Public Information Meeting - Land Use Ordinance Amendments

2025-10-22 · Public Information Meeting · 1:30:41 · watch on YouTube →

This was a public information meeting, not a hearing, on proposed land use ordinance amendments, and nothing was voted on. The chair, John, explained that the select board directed the planning board to codify the land use ordinance, that a consulting firm has completed an editorial and legal analysis, and that the codification and the policy changes would go forward as two separate warrant articles. George Thebarge, the town planner, then presented seven policy topics in turn with public questions after each: back lots and private ways, non-conforming structures, subdivision road buffers, noise standards, fire protection for subdivisions, marijuana growing facilities, and manufactured housing and accessory apartments. Residents raised the definition of a recognised road, when multiple back lots become a subdivision, how agricultural noise is classified, and whether a 23-foot right of way can physically hold a road. The chair asked that blasting, fireworks and gunfire be exempted from the noise standards within the hours state law already allows, and Heather Roy (?) asked that the school be considered for exemption too; both were taken under advisement. A second public information meeting was set for November 12 at 6:30.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:42
   Purpose and process

   John opened at 6:30 and said no vote would be taken. He explained the select board set the planning board's task in July, that codification is the main piece, and that the sequence is public information meetings, a planning board recommendation to the select board, a formal public hearing once wording is locked in, and then town meeting. A second information meeting would cover the administrative changes.

2. 6:05
   What codification involves

   George Thebarge (?) said the town hired a consulting firm that writes ordinances for about 34 Maine towns and uses a digitised framework, replacing the single downloadable PDF now on the website with something searchable and cross-referenced. Their editorial and legal analysis found typographical and grammatical errors, inconsistent terms such as selectman and select board, and places where the ordinance conflicts with state law. Codification would be one warrant article and the policy changes a separate one, so any contentious item can be pulled out.

3. 11:18
   Back lots and private ways

   A back lot, or flag lot, must be at least five acres with a 50-foot strip to a road, and currently requires a 20-foot road to be built even for a single house. The proposal reduces that to a 16-foot driveway with the fire chief signing off on access for emergency vehicles. It also moves private way approval entirely to the planning board, rather than splitting it between the code officer for the lots, the road commissioner for the road and the planning board for the maintenance agreement, and settles the inconsistency between code officers over whether two or five acres applies to multiple back lots on a private way.

4. 16:21
   Questions on access and landlocked parcels

   A resident asked whether a landlocked parcel could use the back lot provisions; George Thebarge (?) said yes if a 50-foot right of way to a recognised road exists. He confirmed access cannot come off another driveway, only off a legally established public or private road as shown on the town street map, and that anything serving more than one lot becomes a private way requiring planning board approval and a maintenance agreement.

5. 21:24
   When back lots become a subdivision

   Heather Roy (?) asked at what point dividing a family parcel triggers subdivision review. George Thebarge (?) said creating three separate parcels in any five-year period is a legal subdivision, with exemptions for transfers to certain blood relatives at less than 50% of market value, but that road access for any of them still needs approval as a private way. She asked that the process and who to approach first be set out clearly on the town website.

6. 26:31
   Board discussion on the 16-foot driveway

   It was confirmed the 16 feet is road surface, with slopes and ditches outside that. A board member said the change removes a real financial burden, citing a neighbour who started at 16 feet and had to rebuild to 20. The fire chief took part in the discussion and concurred with 16 feet for a single back lot and 20 for private ways.

7. 26:31
   Non-conforming structures and expansions

   The current provisions were copied from other ordinances, limiting expansion of a non-conforming structure to 30% and sending anything more to the board of appeals, which can only consider groundwater effects already covered by the state plumbing code. The requirement for planning board approval of the foundation location came from state guidelines for lakefront camps and makes no sense for a setback from a property line. Under the proposal the code officer could approve an addition that itself meets all setbacks, and non-conforming uses, structures and lots would be handled only by the code officer and the board of appeals.

8. 32:00
   How non-conformity comes to light

   George Thebarge (?) said it usually surfaces through a mortgage survey or when someone applies for a building permit for an addition, and that a house built in 1850 is plainly lawfully non-conforming while something built in 1980 in breach of a setback may be unlawfully non-conforming. Members recalled a case at the corner of Rabbit Road and Route 136 where a title attorney found the house too close to the line and the owner obtained a letter from the select board saying it would not enforce. The codification will fix the conflict between the definition of setback, which mentions the right of way, and article three, which does not.

9. 37:49
   Why the board of appeals handles extensions

   A board member asked why an extension of the one-year discontinuance period for a non-conforming use should go to the board of appeals rather than the planning board. George Thebarge (?) said non-conforming uses, variances and similar matters are handled by boards of appeals under state law, in the same way that boards of appeals do not review private ways or subdivisions.

10. 37:49
    Subdivision road buffers

    A 50-foot buffer is currently required between an existing road and a new subdivision, but nothing is required where a new subdivision road runs alongside existing homes. The proposal gives the planning board discretionary authority to require buffering in that situation, rather than making it automatic, since 100 feet of existing woods would make an added buffer pointless. Board members said abutters are notified and their input is taken into account.

11. 42:54
    Noise standards

    The ordinance currently applies the residential standard of 55 decibels by day and 45 at night to every use in town, including scattered businesses with machinery. The proposal creates three classes, residential, agricultural and business, with higher limits for the latter two, changes daytime from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., sets a 75 decibel maximum for impulsive sound on the town attorney's advice, moves the construction noise cut-off from 6:30 a.m. to 7 a.m., and specifies that a noise study must be done by a certified acoustical engineer covering ambient baseline, source, impact and mitigation.

12. 48:46
    Question on agricultural classification

    Cassie (?) of Sand Hill (?) asked how a property is classified as agricultural rather than residential. George Thebarge (?) said agriculture is a use, not a property class, so woods or an idle field is not agriculture, and that forest harvesting is forestry and would probably fall under the commercial limit. At the property line during the day a continuous commercial noise such as stump grinding could not exceed 65 decibels.

13. 48:46
    Proposed exemptions for blasting, fireworks and gunfire

    John (?) asked that blasting, fireworks and gunfire be exempted from the noise limits within the hours state law already permits. Durham has no fireworks ordinance and follows state law, which allows use between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m., extended to 12:30 a.m. around July 4 and December 31, and says nothing about noise. He also raised recreational shooting ranges, saying he did not want legal activity turned into a noise violation, and questioned the use of hammering as an example of impulsive noise in the draft.

14. 54:31
    Definitions and enforcement

    George Thebarge (?) read the definitions now posted on the website: continuous noise is a steady level over time, impulsive noise is short, usually under a second, with abrupt onset and rapid decay, and intermittent noise rises and falls rapidly, as with passing vehicles or cycling machinery. Enforcement would be by complaint through the code officer. John (?) noted the one operator who blasts in town gives neighbours notice and that fireworks users generally announce their timing.

15. 1:00:17
    Construction hours and a school exemption

    A builder said crews want to be on site by 5:30 or 6:30 in summer, especially for roofing, and that the draft reads as barring construction rather than construction noise. The board agreed to consider going back to 6:30 a.m. or rewording it so the restriction is on noise exceeding the limits at the property line. Heather Roy (?) suggested exempting the school, so that taxpayers are not put in the position of having to pay to mitigate playground noise for people who move in nearby.

16. 1:00:17
    Fire protection in subdivisions

    The fire department raised concerns that underground cisterns are not usable or maintainable. The proposal removes cisterns as an option and instead treats a newly constructed fire pond, a dry hydrant on an existing water source, and home sprinklers as equally acceptable. Mike Abbott of Garrett Lane (?) asked whether sprinklers would still only give a volume reduction; the answer was that sprinklers alone would satisfy the requirement, subject to meeting specification.

17. 1:06:16
    Marijuana growing facilities

    Durham has opted out of commercial marijuana, but state law allows personal and medical cultivation of three flowering plants, twelve immature plants and unlimited seedlings, secured and screened from view. The town attorney identified a loophole where several individuals each renting space in one greenhouse can aggregate into what amounts to a growing facility with neither state nor town oversight. The proposal is to prohibit that outright if legally possible, or otherwise make it a conditional use with standards and give the code officer inspection authority.

18. 1:11:34
    Questions on tax treatment and agriculture

    Rebecca (?) asked whether growers are taxed differently as a business; George Thebarge (?) said there is no separate commercial property tax rate, only property tax. Heather Roy (?) asked whether an agricultural classification could create another loophole, since agriculture does not require a conditional use permit. He agreed that agriculture needs a clearer definition and that this activity could be specifically excluded from it.

19. 1:17:12
    Manufactured housing and accessory apartments

    These changes are required by state law and the town has no discretion. Standalone accessory apartments and tiny homes as accessory dwellings must be allowed rather than being confined to the main building or an outbuilding. The town's 14-foot width and 3:12 roof pitch requirements for mobile homes must give way to a 2:12 maximum for any state-licensed unit, the 20-acre minimum for a mobile home park cannot be required, minimum lots drop to 20,000 square feet with septic or 12,000 with central sewer, road right of way cannot be required above 23 feet with 20 feet of road, and overhead electrical must be allowed.

20. 1:22:26
    Questions on rights of way and accessory apartments

    Todd (?) said a 20-foot road with ditches cannot physically fit in a 23-foot right of way, and George Thebarge agreed a developer may simply be unable to make it work since the town can only be barred from requiring more. Heather Roy pointed out the conflict between 23 feet for a mobile home park serving many homes and 50 feet for a single back lot. Mike Abbott (?) asked how a standalone accessory apartment differs from a house; it is capped at 50% of the main house floor area under the town's own rule, needs a septic system or a tie-in to the existing one, and cannot be sold separately unless a condominium is created.

21. 1:27:45
    Next meeting and fireworks

    The next public information meeting, first announced as November 15, was corrected to November 12 at 6:30 at the same location, to be advertised on the town blast and website. Asked whether a fireworks ordinance is under consideration, board members said the select board has twice indicated the town will simply follow state law, which addresses hours and quantities of explosives but not noise.

What was decided

• 0:42
  The chair stated at the outset that this was an information meeting and that nothing would be voted on. No formal motions were made at any pointoutcome unclear
• 48:46
  The chair's request to exempt blasting, fireworks and gunfire from the noise standards within the hours state law already allows was taken under advisement for discussion at a later meetingtabled
• 1:00:17
  Moving the construction noise cut-off back to 6:30 a.m., or rewording it so the restriction applies to noise at the property line rather than to being on site, was taken under advisementtabled
• 1:00:17
  Heather Roy's suggestion of a noise exemption for the school was taken under advisementtabled
• 1:27:45
  The second public information meeting on the remaining amendments was set for November 12 at 6:30, correcting an earlier announcement of November 15passed

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

Worth knowing

• 11:18
  The road a single back lot has to build would drop from 20 feet to a 16-foot driveway of road surface, with the fire chief signing off on emergency access. All private way approvals would move to the planning board instead of being split between the code officer, the road commissioner and the planning board.
• 42:54
  The noise ordinance would change substantially: daytime hours extended from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. out to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., separate limits for residential, agricultural and business uses instead of the current 55 decibels day and 45 at night for everyone, a 75 decibel cap on impulsive sound, and any enforceable measurement having to come from a certified acoustical engineer.
• 1:06:16
  Durham has opted out of commercial marijuana, but the town attorney has identified a loophole where several people each growing their personal legal limit in one greenhouse adds up to an unregulated growing facility. The town will try to prohibit it, or failing that make it a conditional use subject to planning board review and code officer inspection.
• 1:17:12
  Several manufactured housing changes are not optional. State law overrides the town's 14-foot width and 3:12 roof pitch rules, the 20-acre minimum for mobile home parks, the 40,000 square foot minimum lot, and the requirement for underground utilities, and requires that standalone accessory apartments and tiny homes be allowed.

Elsewhere

← 2023-12-07 Public Information Meeting2025-11-12 Public Information Meeting →All meetings