what 3v1b and 3B want to see and not all of it my thing with 2A is that we approve this voted on this because it's following our comp plan the closest I believe is what we had talked about I think what we've heard people and and this whole thing is for affordable housing instead so it's I think doing that though would change our 2A it would a little bit but I'm just I'm just throwing that out there so let me ask you what remind me what does the comp plan say that you think this is necessary to accomplish it is

oh yeah before we went on pause he didn't ask me a question um I feel that everything we've you've presented it's not black and white it's not well written it's not super clear I feel that it may conflicts itself and I feel it would be good to get an official

because if they agree that 2A is in compliance then I think that puts it right back on the table yet the comp plan is right behind me it's what you know we've heard a lot of support for that in the audience and we've heard a lot of support for it doing something that opens it up more than that sure but either way so I mean I think so which part are you um

2.1 they're talking about allowing three units for units multiple housing um uh it's allowing for smaller smaller housing and smaller Lots affordable housing is pretty much in general what it's doing but if we do add the single family house or unit 22A then it does

take away from this but if we're saying you need to per state law then we have to right but you lost me I'm sorry so the thing that we are stuck on is what is a dwelling right is it a single-family home that's ridiculous

it can be a single family yeah right um if that is the only issue then why don't we just add that into the 2A piece what else is different between 2A and 2B that that we are that you'd like to see because you said scrap2a all together yeah so 2A doesn't provide any it's this an increase increased acreage right right per lot is what you're saying which kind of goes against the comp plan so well that refers to

right that refers to a duplex with an accessory or Farmhouse South four Flex which are all attached and frankly I don't I don't think it's a great idea but whatever and that also says with design standards to make them compatible with typical Durham housing which we don't have right other than the limitations or in accessory departments I think yeah I think the general sense that they're looking for smaller units not three and four full you know not like a four Plex or a free Plex but um is there anything below this story

but I think this yeah I think the I've heard that it's you know the idea is that farmhouse style fourplex it's more of the size of a farmhouse not the size of four full-size units if I may interject I I guess the question is we a lot of what you you are discussing we considered when we voted back in January that included not you know we elected to go with 2A because it was the closest to the compliment we considered in the survey considered raising a lot lot sizes so as a board we voted back then to not go with that as an option uh certainly we have that we can change that this evening we went with 2B as a f2a fails we have to have

something because if to be sales and we have the state law which whether you think it was a good idea or not it is the state law and and I'm not sure I'm in a position to just say screw the state well I was too being difficult in the state law Tubi is not significantly it is yeah Etc

why don't we just get rid of 2B the other thing is to have a discussion about increasing lot sizes is not going to work between now and the first of April right I mean we we have put a lot of time I'm not again it's a board vote but I don't think we can sit here tonight and say three acres are good four acres are good 10 acres you know for a single family lot and whatever we do impacts more than just houses with accessory units on it correct me if I'm wrong if we say you have to have a 10 acre lot to have accessory units you have to have a 10 acre Montana a single family house is that I'm not comfortable making that call today okay so accessory units you cannot have a different lot size you can't that's what the state law says yes for dwellings that are not accessory units you can have a larger lot size housing density that's dwelling density okay but again I whatever the definition I'm not comfortable sitting here tonight

and taking the acreage out of my thought out of my butt and say it has to be four acres or five acres because you know whatever it is if it's 10 acres and somebody wants to do it they'll do it you know land prices go down you get more sprawl and maybe you intended to as a consequence of any rash decision we make tonight so the question is are we comfortable with 2A and 2B as written if not do we make a minor change that we can we can live with or do we scrap it and not present anything to the select them I don't think you really have a choice I think that for the legal person

to review is going to take who knows how long right and then if we want to revise it we're going to need more time to do that even if we revise 2A I don't think that's really a minor change I think that's somewhat a bigger change so my my thought is to kind of Kick this one down a little bit but can we have a special meeting in like June we vote on the school budget in June just saying we already come to the polls to vote in June so can we do you know maybe thinking this a little when do we have to have that passed by when is this one is the town meeting no no July so we could call a special town meeting for the school vote foreign

the regs I don't see that much significantly well I think 2A might not be allowed down you want to have a conversation please step aside so with their thoughts um do we want to punt on this until a future meeting this time next year no well his father is well that's what I'm asking you he'll probably just got I feel like we just got clarification on the reg that we've had in you know really confirmed our thoughts and I and I take George as a professional planner of what he is he has said is you know he believes that we are in compliance with what they're saying between the comp plan and the the goal of increasing housing

vote and it has to pass we're not going to make changes it since as is if it's changing I'd take three votes to change it so my motion is to add to 2B not an Adu a minimum lot size of twice the minimum lot size first single family and three times minimum lot size for three units and also so that's detached that are not adus

also to um in 5.1 B to eliminate the first sentence and make it 190 square feet minimum and 900 square feet maximum and then to eliminate 5.1 C okay understand the um the minimum block size increases so let's go to necessarily walk on board yet with changes to the how we Define the accessory units what were those numbers for the size 190 to 900.

what's currently allowed for a lot of houses right now I'm happy to discuss that number but I don't know that is the stumbling block I am happy I mean I would just say a minimum and up to 50 percent okay when we close the public hearing foreign

let me let me walk through it again so my motion on 2B is to leave everything is there okay add an additional minimum lot size for two detached dwelling units of 180 000 square feet and add a minimum lot size for three detached dwelling units of whatever three times ninety thousand is

okay so that's that's a detached dwelling units that are not adus lot size requirements detached dwelling units that are not adus I agree with Will with making the language match the language of the state a to use instead of accessory departments and then on 5.1 B eliminating the first

sentence putting in a range of 190 whatever the hell you guys are comfortable with and eliminating C all together so I don't think that's legal I think that works however [Music] recommendation to find you for lock size yep 3.1 and would that be consistent with that so I think it is because duplexes are staying the same you have to reduce I mean honestly I'd even be okay with 4.17 minimum lot size for two families right now it's 110. I'm fine with producing that to 90 000 which is exactly what 3.1 says if everybody feels like that's the best way to do it say that again what would you do so 3.1 basically says right now duplexes you have to have 110 000 square feet 3.1 says reduce that to 90 000 square feet that wasn't proposed in this it's not proposed in a if it makes everybody happy I don't care it actually is to it

let's just take it out all together so I mean if it makes you guys happy like I don't I'm not worried about duplexes square feet I don't care we have a motion is there a second for the motion I think we're taking friendly amendments

just like to say that I I I'm sorry I'm not going to vote on this motion because I feel like if we are going to be changing it like this we need more discussions we need it I think we need to have a second On Emotion um we're making so we don't have emotions okay

max of an Adu I'm gonna stick with 900 because nobody has given me a better size no is it normal to keep the bags at 50. well 50 of what though the main menu if you've got a cab but I don't feel that strongly about it departments shall be at least 190 square feet and not exceed 50 of them yes

till the mission to Marge is ready to copy it to amend to be to add a minimum lot size for two detached dwelling units that are not adus to 180 000 square feet to add a minimum lot size for three detached dwelling units that are not adus to 270 000 square feet

to reduce minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling to 90 000 square feet 5.1 B to read an Adu shall be at least 190 square feet in floor area and shall not exceed 50 of the Fourier main dwelling unit and to strike 5.1 C that's my emotion is there a second

okay I didn't see no sound you second it okay uh Is there further discussion [Music] um I just say what I what I said before is I I really feel like we should take more time and talk about what's going to be on the TV ballot and try and get me to a June

medium so I'm putting the ones and I will also vote I just think I appreciate the thought and all of us I'm not saying it's going to be wrong I just think that we're moving very quickly pulling people apart my French pulling stuff out of our butt that may or may not I always fear the law of unintended consequences and also one last thing too is our

going to do that then I think we need to be more clear to the public with what that's going to be up front playing the statements silent great the changes that I made are with respect to minimum lot size and the state says you can do it but you don't have to right right that's actually really cool right yeah

kind of keep in line with and interpretation of the new kind of Regulation guys I don't disagree I just think that we came up with numbers and lot sizes and other things that we probably need to put more thought into so I'm about to call the will but just having said that itself we have a motion uh we have a second all those in favor raise a hand all those opposed raise a hand so tie it does not act so that the next step then is what do we we have two amendments I'll make a motion I'll go right ahead okay I'll make a motion to kind of make them make this motion to um I don't know what I say table this and send it to not send this to this so we would officially pull both Amendment articles uh that is that the correct line yes thank you okay with intention of things we would not have this on the town yes yeah then I think we just we sit down at a calmer time or when we have more time to say do we want to take this

to the Jew and you're not saying we don't we want to take this to a a vote on at the June meeting we also have an election in November do we want more time uh to do it I mean at this point I don't know that we need to rush to try to get something done by the first of two hours so we have a motion to

okay so 2A and 2B and then uh uh we just you know we get a chance as a planning board I sit down and say okay what what do we want to do into the next step I'm concerned about rushing we spent a lot of time doing this I'm sure there's a lot of folks here tonight who may favor this but I am also assure that so that he'll like talk to a collection uh don't necessarily want to have a bigger lot so I'd like to kind of go back through a process instead of going this is a major change is what I'm stumbling to say okay that's done let's move on to roads

open the public hearing is on roads um somebody asked the question yes there was a lot of discussion that the last Tom meeting about with the road pavement of Roads so on and so forth the only question that we're proposed or said to submit to the selectment and then on to the town meeting is that the approval of private roads would be at a town private roads becoming public roads is at a town meeting okay so the public hearing is open those of you who would like to discuss this Roy [Music]

does it need to specifically say that because right now there's no pathway correct for a private road to become a public road there's no policy for World Acceptance there is it's covered in state law okay can you tell me what that is this we don't need this because it's in state law this is what state law says

the intent was to make it really clear that when I remember I'm sorry I apologize go right ahead the I feel like part of what was driving the need for this was that the changes that were being made that's why I was asking what was happening with all of those other changes because I think all of those other changes were driving the need for this to exist but since none of those other things happened that was why it was or or don't you know we're not putting all of that stuff back out that was why I questioned I think there was a comment made at last year's top sorry to interrupt you but there was a comment made at last year's town meeting that sowed confusion about who got to the fear a desire to make sure that it came

before the town that the town didn't accept additional costs unless the town at a town meeting approved right and I think that the changes last year made it pathway for that to happen and therefore people wanted this specific language to make sure that this was the way that it did take place because the other changes

my concern with this is like what used to happen where everybody that lived on a private road showed up a town meeting voted when this question came up and then left because they were just there to get their Road approved and and so that that's my that's just my public that's my common and we can do with it what you will but if this is what state law is then I mean there's really no resource to that situation yeah I mean it's just making it clear so that an HOA can sit down and say let's get this approved by the selectment that they can so uh so yeah I I think we probably don't need to clarifying language I think I understand why people felt like we should include it um if we are going to include a clarifying language I would recommend further clarifying in that the current language States acceptance of the current proposed language rather acceptance of any road by the county fair must be approved

downtown meeting um I think that language is a little only clear because it's not saying it doesn't say like so my recommendation for a language is acceptance of any private road or way as a Town Road must be approved at and then I'm not positive because I'm not I'm just not out of town ordinance except an expert but I I think there may

be other special vote opportunities like if someone did a petition I'm not sure that if someone were to petition to have a road added if that would go to a special vote work that would go to a special town meeting um so uh that's a good point if there are other if there are others that's why and one of the reasons I'm agreeing with Anne that we probably should

you know if we're going to list the ways that it can be approved and I don't know if how many may be the only way I don't think it is it May but if we're going to list the ways that it may be approved we should list all the ways so that was my comment okay thank you Joe yeah hi Joe Tom 1180 Drive um if I remember correctly back in the early 2000s board that we actually had some garbage

in there that had to go poor road that was built to the specific Road standard many ordinances the only roads that were accepted back then the only reason I do remember is our neighborhood did go up the boat that year when it was accepted as a Town Road summer of 2000 probably four or five-ish

town meeting and you and what the language was used to be in the audiences that clearly stated how is that language now I didn't read through that language still here I'm assuming that this this statement right here applies to a road that was built to the standard set forth and uh throughout the ordinance or a portion of you understand that crashes these roads so the uh the town can't accept any road that's not built to Public Road standards in 2000 and 2004

the town adopted a comprehensive plan that included a growth area and it also adoptedly growth management ordinance that stipulated that Public Road would only be accepted into the growth area and then it just that's pretty much what it said it must be Public Road stand which is probably what we felt because we're at the top of it yeah yeah I mean 28 2019 the growth area been eliminated

and that growth management ordinance got eliminated with it and at the time I pointed out to the start board that they didn't have a road acceptance policy which most towns do have which spells out in clear detail everything that's required including a bond including a d to the road all of those things are typically laid out in a street acceptance policy in which the town still doesn't have

we want the the public road to uh Private Road meeting could be written by the selectman to say this is what you have to do correct me if I'm wrong though when we approve a subdivision the roads have to be built to town standards they are built to a private road standard okay but they can come on okay so any other comments about this

seeing none I closed the public hearing and open it up to more discussions and unnecessary why it's uh like we tried to have a vote on it last time and something we had a there were several Private Road Road issues up there with Paving how many Lots so on and so forth this was rolled up into that and the whole article failed and then there was a request after that meeting uh last summer to just make very clear that on the public and that was concerned about you know I assume they didn't want the selectment accepting uh private roads as public and so they want to make it clear that it can only be accepted at a

I think it actually came from one of the Selectmen I was wrong yeah one of the selectments did not want the issue which of voting so the organism s is that correct yes we're not dealing with any other Road issues other than this and so silly

or not I will make a motion is there any make a motion that we approve again we approve this article where to approve sending it to the selection I'll second that any further comments seeing none those in favor raise a hand those opposed raise a hand uh three to one

passed tonight will go to the Selectmen on the 28th I believe thank you so much okay thank you any further discussion about closing this meeting raise a hand please yes