TranscriptPublic Information Meeting - Land Use Ordinance Amendments

resale are probably I mean there are a lot that games you can go probably $2 and watch their screen. Yeah. And now [Music] I actually Road. Oh, okay. you on? Okay. Um, I guess we'll go ahead and get started. My eyes say it's 6:30. So, uh, please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with all. we're good. Uh, and we will not be voting on anything tonight. So, uh, I will start with just kind of a quick introduction of, uh, what we're doing tonight and hopefully why you're here. So, uh, we have been in the process and we've been doing this for the last couple two or three years of making some changes to the land use ordinance, trying to update it, bring it in line with, you know, modern times also what the state requires and also areas where we've had problems with, you know, or confusion maybe is a better way to say that. So the process has been that we met back in I think July with the chairs of the various uh committees and worked with the select board. The select board game is kind of our marching orders. These are the things we'd like to like you to work on. Uh so planning board

that was uh codification is the primary and codification is a new format to the uh uh land use ordinance. So it is uh not a lot in and of itself. It's not a lot of changes to land use ordinance, but it uh it you know it kind of puts everything in the right categories. Gets rid of you know um some conflicts

and a consultant we hired a consultant consultant pointed out some conflicts and things that are confusing. So some of it is as simple as use the term select board. Um in the p you know it's been select person select board what's the right term in some is one to ours. Uh some really simple stuff like that. And then they also pointed out where the things where we are in conflict with the state law. Uh so tiny homes as an example that the state has uh implemented rules on tiny homes that we don't have. And so the codes the code enforcement guy has been issuing permits based upon the state uh law. And so we're trying to clean some of that stuff up. And then again, like I said, there are some things that minor policies that uh and you'll see some of those this evening where uh it's just been confusing who's responsible for what or maybe we're a little out of date uh with what's going on. So uh with that uh and

so I'm sorry so select board gave us that mission uh we started working on it as a planning board with Mr. Targe if you haven't been our excellent town planner went out dug up a bunch of information for us put some samples together so we've been working on some of the stuff that you're going to see tonight and in future meetings for I guess two months plus August September and now into October. And so the step we're on is to do informational meetings, uh, publicformational meetings so that you have a chance to to see what we're doing, ask questions about what we're doing. Uh, this is not a formal public hearing. So, we'll do a couple of those, work our way through the changes, and then the planning board will put together our recommendations on changes for uh the land use ordinance, send it to the select board, and the select board will then say, "Yes, this is what we want to do. We like that. Change this

and then send it back to us for a public a formal public hearing." Um and then once that public hear and once they do that that it the verbiage starts to get locked in. Um but then the um we have a public hearing and then it goes before the town meeting in July something early this coming year. So it's a little bit different in that regard. So we'll have another meeting to cover other parts of the the land use ordinance changes in November. November 15th, I believe, is scheduled for. Um, and so plan to don't have anything going on November 15th and you're interested, come on back. Um, and we'll go over some new stuff. We might also go over the some of the uh actions we've taken upon your comments. So, the process this evening is Mr. bars will do a better job of explaining what I just said and then uh we will go one by one

on the minor what we're calling the minor policy changes. You'll have an opportunity to come up and ask questions, address your concerns. Um, we may or may not get them answered this evening, but we'll take notes on them and then then we'll stop the public process and the planning board will then bowl over it and give Mr. Devar's guidance on how to go forward for the next step. So, if that makes makes sense. And so, that's what we're going to do. So if you when you it's your turn if you want to speak please come up to the table or you can sit in the front row. We do no longer have microphones. So the only microphone is on the camera uh back in that corner. So please you don't have to look at it but please speak loudly clearly announce what enunciate what you're saying slowly so that we can pick that up because we use that if there's any questions about what did he or she say? What do you think

they meant by that? and you'll start off with your uh name and address. And with that, I'll have Mr. Karge, he's leaving, uh give a quick update on where we are and start off with the first minor issue, please. Thank you, John. Uh I just wanted to mention if anybody didn't pick up one of these uh on the way in, this is these are summary sheets of each of the issues. So, we'll post it on the website, but we printed up some copies tonight if anybody would like.

Yes. Got one. Everybody got one? Okay, great. Thank you. You can't leave unless you signed in. So, please sign in on the way up and out the door if you haven't already. So, what I'm going to I'm going to do is kind of get into a little bit, not in the weeds, but at least in the trees to show you what is involved in this. Uh, and these are summaries. And if you go to the website, you'll also see actual draft language. But for tonight's purposes, I think the board wants to just give the general policy guidance and direction. And then uh have people kind of indicate yes, this is uh makes sense or uh there are some real concerns, we're moving in that direction. And then obviously we kind of take a deeper look at the policy before getting into the details. So, uh, the

overall project, as John said, the town has hired a consulting firm that does ordinances for about 34 towns in Maine. And they have a digitized framework. You may recall that a couple of years ago, the town paid to have the tax digitized, and those are now available online for citizen access and use. And this is kind of the same idea. Right now we just have a PDF on the on the um website of the ordinance. You have to download the whole thing. You can't really cross reference or do searches and those sorts of things. So this will make that much more uh usable for the the general public. So as John said they've completed what they call an editorial and legal analysis and in that process they identified um both typographical errors not just term terms you call it select word to select them or other uh but just plain type of typographical errors missing words misspelled words those sorts of things

uh and grammatical errors where the language just doesn't make sense the way it's stated. So based on all of their research and other ordinances, they're going to be proposing corrections in those areas. And then as John said, there are just some places where the town is just not in compliance with state law. Um, and one that we're going to deal with and I'll address a little bit tonight is manufactured housing because there have been significant changes in that realm. So, as John also said, uh this is an opportunity for the planning board to address some issues that come up frequently during subdivision reviews and u application of the ordinance where some areas are just just plain confusing. And we'll kind of show you a few of those tonight. And the goal is to eliminate the confusion, improve efficiency, and address some of these issues that keep coming up in an ordinance in the uh review of the

projects and the ordinance just doesn't deal with them. Um and so the idea is to have the codification that mechanical part as one warrant article and then put these policy issues as a separate warrant article. Um and then as this process goes forward and presenting these to the public if any of them like um the tiny homes or anything like that kind of gets sticky in terms of the public process, people have real concerns about it. there is always the option of pulling that out of these minor policy issues and dealing with it separately either in the next town meeting or putting it off until after that. So that's kind of the goal. As John said, they're going to be two public uh meetings. This one we're going to focus on these minor policies, but then there are some administrative changes that we'll be dealing with uh at the meeting in November explaining those. So the first of the policy issues

if I get that to advance is uh backlotss and private ways. Uh in many communities they have provisions for back lots and they have commission uh provisions for approving a private way. And typically a private way is a situation where someone is developing several lots a family in particular uh but they're not uh they don't have the capital resources or the intent of developing a subdivision to sell lots. And so state law provides exemptions uh where people can do multiple lots and most towns have a set of provisions called private way standards that really focus on the creation of the road. Doesn't get into all the issues that some divisions get into with water supplies and wildlife studies and all of those things. It just focuses on making sure that the road that's going to serve these lots is properly built. Uh doesn't cause drainage problems for neighbors. Uh, and it's it's a it's a much easier process,

but it's a it is a legal process because you're creating a de facto subdivision in terms of the road. So, making sure that it has a maintenance agreement and those sorts of things. The problem with the current ordinance is it it mixes these.

So, before you go, would you just for the does everybody know what a back lot is? No, I was going to ask you. Okay. Yeah. So, a back lot is what some communities call the flag lot where you have like 350 ft of frontage. You need 350 300 feet for each law and you got six acres of back land. So you can't really you don't you've only got 300 feet of frontage and you're just going to give a lot to a to a relative. And so you can create a 50-ft rightway or uh

actually deed a 50-ft strip to the back land and basically as long as it's at least five acres that's a buildable lot with just 50 ft of frontage. Okay. So that's what's called back lot or flag lot. And again that's just for a single lot. And so this ordinance uh has that provision and we're not really going to change that other than to clarify how it's differentiated from private ways where you have multiple lots. So that's kind of how this goes. So let me just give you the rules for back lots and I think that may kind of answer some of those questions. So dealing with what's above the black line. So currently,

has to be at least five acres and it has to have that 50oot script and those are approved by the code officer right now. And really not proposing any change to that basic rule other than the access currently requires someone for a single house to build a 20 foot wide road. you know, you could have to go back in five, six hundred feet to get to the point where you can actually build or longer. And so people have really expressed concerns that it really makes the backlog undevelopable because of the cost of putting in a full road just for a single single house. So, the proposed uh change is to reduce that to a 16 foot driveway because it's only going to be serving one lot. And that under the draft provisions, the fire chief will will sign off on that that they can service it in terms of it's not going up a 20% grade around, you know, uh they have they can access it with the emergency vehicles without causing

damage to the emergency vehicles. So that's and then the whole provisions for backlogs currently the lots are approved by the code officer and depending on which code officer people have dealt with in the past some code officers have have applied a two acre lot size for those back lots in the multiple situation. Other code officers have interpreted the ordinance to uh require the five acre lot and so it hasn't been applied consistently. Uh this is this proposal is to take that uh out of the

code officer's uh position and put it before the planning board as part of the rest of the formula for these private ways. And the planning board discussed whether to, you know, try to apply the five acres or allow two acres and felt that in order to justify the cost of multiple backlogs and building a road to serve it, you really five acres made it unworkable financially. Currently, the road itself, the lots are approved by the code officer. The road commissioner approves the road if there's a plan that he signs or she. And uh and again the 20 foot road is required that would be continued except that under this uh proposed overhaul it would it would be approved by the planning board rather than by the road commissioner. And then finally the maintenance agreement currently. So we have the code officer approves the lots the road commissioner approves the road and the planning board approves the

maintenance agreement. So people are confused within the within the organization, you know, who's doing what, who's responsible for what, and property owners that are trying to use this are very confused in terms of the process. So, as I said, most towns deal with these with a straight planning board process. The planning board will look to the code officer, make sure that the lots meet the zoning requirements. The the planning board will look to the road commissioner for input on the road design. Um and then the planning board itself working with the town attorney can look at the maintenance rating that's required for these. So that is pretty much the proposed change what's in the ordinance currently and what's being proposed. Okay. Uh at this point we'll open it up for information. So, uh, if you would either come up to the the chair by the table or sit in the front row, state your name, address, uh, and ask your

question, make your comments. So, Uh, so I have a couple questions just more or less clarification. Uh, when we're talking about back lots, um, I'd like to know if that's distinguished from landlock property, which means a a piece of property that currently doesn't have any road frontage or access, could that then be considered a backwat? Um, and if they were, you know, if they were able to obtain the right away and drive away from adjacent van. Yes, if they had uh the 50 foot rightway to the

to a main road, uh then they you could solve it from being a landlock parcel. So it would be it wouldn't be exactly the same thing as a typical back lot, but it could be applied in that situation. And when you say a 50 foot rightway to a main road, so that's a 50 foot rightway to a road that's up to town standard.

Not necessarily. No. any road that's recognized as a road. Some some roads in town are substandard. We have some state highways. So the back lot provisions apply on any recognized road within the town. So, uh, if a back plot is approved

and is granted a 50 foot access, a 50 foot rightway and a 16 in this case 16T rightway, could that then uh another piece of parcel be added where that could access then be granted from that new driveway? You know, as I'm saying, you could kind of spaghetti. Well, what would happen what would happen is then they would be kicked into the private way. So, if it's going to be serving just more than one lot, then they would have to get that upgraded to a private way with a maintenance agreement and have that approved by the planning board.

Okay. So, back to my previous question, that 50 foot rightway and 16 foot driveway has to come off a you said any road, but it has to be um it can be off another driveway, but another it would have to be something that is recognized as a road in the town ordinance.

Okay. Um I guess I'm just not clear on what the definition is of a recognized town. Private or public? Well, there are both private and public ones. Obviously, the the state highways come off state highway. You could come off a townmate

that private road and can confer them to others depending on the details of the deeds of the easements. Okay. So, but it would have to be something that is recognized as an official legally sanctioned road as opposed to coming off someone's driveway.

Yeah. So, once that back law is granted a rightway and a driveway, that doesn't automatically become a new private way that can create back. Not if it's approved by the code officer under the backlog provisions. anything more than that it he would look at it and say that would become a private way and whoever's developing it or expanding it would have to go through the process of getting approved this private way. So uh and sorry but just to make sure I understand access can only be granted from a recognized road not a driveway but a roads um uh

legally established legally established road. Yeah. And the town, correct me if I'm wrong, the town has a map with with the both private ways and public roads. Yes. There is a street map of the town that that points all of those out,

the ones the zoo were aware of. Yeah. Okay. So, obviously the state moves the town. Yes. But driveways, not a driveway. It has to be a private road. say private road. Okay. And you need to look to the town street map. Town street map distinguishes those.

Just because somebody puts a sign up saying way doesn't make it right. Right. Something you can use. Okay. And I think before we get too much detail on a site specific, I would recommend that you before you buy it or do anything else, you talk to the codes guy and the town planner to make sure you know what we're going to do. Just an informal discussion. Okay. Okay. I'm just led to understand that this doesn't open up, you know, a driveway from one driveway to another driveway. I know that was sort of turned down at a previous.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next chief, do you want to speak? I just have a quick question [Music] for him. start with your name and all. Same thing. I'm Heather Roy7. And um George, when you started talking about multiple back lots and multiple back lot access and you started the conversation about um families that potentially want

to be able to, you know, divide their larger parcel. I think if it would be good to clarify at what point whether it's family or not that goes from a multiple back lot situation to be required to go through subdivision three right

okay so the way the main statutes are drafted and adopted which the town's subdivision regulations go the same if you create three separate parcels in any given given five-year period. That is a legal subdivision that requires approval by the planning board through the subdivision process. Now, there are exemptions that are stated in the subdivision law and in the land use ordinance. So that if you are giving u a a lot for I think it's less than 50% of market value to a blood relative and there are certain relatives that count then that is not so you could create three two lots plus that lot and not trigger subdivision and have to go to planning. But if you need to get road access for any of those three, then you would have to have it approved as a private way just simply to create the legal road access and frontage.

Thank you. I just think it's important to clarify that so that people aren't hearing they have 50 acres of land and they can give it to their they give five parcels to their family and that subdivision review wouldn't be expected.

It may not be. If they were all qualifying exemptions, they would have to get approval of a private white. And so if someone was in that situation, is that do they come to you or the code enforcement officer to determine if subdivision review is required?

Typically, they start with the code enforcement officer and then the code enforcement officer would refer them to me. Okay. Um just some feedback. I think it's a beneficial thing to have that process like really clear on the website so that when people are questioning what pathway they're supposed to take and who they should go to, having that really clear is I think really important.

Yeah. First step is getting clear in the ordinance. Thank you. Anyone else please follow? driveway, what I just heard earlier was it needs to be a town recognized road. So, would you consider changing the language to make it clearer, a 16 ft road?

That was not what was uh my understanding that was not a question. The question was, could you put a backlaw access onto a driveway? That was the earlier question. The answer is no. It has to be a road. So the 16oot driveway is just the access to the back lot. It's not the creation of an ement because right now it requires within that 50 foot access to build a 20 foot wide road for a single house.

Okay. I found that confusing. This is Yeah, it read to me that it could be off a 16T driveway. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else on back lots going going and we're not going to bounce back to it later. So your last opportunity

or we can come back in November. You may come back in November or you may time say you may text uh or not excuse me email uh Mr. Thearge with another question you have and it'll come up at the 15th November. Thank you Mr. Roy. This is just about So I think it currently reads that it has to be 20 feet with should like with shoulders. Is that So is it is that staying is it 16

feet wide with shoulders? Sorry. Maybe that's in the we but you know I think that's important to know too. road surface? Yes. Okay. 16 ft of road surface. Yeah. Slopes and ditches out of the 16 ft. That's correct. It did. Thank you.

Okay. Last one gone. All right. Next topic, please. Oh, no. Sorry. Planning board discussion. Uh does anybody have any comments on what was said or there your own particular comments about this? looked at reducing the road surface of 20 to 16 ft was the financial burden on

the homeowner. And I I know certainly within my neighborhood, there's one individual that has they initially went with the 16 foot and found out that they had to go with 20 ft. And it's it's unfortunate that another year hadn't gone by, hopefully this would get approved and they would have had to uh circumvent that additional expense, but I see that as a very good improvement for the the town's people. the the chief has left, but it's important to note uh he was in on the discussion and so he concurred with the 16 in this case and the 20 foot for the other one, right? That chief being a fire chief. So, okay. If not, uh we'll move on to the second item, Mr. Okay, next issue

structures um expansion. So currently the ordinance is a compilation of provisions that were copied and pasted from other ordinances and unfortunately whoever did that process didn't really tailor it to be uh applicable to Durham's situation. And so, for example, this first uh box talks about how you if your house is too close to a property line uh doesn't meet the setback, then you're limited to an expansion of 30% of the area of that building.

Mr. I'm sorry to interrupt. Could Does everybody know what a non-conforming structure is? One something that does not meet the zoning requirements. Okay. Um, and so the planning board then decides under the criteria of the ordinance, is this going to cause a drainage problem, traffic problem, noise problem, all the things that are typically applied to businesses being located or anything. There's just not a conceivable reason why the planning board would stop someone from putting an addition on their house for any of the conditional use criteria. So uh and then if they

can't get the conditional approve use approval and or they want to go more than 30% without limitation they go to the board of appeals and the board of appeals the only thing that they can look at under the ordinance is the groundwater effects. Again there is the town the state has a plumbing code that addresses septic systems. It just and if whether you're in an aquifer or not, you still have that's still the only criteria the board of appeals can apply. So if they meet the main state plumbing code, what what grounds is the board of appeals going to say you cannot expand. So it doesn't make any sense. And so that confusing language uh will be removed uh as part of these amendments.

And simply uh the criteria will be uh right now the ordinance says in addition to that for an expansion of a non-conforming residential structure, they have to approve the foundation location. And that was copied and pasted from DP guidelines for lakefront development where it makes sense that if you've got a a building a camp that's 20 feet from the water or 50 feet from the water, state says you got to be back 100. That that provision for the claim board review of the of the foundation is where that language was came from. But again, it makes no sense if your if your house is 20 feet from the property line, it's supposed to be 50 feet that why why why what is the planning plan board going to look at in approving your foundation location? So, this would basically say as most towns do, if the code officer looks at it, you have a house that is 20 ft from the property line, supposed to be 50 ft. You're

putting an addition on the back end of the house that meets all setbacks. then the code officer can approve that without going before any board. That's how it's it's done in most towns and that's how this language will be changed. And then finally, uh there is currently in the ordinance uh planning board looks at if someone discontinues uh a non-conforming use, which there aren't really very many in town. Uh and they can get a one-year extension of the time into which it was discontinued that you can reestablish it after that year is up. Uh usually it's a year, they can extend it another year if someone comes back and wants to reestablish it. uh the planning board, the board of appeals typically handles non-conforming uses and expansions. So this would basically shift that responsibility to the board of appeals. So only the board of appeals and the code officer would be involved with non-conforming uses,

structures, and laws. So that pretty much is the limit of the proposed changes. just to clarify um the process and clear up some confusing language in the ordinance that is not workable right now. topic? Seeing none, uh board

edification or the folks at home. So the original approval for a non-conforming use is who's the approval authority? Well, a nonconforming use by definition is something that does not meet the zone requirements. So typically when like for example the uh the resource protection district got expanded and we specifically pulled all of the buildings out of that proposed boundary so that they would not be put into a non-conforming situation. So, the only time you're going to have a non-conforming use or structure in this town is typically going to be someone whose property uh was developed decades ago, maybe a century or more ago, and that house is built very close to the road. It's not a 50 foot setback. So, that's a typical, you know, who makes that determination. Uh typically the code officer requires someone to submit in their proposed building plan what the what the setbacks currently are and what they're proposing

to where they're proposing the bill. So it's usually the code officer that looks at the question of is this conforming or not. It could have come up if you go to sell if someone is selling the title company does a survey

and they're going to say hey you're only 20 feet away but it's supposed to be 50. How do they get the what's the approval process for non Well, if the house was built in 1850, the you know, the title companies, the surveyor, everybody's going to recognize that's been there for 150 years, long before the town ever had zone. So, there's really no question that that is lawfully non-conforming. Uh if some thing was built in 1980 and it violates a setback, that usually triggers a review by a title attorney to say, you know, was it built in violation of the setback? And then it's illegally non-conforming, not legally non-conforming. And there's a whole process for dealing with that as well. So, typically it comes up, like you say, with a mortgage survey, uh or someone wants to get a building permit to do an addition, and it's discovered at that point. Okay. I think there's an example of that that recently came up um maybe within

the past year or two. I think there was somebody that was buying a prop. It was a corner of Rabbit Road in 136 and the title attorney found that the house was too close to the property line. Oh yeah. We went to the select board I believe and the argument from the owner at the point at the time was the road commissioner dictated where his driveway should go and that's what caused the property to be closer to the so that's how that process went as I remember it was also a previous or a couple times previous code guy said you measure the

the right away from uh the middle of the road or you know whatever the point they gave him, it wasn't the correct point. It was from the edge of the rightway. And I think Yes. So, they had to go get a letter from little a little letter from the select board that said, "We're not going to enforce the fact that you're non-conforming." So, that is also another way to

Yeah. And the more recent one that you pointed up, this brings up the codification's going to fix something. Sometimes it's the ordinance is confusing. The definition of a setback says from the property line uh or right of way of the property. The provision where it sets the setbacks in article three says setback from property line doesn't mention right away. So unless you look at the definition which the code officer didn't in one case you're going to say it's from the property line. So the codification is going to add that statement from the definition to the other place so that there's no confusion and and it doesn't have that mistake or one thing one part says one thing another part says doesn't say it and then does it have to be the board of appeals I mean I'm not saying that's wrong but that's a question

are you saying like in the case where the select board was doing that no no I'm sorry we give the we require the select board to approve approve uh I'm sorry that's like the board of appeals to approve some of this. So, time limit extensions, board of appeals. I guess that's the only

Well, what happens is under the ordinance if someone discontinues like there was a a business on Mill Road like a commercial garage on the left just the second property in and someone abandoned that as whatever for if it goes more than a year abandoned and someone came in and opened a business without coming into town for conditional use for and they were claiming that they had the right to because it was a business there before. Once it's discontinued for a period of year, they forfeit that right to continue that business there without a conditional use of approval. And so what this does, uh, someone has the right, the opportunity under the ordinance to extend that for a second year, but the board of appeals has to look at the circumstances and they determine whether it's a legitimate, you know, they were selling their property. U they were a month over the year. the board of appeals can grant

relief fund, but they look at all of the details of the circumstances. Yeah, I think my question is more specifically, why would that have to be the board of appeals versus the planning board for that approval? It's just the type of thing I in the same way that board of appeals don't review private ways typically or subdivisions, non-conforming uses, variances, all of those things under state law are handled by boards of appeals. So,

don't answer my question. I think it's Yeah. Oh, but are we past the part where we're allowed to ask questions? I will make one exception. Okay. And everybody does get one exception. Um, we're So, we're talking about non-conforming use. If is that when there's no conditional use of per permit that already exists? So, like if a property has a conditional use permit

and the business isn't operating anymore, but they have a conditional use permit, does that conditional use permit go away if that business isn't operating? Okay. So, what we have to say, and this is really complicated. Okay. We don't have to talk about it. If that doesn't apply, I can just ask you privately.

Yeah. Okay. Conditional use approvals run with the land, but there are businesses that have been here for 75 years and never came for a conditional use. Right. Those those would be hit by this. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Uh uh anything else from the planning board? If not, Mr. Next topic. Okay. Next is sub road buffers. So this proposed revision very focused. would say that uh if right now if someone puts a subdivision along a road uh they have to install a 50-oot buffer the lower graphic on the left there between the existing road and the subdivision to screen the views of the propos of the new housing. However, if on the right graphic you put a road beside people's houses as part of the subdivision there's no requirement for buffering. So the planning board discussed whether it should be automatic and I think where they came out if there's 100 feet of woods there. It doesn't make sense to require them to put in a 50 foot buffer if there's 100t of open field and it does. And so the draft language gives them the authority to require a buffer if it if they deem that it's it's needed. And it would be this similar to

if they were re reviewing a commercial project where they do look at where buffers uh should must be required by the developer. So that really is the as I said right now uh 50 foot buffers required for between the subdivision and the road and there's no change on that but no buffer is required between the new subdivision and existing homes of the butters and this would give the planning board discretionary authority to require that buffering.

can say you disagree and it should be 100 foot or 200 foot or any of these you may have a recommendation to do say to say something different in the ordinance. So any comments from the audience and gone. uh planning board

just the one thing about buffers is we we certainly take a lot of the input from the abuing owners and they're they're notified when they're doing subdivision like this. So we listen to what their concerns may be and take that in consideration.

addition to the ordinance. Excellent. Uh we have at least one happy camper. Um, and I want you to know that this has been discussed a bunch of times in previous meetings. So, just because you're not hearing a lot today doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed prior to today. Um, and so, yeah. So, I go through a subdivision today where this was an issue when it was first being approved. Uh but even with the leaves gone and the existing subdivision had fairly deep backyards, well vegetated and I think it was a 25 foot but there I guess at the end of the day the planning board said hey that those two together will be more than enough and uh sometimes it's just wide open fields and you got to do more. So okay, subdivision road buffers on to noise standards.

Okay, this one's a little bit more uh in involved and you can see by the number of uh tables table listings for the different topics. So, currently the town has a noise ordinance uh that applies to all properties within town and it pretty much just uh applies a residential typical residential zone standard to all uses. and we have businesses scattered throughout the town. Um, some with machinery and it's just really not a workable uh thing to to limit all businesses to a residential property sound level. So, one of the things that it does is to differentiate uh between three classes in in Durham that currently exist that would be residential, agricultural and business. And then secondly, it gives more specifics on the testing protocols that I'll make sure once we go down through the chart. And finally clarifies when a sound study is needed. So the first issue that we looked at was the hours that these would be applied.

So most ordinances have a daytime noise level and a nighttime noise level understandably. And currently the uh standard is is daytime is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. if you think about summertime. And uh people especially in the construction industry that are doing uh working on houses and things. Uh so uh this would propose to change it to 7:00 a.m. to 900 p p.m. would be daytime hours and nighttime hours would be uh 900 p.m. to 7 a.m. And that's very typical in many communities. As I mentioned currently all land uses are limited to the residential standard of 55 dB per day and 45 at night. Uh this

proposals proposes to give higher sound limits recognizing agricultural equipment as well as commercial uh would go a little bit even higher. Uh the measuring method right now is outdated uh and you know really need to look at how a sound study actually proves that a sound sound uh is either in compliance with the ordinance or violating it. And really, it takes a qualified acoustic engineer to do a study that will stand up in court. Uh you can't go out there with your phone and measure the decibels and have it stand up in court. So this would establish what are the uh protocols for developing a uh an enforcable uh sound determination. And then also the ordinance mentions nothing about uh impulsive sounds u and those

are ones that aren't on a continuous basis happen infrequently or irregularly and this does establish based on town attorney input a maximum for that of 75 dB. Uh construction noise. Currently, you cannot have any construction noise between 900 pm and 6:30 a.m. Uh recognizing what we talked about up above. This would be updated from 9:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. And noise studies. There's nothing in the ordinance right now that talks about doing a noise study. Uh this would clarify when they would be done. uh if the code officer is going to enforce against somebody's property and activity uh or the planning board is going to limit someone's uh right to use their property for business use on the basis of noise then that would trigger a noise study to establish uh either compliance or non-compliance or meeting the condition use criteria or not and that must be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer and they

have to get a baseline measurement of the ambient noise level they call it. Uh they have to identify the source, do an impact assessment and uh propose potential ways of mitigating the noise. And the ordinance mentions nothing about mitigation of of sound right now, such as putting in a sound barrier, uh putting it within a building, having operational time limits, or uh requiring them to use quieter equipment. And then finally, the ordinance does have some exemptions, but if you look at other ordinances, uh there's probably some uses that ought to be exempted, such as emergency vehicles. If you live across from a fire station, you might uh think that they shouldn't, but that that is recognized necessity with most. And then temporary activities and that special. So that's pretty much a comparison what's in the ordinance now. and was being proposed to be added.

question on this? I have a question. I'm Cassie on Sand Hill. Okay, just speak loudly, ma'am. Pardon? Just speak loudly. Okay. Um, the question between agriculture and residential, how do we determine that or how where do you look for that

in the ordinance definitions? Okay. But I'm looking at properties. Like when you look at a map, when you look at a map and you know where houses are, but right now there's 31 acres and the houses are all by the road. What is in the back? Is that is that considered residential or is that agriculture?

Okay. So property is not considered agriculture. Agriculture is a use of property. Okay? So if it's just woods, it's not agriculture. If it's just field that no one is doing any agricultural activity on, that is not agriculture.

Okay. What about forest harvesting? Forest harvesting is a different class. That's not agriculture. That is forestry. Okay. So when that is being done, what is the noise level? it would fall within those uh that would be probably commercial.

Okay. And so even though it's backing up to 25 homes. Yes. So this would establish that at the property line during the daytime the uh noise level could not exceed except for intermittent but a continuous like someone grinding stumps for 5 hours at the property line that could not exceed 65 dB or it would be a violation of the ordinance.

Okay. Any other questions? thought you talked about fireworks and how that plays into I would like to discuss fireworks and some other stuff. Yeah. Um would you like me to discuss? Sure. Uh I have three concerns and uh Oh, thank you. Um we which is blasting and I'm looking towards exemptions. So, one is blasting um and because that's a fairly controlled process to to act the dug out there. Uh the state is very controlling on that, but but blasting those with noise uh probably exceeds that and I'd like to exempt it. Um the other is fireworks. And then the third is I don't

think you all have seen it but in the draft um which you'll get a chance to look at later. We tal the draft article that would get voted on at the town meeting. It gives an example of impulsive noise, hammering or gunfire.

Uh I am con concerned I guess I would like to just make it short. I'd like to exempt those three things from noise. And there is Brian handed me the state rules on times and all that other kinds of which is what Durham doesn't have its own fireworks ordinance so we follow the state law which gives the times on regular days special holidays does not address noise. So while fireworks are allowed under the state law uh it doesn't address the noise. So, I would like to exempt fireworks during that. I think it's 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. maybe uh except the 4th of July which goes to 12:30 a.m. So, it's not something I just

throw that out there and something that we probably need to give Mr. Tar's guidance on or not. Other feelings on those three topics. Now, John, I don't think we can exempt Well, we could exempt fireworks from this, but I would think be stating that we follow state law for every Yes. I My concern is that this says you can have fireworks and there are people uh in town who have a good

reason probably that don't want any fireworks. And so, you you run into the time uh okay, it was fired off. um you know between 4:00 10:00 p.m. at night, but you exceeded the noise. Perfect example is my neighbor. You know, I sit on my patio and I get a a free fireworks display that was better than the city I used to live in. So, I don't want to see some issue where we are restricting that

or fighting that um that kind of thing because of noise. And I don't know if if my guess is it may very well exceed that, but he follows all the rules. So that's I that's the reason I'd like to exempt I'm not exempting him from the 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. and the rules about safety and all that other stuff. Uh but I would I am concerned about putting a noise limit on it. And the same with shooting and I don't know what a gun uh I do know that not far from my house u there is some some folks have a shooting range they let the neighbors who are moving in before they bought it and actually the neighbors bought it from them said hey we shoot here and as soon as they moved in they started complaining about noise from the the shooting range so u although perfectly legal I I don't want to create an issue

where hey you can you're perfectly legally shoot your gun but you got to buy a silencer bit of an exaggeration but that's my concern that's why I would exempt those things we have a lot of hunters and shooters and other folks in the town and I don't want to create an issue where maybe they're illegal now doing what they and their family did back in the days with musketss but uh so that's my

I'd like to exempt those three things So firing ranges specifically, I mean, you're not going to extend hunting, but firing ranges. Yeah. I mean, somebody who's just out zeroing their rifle prior to deer season or they're just shooting recreationally or whatever and they're following I'm not exempting them from, you know, don't shoot your neighbors into your neighbor's yard or or like in the paper where somebody shot into somebody's house on a drive,

but it becomes the the noise. said the time for the timing. So, are you exempting it from from all times or just No, they would have to if there's the state law says you can do it on a reg what they call a regular day between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Right. Okay. So, it would be exempt during that time. Okay. That's it. Just cl I just wanted you to clarify. So, from 10:00 p.m. to 900 a.m. It is not allowed on regular days. No, it is allowed. I'm sorry. Fireworks are between

No, but overnight. Yes. I'm sorry. Between 9. That's why it was Let me do Let me Well, okay. So, on a regular day, fireworks may be This is the state uh guide. Fireworks may be used between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1000 p.m. So, it is those hours. It's okay. Except on the following dates, they may be used between the hours of 9:00 am and 12:30 p.m. on the following day, July 4th, December 31st, and the weekends immediately before and after July 4th and December 31st. So that's the hours that I'd like them to be exam, not 2 in the morning, not 11:30 tonight.

Just clarify. But no, thank you. So make sure it's clear. So, do we want to talk in next meeting go into a little more uh detail? Yes. Okay. What do you mean by hammering? I would assume homing and hail or jackhammer. It doesn't say it just says hammering. Yeah, I would assume somebody who's I mean I don't have enough muscle to make a lot of noise when I'm hammering, but somebody who's using a nail gun or something like that. Uh and I struggle to think that it's going to go beyond 75.

So the definitions that you're referring to are posted on the website. So we follow the board if we take a look at those definitions. I missed that. Thank you. We can dig into that at the next. I just for the benefit of the folks here today and whatever uh my vote would be to exempt those activities inside the legal hours that they can do it.

Uh you gave four actually. You gave blasting, fireworks, hammering, and gunfire. Uh I guess I didn't give you hammering. It's the hammering is in the in your draft article, George. Okay, I'll take a look at that. I just don't know. Take a look at that. We have a construction guy. Do we make a lot of noise hammering? If you live in a subdivision, hammering will drive you bat crap crazy. Uh the experience really wells that three years.

So we'll discuss that at a later time. I just wanted to comment. Yeah. Could you just describe for everybody what impulsive and inter intermittent means? Yeah, as John had brought that up before. So I did find some definitions for that and those are again posted on the website for you to look at. Um

so uh noise has three different definitions. Some definitions continuous noise is a steady sound level that remains relatively constant over a period of time. impulsive noise, a sound of short duration, usually less than one second with an abrupt onset and rapid decay such as from hammering or gunfire. That was what John was referring to. Uh, and then intermittent noise is a noise whose levels increase and decrease rapidly with time such as from passing vehicles or machinery cycling on and off. So those are the definitions and we can look at the language, look at the definitions and use more. on that

roy I just wonder we're establishing all of these criteria how are these criteria then enforced typically through complaints run through the road officer that's shipping ranges and construction sites I guess the neighbor complaints or somebody in the vicinity complaints Um although I don't know, you know, the the one place that I know blasts in town has actually got praise for following the rules and giving notification to people, hey, I'm I'm blasting at 10:00 a.m. And the fireworks people uh are very good, at least most of them, at saying, "Hey, I'm shooting them off between 9:30 and 10." And I get it. People with dogs, people with horses, that's a big issue. And so, uh, you know, I I understand that, but I I don't want to automatically, uh, create an issue.

And just say on construction sites, lots of times, especially during the summer, they like to get going early in the morning because it's cool, especially roofing. Now, you're telling them they can't start up a compressor until 7:00.

6:30 test, you know, bad enough at 6:30. Okay. Lots of guys would like to be on their job at 5:30. They get up on the floor before it gets hot. you cannot be on site doing construction. It's just looking at the construction noise. So,

I just throwing it out there. I think it's hard to be working and not make noise. Well, you could be setting up your base. It's not the noise on that lot. It's the noise from someone else's law, their property board. throwing it out there for discussion on planning board. Your thoughts on uh going back to 6:30, I think is what it was originally. 6:30 to 9 6:30 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Okay, we'll throw we'll take that under under advisement and we're not blowing you off. You know, most guys realize that, you know, they're not going to be hamming at 5:30 in the morning, but they like to get there and set up.

Yeah. And and again, it's I guess this is precludes any work. Not it doesn't matter if you're ex, you know, if it's not making noise in the property line, it it's or enough noise. So, but not I mean, I think that's worth discussing. And again, just clarify, they could make up to 55 dB of noise before

Uh, I'm reading it, and maybe I'm wrong, no construction to me means no construction near residential uses from 9:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. So, you know, that I think we either clarify that or or go back to 6:30. There's no construction. I mean, construction to me is setting up and and doing all those other kinds of it's all part of the con construction job.

Is construction site classified as commercial? Not unless it's commercial use. So, we could it be residential? It would have to be would would it not be commercial? That's good. No, I guess that would be a residential situation. So be those kind of limits. So we can clarify no construction noise in excess of those nighttime limits, for example, would be a way to clarify it

before whatever 7 a.m. Yeah. Okay. Um I would we'll have we'll take that under blowing you up. We'll take it under adisement and discuss it next time. I'm using big terms tonight. Miss Roy, um just one other exemption that you might want to consider even though this feels necessary logistically or logically rather um but the school I I think it might be worth discussing an exemption for noise for the school. Um because if people potentially moved here and then all of a sudden the taxpayers are in a situation where they may have to be paying for some sort of buffering or mitigation because the noise from recess is then impacting people that might move here even though the school already exists there. But then this creates no pathway for that noise to be able to exist.

So it's the noise coming from the school, right? Like the playground at recess with the kids outside. I know that seems crazy, but you know, well, that's my concern on all of this is that it's crazy until, right? I'm just saying if there were like the res the taxpayers would end up in a situation where they were having to pay, right, to be to create the noise mitigation

from recess if that wasn't exempt from this. We will take that under adisement. I mean, that's not a bad I can a bad idea. It's like building a house right beside a speedway and then all of a sudden thinking the speedway's got to go because you building a house right

that doesn't always apply it depends on who the judge is but again not blowing anybody off but that will be part of our discussion anything else on noise. we're on to something else. Fire protection Mars. Yeah. So, this is a response to a request from the fire department who uh they expressed concern with underground water systems not being uh viable for the fire department to use and maintain. And so currently under the ordinance uh a developer is allowed to put in a water system underground or above ground. They can put in a fire pond with a hydrant or they can put a dry hydrant on an existing farm pond or stream. And if they uh put in

water uh water systems or fire ponds, they can get a volume reduction through putting in home sprinklers with the approval of the fire department. So the proposed changes again based on the fire department concerns for sistern those would be eliminated and as the planning board discussed with the fire chief the options for developers uh board ended up saying that uh either

a fire pond newly constructed fire pond an existing water source with a hydrant or sprinklers would be equally acceptable under the ordinance. So that would expand the options for developers while eliminating systems types of proposal.

Uh any public comments? Uh just a clarification. Would it still be Would you just say your name again? Oh, sorry. Mike Abbott Garrett Lane. Would it still be requirement? Would it still be a reduction, a volume reduction or volume reduction through the installation of sprinklers? Or are you saying it would be as long as they have sprinklers, they don't need any other fire protection source?

As long as they have sprinklers, they don't need any other fire source. to say chief is on it. And this is one that comes up just about every time we do a subdivision to be honest with you. And so this just gives the developer builder the opportunity to and it's not just put it in, it's got to meet all the all the right specs and all. So the code guy, you know, we'll make sure that you know the water draw and all that stuff is is good enough. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to marijuana growing facilities. So, I'll start this one if I could. Recognizing the town voted down marijuana growing restrictions for four, five, six years ago. Um, and I won't call it an end round, but there is an exception that we in the state law that George will explain that we think some folks, and I hate to say take advantage of because it means they're, you know, doing something wrong, but what they've been doing is legal. We're just going to

try to uh see if the town wants to button that up a little bit. So, Mr. Targe, if you would. So as John made reference to the state probably four or five years ago uh changed the state laws to legalize marijuana. There are basically three classes personal use for medical and personal and then there's recreational marijuana many of the stores you see developing across southern Maine uh marijuana dispensaries for recreational purposes and then there are growing facilities both recreational and medical. So under state law, a community can regulate those uses or opt out. If a town opts out, they're not permitted in the community, which is Durham situation. However, uh under state law and personal

use up to a certain number of plants, uh if you're an individual homeowner and you're suffering from cancer, for example, you can have three flowering plants, 12 immature plants, and unlimited ceilings. uh seedlings, but they must be secured and screened from public view. That's the exemption in the state. Uh, however, if you have a farmer or other property owner who has a greenhouse and they have friends that have marijuana plants, it's unclear whether if each individual person who may be renting space in that greenhouse can have their five plants there, then in essence, you can aggregate it and end up with a what is a marijuana growing facility. without either state regulation or town regulation. So, town attorney pointed that out that that is a loophole. And so, the intent of the ordinance is to try to just clarify how that would be handled and either make it outright prohibited, which we're not sure you can

do, or at the very least have it be a conditional use permit gets reviewed by the planning board with standards. And currently there is no oversight uh at the local level beyond the state rules and this would give the code officer some authority to inspect and apply standards for those uses if they're going to be in. So that's the proposal. We're still working with the town attorney to come up with specific language, but that's the policy direction that's being discussed.

And just before we open it up, there's a couple things. One is there's a belief that people are in fact doing it and then the other one is the attorney is going it's a legal nightmare challenges all that other stuff. So the attorney is going to if we go this he's going to write language that'll go before the town that uh we believe will pass scrutiny. So but uh what you see

now would you like to comment on it? Uh your name please? Rebecca Pster Road. Uh, George, I don't know if you can answer this. In terms of uh in other towns or state law, are growers subjected to different taxes than as a like quoteunquote business versus a resident who is growing or what

are the tax differences? I do not know taxes. Okay. just because if it's considered a business that can be taxed separately than a resident who is just paying their normal taxes. That's my question. Well, typically, let's just say someone has a greenhouse and as John said, this has been an issue. I mean, they're they're based on the value of that same there's not a commercial tax rate on property and a residential tax rate. It's just a property tax break,

right? But if they are if they are using it as a business like other businesses in town, their taxes are different. No. No. Okay. Whatever. All right. just a way for the town or the code enforcement officer to determine uh whether whether a growing operation should in fact be a licensed growing operation. It's not

it's not that the town is going to create new requirements for commercial operations. just um I mean I'm just I'm just asking is it is is that the purpose behind this? Yeah, I think the intent is to say look uh cannabis cultivation facility aggregated medical use that's what I was just describing. Okay, if that I mean

the voters of Durham have indicated they don't want to have these in in the community. However, if that is exempt under state law, right, and it passes under the screen of the state, then if the town cannot prohibit it, then at least make it a conditional use,

right, where some rules can be applied along those facility size, can't be can't be a 60,000 foot facility, those sorts of things. So, we're going to try to come up with some either definition, prohibition, andor some standards, and it would have to come to the plane board for conditional use review like other commercial uses,

right? And so, has has the attorney or or you as a planner looked at uh other towns in similar situations and what type of, you know, codes they put in place for this? Yes. Okay. U before we go on I clarify maybe just for me but this isn't going to be a commercial operation

right if we do that this is I have a greenhouse and I'm going to grow my whatever number of plants are that are legal here and my neighbor comes over and says I'm not having any luck growing my my patient care marijuana in my backyard can I get some space from you uh but neither one of them can sell it to to

right somebody I just want to make clear it's still for you know personal slash my mother's ill or whatever it may be but you're you're trying to make sure that that story isn't used to create essentially a facto commercial operation and go under the radar

and that is yes that that is all if if it starts legitimately there is a a hope that it will stay that way that Joe comes in and gets is approved. Mary come if if this is approved, Mary comes in. Now, it may be that somebody's got four kids and each of them, you know, are tending a garden. Uh but uh that the

intent is personal use. So, this Roy, that sort of answers my question. um wondering I don't know anything about this so if my question is silly I apologize but if how does like agriculture play into this because I don't think you have to get a conditional use permit for an agriculture use is is the difference between because this wouldn't be sold I I I guess that's what my question would be and and I'm asking to clarify that because I think that that could potentially create another loophole.

Yeah. And as a matter of fact, some research I was looking at today is looking at the need to uh clearly define what is agriculture and this could be specifically excluded if the intent is to say not not allowing this as as agriculture. This is specific to the product. So if for some reason down the road the town decides that they don't want tomatoes, um they could do the same thing, you know, which is you can't go next door to your neighbor and have five tomato plants because we don't like tomatoes. This is this is all about marijuana. So,

We do two more. We get easier as we go. Manufacturing and accessory apartments. John indicated at the beginning. Uh currently, uh the town allows a tiny home as a primary house, but it would not be permitted as a accessory, standalone accessory dwelling. Under state law, they have to be allowed. And so this was proposed. This was actually going to be under that legal technical changes, but the planning board felt that these these are all re just what is required by state law. But the planning board felt that given the significance of this, it probably ought to be put on for at least some public discussion even though the town doesn't have any options to to vary from it. Again, currently the ordinance requires if you're going to put an accessory apartment on your property, it has to be either in your existing building attached to it or in an out building like a garage or barn. The state law does not allow that

restriction and the town will comply with state law by changing it to allow standalone either an accessory apartment or a small building. uh mobile homes on individual lots under Durham's ordinance must be at least 14 ft wide and have a 312 pitch uh roof uh state law restricts that so that any uh manufactured housing unit, mobile home, modular home or otherwise that meets state lensure requirements must be allowed on an individual lot and you cannot require a roof slope steeper than 212 pitch. uh mobile home parks. Currently, Durham uh requires at least 20 acres to do a mobile home park. Under state law, you can't require more area than the mobile home park uh needs or and the associated

uses around it. So, if you can do it on fit it on 10 acres with what you're proposing, that would have to be allowed. Minimum lot in a mobile home park currently is 40,000 square feet, almost an acre of land. Uh and it has to be at least 200 feet wide. state restricts that to 20,000 square feet with septic systems and you cannot require more than 100 feet of width. And if you have a central sewer system, say a massive uh septic system that serves 10, uh you you can go down to 12,000 square feet and 75 ft of frontage. Uh currently the ordinance requires the same road in a mobile home park as you go in a subdivision. State prohibits that cannot require more than a 23 foot rightway and 20 foot road width. And finally, town says you must be underground if possible. The utilities electrical poles and wires. State says you must allow overhead electricals to make housing affordable. So again, all

of these are intended to say the town must comply with state law and the ordinance is being uh changed to comply with state law and this is all part of the uh create more housing availability. So it's you know it's a follow on to that. So I will open up to public comments questions. Todd

Todd believe um than 23 ft under state law. That's correct. Yeah. So you're going to get the ditches and your everything inside that runway. Correct. Under state law. Yes. Okay. So it's not going to be a 20 foot wide road. There's no way you're going to do that and build ditches and everything in 23 ft. You only got a foot and a half on each side of a 20 foot road. So, it's going to be a 12 14 ft wide road.

Fire chief's okay with that. Probably not. I didn't think so. That's state law. Yeah. Yeah, it may create a situation where they can't do it or um you know a lot of places don't have I mean here what you you're saying Todd I don't disagree with it but that may be the reason they can't do it you know

curbing gutter and yeah it doesn't mean or they just may say I can't make that work you got to do it you can't have a mobile home park because you can't have a right away 23 ft wide no it doesn't say you cannot have you just can't require

Yeah. To your satisfaction or not? 212 pitch. Wow. Um I doubt they asked any builders when they were doing a that polical statement. Wait for another time. Any other questions? Miss Roy. Um, so the state law says that we cannot

require right of way to be more than 23 feet for a road in a mobile home park, but we can require and we do require a 50 foot right of way for a driveway to a back lot. Correct. That's not that's not a mobile home park. Right. Right. But so the state has this reduced right of way for multiple

dwellings. Yeah, this this is specific to mobile home parks only. Correct. But but a single lot I that just feels like a conflict that why they would allow a 23 foot right of way for many homes but we require 50 foot right

of way for one home. Well, as Todd pointed out, it should be 50, right? But the state has said, you can only you can require more than and you know, a lot of this is in urban situations like like um sit and there they have underground drainage. So they can fit the 20 foot road within the 23 foot Broadway. And that's what they the mobile home manufactured housing industry has lobbyed the state to get this type of development allowable in towns where towns don't allow it. Um and so that that battle has been going on at the state level for 40 years now. And this is where it is right now. And and I think the state sees mobile home parks as a way to um assist in the housing shortage

versus five acres is not a major plus to the housing shortage. So they haven't really put any thought into that process. And again, if they can't make it work, to Todd's point, if if we say, okay, you can do 23 feet, but you got to make all this work, then uh they can't do it. They may have to go to 24 or 25 or or 50 or something like that.

Which we just can't start off by saying you have to have 50. What physically works maybe something greater than 23 because they engineer it to do other stuff. I wonder where we came with 23. So specific you do I didn't want to start that discussion.

Uh Mike Garrick Lane um on accessory apartments. So, an accessory apartment allowed as a standalone unit, wouldn't that be a house? I mean, how how how is an accessory apartment in its own building an apartment anymore or an accessory anymore?

Typically, it's smaller and under our ordinance, it can be no more than 50% of the floor area of the main house. Okay. It may be terminology, but yes, it is a standalone house, tiny house, whatever it may It's almost the same as a tiny house.

Yeah. Like is there any how close does it have to be to the main building? What if it's a quarter mile away? You know, is that as long as it fits on the same property? Okay. The the law restricts the abil the ability or whatever you want to call it to put a lot of restrictions,

right, on on this. I mean, you know, to say, hey, you've got to have 28, you got two units, and that requires 10 acres or whatever. Uh, we can't do that. So, this is allowing and but you mentioned there's limitations to the the size as compared to the original house.

Yes. 50%. And that's I think the state law if I remember. No, it's not. That's just our town. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, sir? on the necessary retirement. And if it's going to be a standalone unit, what at what point is it going to get sold as a as a

separate unit, but it's own land that's owned by another person? I can break apart the one. Yeah. I'm not sure this is intended for not, you know, well, does a accessory apartment have to be owned by the person that owns the land

unless they create a condominium. sold off as a separate unit. they have to have their own septic system? Yes, septic system. Septic system required by the a full on septic system. whatever the main state home code requires

for a tiny home. Yeah. For that size. Um, is it different restriction? Different. I don't know what the requirements are. It's probably the same as a single bedroom home, but they may or may not have special standards for tiny homes for septic systems. But they do have to have a septic system.

into the existing homes if existing homes system? Yes, they could. So they don't necessarily have to have a stand alone if if they can tie it into the existing uh tank and drain field, but most times it' be far enough away.

Interesting. Any other questions on tiny homes manufactured housing or accessory apartments? Going going one with us. So, we're going to make sure that we do what the state requires. Um, so any other discussions? Seeing none, I think Mr. Tamarge, uh, we've given you some guidance, things we've heard from the folks and and from internal. Uh, are there am I missing any other topics for this evening? So there's a big list of uh the November 15th there's more coming.

Saturday. Okay. 15th is a Saturday. Retire the 11th. The 11th. Thank you for check. Sorry. So November 12th. So those of you who've already left the TV. Uh November 12th. November 12th. here 6:30m and it'll be on the blast. It'll be, you know, on the web page. So, it will also be out there some. And I apologize.

Miss Roy, do you know at this time or can you tell us at this time if the planning board is considering a fireworks ordinance? We we I know I personally went to the select board when there was some issues about it and they were not uh suggesting that the planning board create one. They were basically I think they had ruled on we were going to be following we being the town that's going to follow the state requirements. I remember the same thing I think three or four years ago shortly after I started doing this went to the meeting the same thing. today they said we have uh we follow the state law and so as I mentioned the the state law is mostly about ours and then how many tons of explosives you can send off at once and some other stuff so just once

question.