Planning Board Meeting ~ November 14, 2016

2016-11-14 · Planning Board · 1:33:50 · watch on YouTube →

A working session of the Durham Planning Board on November 14, 2016, given over entirely to redrafting the land use ordinance. The first half went through a consolidation of the road, driveway and access standards that had been scattered across the subdivision, back lot and conditional use sections, pulling the dimensions into a single table and reconciling contradictory figures; the board settled on putting the consolidated text into Article 4 as a performance standard and cross-referencing it from the other sections. The second half worked through flagged definitions, including animal husbandry, change of use and scope, disposal, toxicity, high intensity soil survey, home occupation and impervious surface. The meeting ended on the conditional use application submission requirements, where members found the ordinance mixes subsurface wastewater with storm water and sets a 1,500 gallon a day trigger against the state's 2,000, and agreed that section needed reworking. Erosion control, landscaping and buffering were left as the outstanding items for the next session.

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. 0:01
   Attendance and a pending appeal

   A member passed on that Mindy, Todd and Mike would not be attending. Reference was made to an appeal of a determination on the time limit for a campsite, with a variance being sought on two other lots.

2. 0:01
   Consolidating the road and access standards

   A member presented a draft that gathers the road, access management and construction criteria previously spread through the subdivision, back lot and conditional use sections into one place, so that gravel specifications and sieve analyses are not repeated in several sections. The open question put to the board was whether the consolidated text should sit in an appendix or be brought back into a general section.

3. 0:01
   Dimensions table and road geometry figures

   All the dimensions were pulled into a single table for reference, with the existing ordinance figures for public and private road cross sections kept as an appendix, one for the rural residential district and one for the growth district. Members said that once the material sat in one place it made sense, and that terms had to be reconciled where the ordinance used aggregate base in one spot and crushed aggregate base in another with no sieve standard for the latter.

4. 0:01
   Small roads and gravel road exemption

   The draft keeps the provision that allows a small road, coming mainly from the back lot ordinance but also from the subdivision ordinance, to be gravel. Members concluded the town already had the exemption it needed but that this was not apparent while the language sat in separate sections.

5. 5:16
   Pavement specification and grading conflict

   The reference to superpave was replaced with an MDOT-approved mix because the department no longer uses that term. One section had called for two inches of material and another for 19.5, and both were set to 19.5; the thicknesses were deleted from the text since they already appear in the table and the cross-section drawing.

6. 5:16
   Culvert material and sizing

   Galvanized culverts were struck from the sections that still allowed them, leaving smooth bore plastic, on the basis that the town will not use corrugated plastic or galvanized pipe. The sizing language was changed from a minimum of 12 inches or as required by the planning board to sizing and location determined by drainage calculations and in no case smaller than 12 inches, so that the board is not engineering at the table where an applicant has an engineer.

7. 5:16
   Construction materials and compaction

   The construction requirements were changed from referring only to a gravel base to naming the leveling material, the gravel base and the subbase, all three of which the ordinance uses and each of which must be compacted individually. Signs, sidewalks, curbs and parking were straight copies from the existing ordinance, with parking judged to belong in the road section.

8. 10:26
   Where the paved entrance requirement belongs

   The requirement that a commercial application coming onto a town road be paved currently sits in the subdivision section; members agreed it should also appear in conditional use. This opened the wider question of overlap with Article 4, which already carries driveway and sight line material, some of it in more detail than the subdivision section.

9. 10:26
   Performance standards against new uses

   Members worked through the fact that performance standards apply to existing uses while conditional use and subdivision apply to new ones, and where the consolidated road article therefore fits. John had suggested an appendix so it could be referenced from anywhere, with performance standards referencing only the driveway pieces and conditional use and subdivision referencing the whole article.

10. 10:26
    Road commissioner's role in entrances

    Article 4 requires the road commissioner to approve entrances for new single family homes on town roads. For subdivisions and conditional use the work comes before the planning board, and members described the road commissioner then checking that the board's specifications were met rather than reading the ordinance and making his own determination.

11. 16:01
    Road acceptance and maintenance agreements

    Members questioned why the procedure for accepting a town road sits in the land use ordinance at all, and could not recall agreeing the maintenance agreement language that appears there. They established that a maintenance agreement is required for back lot development roads serving more than one house, and discussed whether it also applies in a subdivision until the town accepts the road.

12. 22:07
    Placing the consolidated standards in Article 4

    The board settled on putting the road and driveway standards into Article 4 as a performance standard, made explicit that they apply to new and improved driveways and roads, with the subdivision and conditional use sections referring back to that article. Paul agreed to take the consolidated text and insert it.

13. 22:07
    Grade and radius standards in the table

    A minimum grade of half a percent, taken from the state standard, was added where none had been listed. A curve radius requirement that applied to other roads was extended to back lots, on the reasoning that there is no way to tell on the first lot whether more will follow, so it is better to build to the higher standard the first time.

14. 27:12
    Driveway radius and intersection angles

    The driveway centre line radius stood at 125 feet against 100 for roads; members could not see why a driveway would need a larger radius and set it to 100 across the board. A maximum intersection angle of 105 degrees, the state standard, was added to the driveway section, on the argument that a sharper angle forces a driver to look too far back over one shoulder.

15. 27:12
    Turnarounds and turnouts

    Members could not find a requirement for a turnaround at a dead end and searched the document for the existing 400-foot rule. What they located was a requirement for a turnout near the midpoint of a driveway or access road over 400 feet so that vehicles can pass without backing to the street, which is separate from a turnaround at the end for emergency access.

16. 32:54
    Driveway width and lane widths

    The existing language requires convenient and safe emergency vehicular access to all buildings at all times and a minimum driveway width of 12 feet. Members revisited the travel lane and pavement width figures in the table, noting the turnout provision applies to single lane driveways rather than to roads or back lot roads with two lanes.

17. 37:59
    Gravel specification for driveways

    The driveway standard called for 15 inches of type D gravel, defined only by an MDOT reference, while the other sections use aggregate base and subbase. Members agreed to reference the ordinance's own aggregate subbase material instead of the MDOT standard, deleting the odd line, since a driveway does not need a two-course base and subbase build-up.

18. 37:59
    Presenting the changes at town meeting

    Tracked changes had been abandoned partway through because the rearrangement made them unusable. Members agreed that for town meeting they will need the old version and the new version side by side with a bulleted list of the differences so residents can see what changed.

19. 37:59
    Defining animal husbandry

    A member raised a case holding that animal husbandry can include riding schools but that what counts is what the local ordinance says, and asked whether the town should define it as limited to breeding and raising. The complication is that the Department of Agriculture treats riding stables as farming, which puts them beyond what the town can restrict.

20. 43:32
    State farm protection statutes

    Members read the state definitions of farm, farm operation and agricultural products aloud, and noted the Department of Agriculture's threshold that any activity generating more than $2,000 of annual income is protected under the Farm Act. New Gloucester's ordinance was cited as including the keeping of animals as a business, which would likely cover a riding stable, and Wolfe's Neck Farm was raised as an example of a farm that also runs public education programmes. The sense of the discussion was not to pick a fight with the department, and a member undertook to look for the departmental recommendations and the case.

21. 49:17
    Change of use and change of scope

    The definition was reworked to trigger on a change in the type of occupancy or use, or in the scope of an existing use. Members used a daycare going from six children to twenty, which is the same use but a different scope and a different state licence, and a light industrial building shifting from shipping a truck a month to ten trucks a day, which changes traffic, noise and odour. The wording was to be reworked so that land sits alongside building and structure rather than hanging off the end of the sentence.

22. 55:29
    Disposal, and the duplex definition

    Members asked whether the definition of disposal is triggered anywhere else in the ordinance, noted that disposal need not mean anything harmful and that it relates to oil waste and some conditional uses, and left it in. They also agreed to get rid of the duplex definition and to split the table of uses, which had an entry reading yes for multi-family dwelling but duplex only.

23. 1:01:04
    Toxicity

    A member had searched and found no consistent definition of toxicity. Rather than define it, the board agreed to make the toxic waste wording match the pattern used for corrosive waste, so it reads that toxic waste is considered hazardous if it causes unnatural genetic activity or bioaccumulation, with some redundant words removed.

24. 1:06:15
    High intensity soil survey

    The term is used in the subdivision submission requirements but is defined by reference to a Portland technical manual. A member took on the research to find a better definition or set of guidelines for the next round, and members noted that wetland delineations are usually governed under NRPA rather than the shoreland zone.

25. 1:11:15
    Home occupation limited to a dwelling or structure

    The reworked definition confines a home occupation to use within a dwelling or structure, and a member asked whether that is too narrow for activities conducted outside, such as riding or skating lessons. Others noted the point of keeping it indoors is to avoid having to deal with screening and similar issues, and the question was left open. Paul (?) described telling an applicant who wanted to run a doggy daycare under the home occupation provisions to go to the planning board instead, because of the potential for disruption.

26. 1:11:15
    Occupancy classes and where the building codes were adopted

    Members discussed the occupancy distinctions that separate a hotel or motel from a bed and breakfast, put at twelve or fewer under NFPA. Asked where the town had adopted the building codes, a member said it was done at a special town meeting in 2014.

27. 1:11:15
    Impervious surface

    The draft definition covers any material covering the ground through which water does not readily penetrate, listing roofs, decks, concrete, stone, asphalt, gravel and crushed stone. Members debated whether to add packed or compacted to gravel, noting Maine DEP treats a packed gravel drive or parking lot as impervious while pervious gravel and asphalt exist, and one member described being required to install rain gardens for a grassy soccer field on a sand bed because it met the definition.

28. 1:16:44
    Solar is not mentioned in the ordinance

    A member asked whether solar should be defined so that a developer proposing a solar farm has to come to the board, noting a 600 kW system takes about three acres. Members discussed whether panels count as impervious, concluding Maine does not treat them so where the soil beneath absorbs, and noted such a use would currently fall under industrial or an unlisted commercial use. The view was that there was neither the time nor the immediate need to add it now, but that it should be added in future.

29. 1:16:44
    What is left to do

    With the flagged edits worked through, members identified erosion control, landscaping and buffering as the outstanding sections and set them as the focus of the next session.

30. 1:21:46
    Junkyard section

    Members said the ordinance's junkyard provisions add nothing to state requirements and there is nothing additional in town, and the suggestion was made to take the whole section out.

31. 1:21:46
    Conditional use application submission requirements

    Item nine requires, for projects with six or more dwelling units, 7,000 square feet or more of non-residential gross floor area, or a common water supply or sewage disposal system above a stated capacity, existing and proposed topography at two-foot contours, a storm water drainage and erosion control plan, and engineered calculations based on the 25-year, two-hour storm. Paul pointed out that the requirements track the state's subsurface wastewater rules for an engineered system, which trigger at 2,000 gallons a day, while the town's threshold is 1,500, making Durham 25 percent more stringent for no reason anyone present could identify.

32. 1:27:11
    Storm water and sewage mixed in one article

    Members agreed the article conflates subsurface sewage disposal, which is approved through the state, with storm water, which is a separate matter of ditches and swales. The position reached was to drop the gallons-a-day sewage trigger and rely on state rules while keeping a storm water submission requirement tied to the size of the development. It was noted that the only development in town with six or more dwelling units is the one off the end of Pinkham Brook Road near the Freeport town line, and that there is probably no 7,000 square foot building in town.

33. 1:32:17
    Common water supply trigger and next steps

    The common water supply trigger, which brings in a groundwater impact analysis by a hydrogeologist, was described as divorced from the size of the development. Members agreed the whole passage is confused, asked John to review and rework it, and agreed to delete the sewage disposal gallons-a-day trigger.

What was decided

• 5:16
  Remove galvanized culverts from the sections that still allowed them, leaving smooth bore plastic only.passed
• 5:16
  Change the culvert sizing language so that size and location are determined by drainage calculations and in no case smaller than 12 inches, replacing the minimum of 12 inches or as required by the planning board.passed
• 22:07
  Put the consolidated road and driveway standards into Article 4 as a performance standard applying to new and improved roads and driveways, with the subdivision and conditional use sections referring back to it; Paul to insert the text.passed
• 27:12
  Set the driveway centre line radius to 100 feet, matching the road standard, rather than the 125 feet in the draft.passed
• 27:12
  Add a maximum intersection angle of 105 degrees to the driveway standard, matching the state standard already used elsewhere.passed
• 32:54
  Whether to require a turnaround at the dead end of any driveway or access road over 400 feet, in addition to the existing midpoint turnout. The discussion moved on to the existing turnout language without settling the point.outcome unclear
• 37:59
  Replace the MDOT reference behind the 15 inches of type D gravel in the driveway standard with the ordinance's own aggregate subbase material, deleting the odd line.passed
• 37:59
  Prepare an old version and a new version of the ordinance side by side, with a bulleted list of the differences, for residents to consult at town meeting.passed
• 43:32
  Defer any definition of animal husbandry until a member has looked up the Department of Agriculture recommendations and the case discussed, given that state farm protection limits what the town can restrict.tabled
• 55:29
  Keep the definition of disposal in the ordinance rather than removing it, because it relates to oil waste and some conditional uses.passed
• 55:29
  Remove the duplex definition and split the table of uses, which listed multi-family dwelling as permitted for duplexes only.passed
• 1:01:04
  Reword the toxicity provision so that toxic waste follows the same construction as corrosive waste, rather than attempting a separate definition of toxicity.passed
• 1:06:15
  A member to research definitions of high intensity soil survey and bring options back for the next session.tabled
• 1:11:15
  Whether the home occupation definition should be widened beyond use within a dwelling or structure, to cover activities conducted outdoors. Left open without resolution.outcome unclear
• 1:16:44
  Not to add solar provisions to the ordinance in this round, while agreeing it should be added in future.tabled
• 1:16:44
  Make erosion control, landscaping and buffering the focus of the next working session.passed
• 1:21:46
  A suggestion to strike the junkyard section entirely as adding nothing to state requirements. Raised and agreed to in passing, but the discussion moved on without settling it.outcome unclear
• 1:32:17
  Delete the sewage disposal gallons-a-day trigger from the conditional use application submission requirements and ask John to review and rework that passage.passed

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

Worth knowing

• 1:21:46
  Durham's conditional use submission requirements trigger at 1,500 gallons a day where the state's engineered subsurface wastewater rules trigger at 2,000, making the town 25 percent more stringent. Nobody present could account for the figure, and the board agreed to strike it and rely on the state rules while keeping the storm water requirement.
• 43:32
  State farm protection limits what the town can do about riding stables: the Department of Agriculture treats any activity generating more than $2,000 a year as a protected farm operation. Members concluded there was no point taking a more restrictive view in the ordinance.
• 37:59
  Because tracked changes were abandoned partway through the rewrite, the board agreed that residents will be given the old and new versions side by side with a bulleted list of the differences ahead of town meeting.
• 1:16:44
  The land use ordinance says nothing about solar. A member raised the prospect of a solar farm application, noting a 600 kW array takes about three acres, and the board agreed to leave it for a future round rather than take it on now.

Elsewhere

← 2016-11-02 Planning Board2016-12-07 Planning Board →All meetings