TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ November 14, 2016

they're requ they're appealing um the determination on the time limit on a campsite and they're applying for a variance for the other two lots Mindy's not going to be here evidently neither are Todd Mike okay she asked me to pass that on

do we have any business, just the ordinance. We're just going to go through the changes and stuff that we've got to so far. And I think we're just solidifying stuff, right? For I don't think we've got much more work going forward for

I don't know. I don't know. I couldn't pull up the stupid ordinance. Couldn't even start my freaking laptop. It's fine. Sorry. No, it's okay. that I sent you? I must. Is that the version I sent you? That's the version you sent me.

Okay. That's the same one, right? Yeah. I sent it to both of you. Mhm. Okay. All right. So, we want to go. Sure. I don't know what we're doing. All right. Well, I'll show what I've been working on. And so this is I tried

to basically take all of the criteria that were spread in subdivision, back lot, conditional use for roadways and access management and put it in one spot. Now, what I don't know is do we put it in an appendix or do we bring it back into one general section or not? You guys will have to guide me on how we want to do it. But what I tried to do is pull it all in one place so we're not repeating the same thing over and over again like what what the gravel is, what the civ size is and all of that. Um so and then I mostly most of the stuff stayed the same but I highlighted things that you know we should probably cover um right away. Um I listed it as word here. Oh actually I have one more document I should open. Sorry because you haven't

Is that your table you spread? Yeah, I was going over that table. table. Um, so what I tried to do is put all of the dimensions into the table as well. So, we'll have the table um that we can reference where all the dimensions show up in one place. And then we have um the appendix. So the row geometries and materials um there are the figures that were already in the ordinance which are these two figures here. Got that one which is for public roads is then there's the T's and then the one for private roads. So those stayed the same. there. Also, one's for the rural residential and one's for the

right um growth district. Yep. now that you put it all in one place, does it make sense? Is there stuff that needs to come out? Is there No, there it it really makes a lot of sense. Um there were I had to tweak some words like there were places where we were using aggregate base and other places we're using crush aggregate base. We don't have even have a civ thing for crush aggregate base. We just have a civ analysis. It doesn't say it has to be crushed in our standard. There's a lot of things like that but um in generally general I think it makes sense. Um

it's just trying to format the flow. M so this was the piece I think we talked about um big roads little roads. Mhm. And I think this one right here is the the one that kind of gives us that little small road scenario that comes out of mostly out of the back lot ordinance but

it's also out of subdivision out a subdivision for three roads. So I don't know that we really need to define a small road unless we want it a small road to be anything more. you know, if we wanted five units to be considered a small road. Um, but I think that gives us that exemption whether they're using the back lot ordinance or the subdivision ordinance to have a a gravel road.

Yeah. Which was I think one of the questions. I think once you put it all in one place, it kind of I think we had what we thought we needed. Just when you put them in different sections, it wasn't apparent that we had that.

same everywhere. That that was exactly the same everywhere. Um, I made a little tweak to pavement. It was like this reference to super pave, which when you look at the current DOT stuff, they don't necessarily call that. So, I just said the approved uh MDOT approved mix.

Um, there was, you know, this 2in grading versus 19.5. So, one section of ordinance said two inches of material, the other one said 19.5. Um, so I made them both 19.5, which is kind of what they would typically specify. Now, um, and then, oh, I got rid of the thickness. I'm sorry. Also, because in our table, we call out the various thicknesses,

the inch and a half and the 2 inch, right? Yeah. So, I deleted the thickness of the of the piece um because it's in the table and that way we we're only updating it in one place and it's also shown in that road section. So, how many times do you repeat the same piece of data?

Yeah. Yeah. Right. In the cross-section drawing, it's crosssection drawing inch and a half and two inch. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, rather than repeat it again in the text, I just deleted that piece. Um here's culverus. Here's one I changed. It had it still had galvanized culverts in some of the sections.

Mhm. Um I think that we should probably just move to all smooth or plastic, but I'm open to putting it back in if people think we should. Um and maybe it's a road commissioner question. Why would it I mean, as long as it's smooth, why would it matter?

The galvanized ones aren't smooth. Oh, it has to be smooth, right? Yeah. We won't do galvanized. won't do corrugated plastic or galvanized because they just don't work. Right. So, there was still in here as galvanized or smooth boore plastic. So, I

I chopped galvanized. I like that part. I kind of assumed you would. Um there was also uh a piece in uh in there that the culvert size in one of the se one of the sections. I don't remember exactly which one it was whether it was conditional use or subdivision that it was the culvert size was a minimum of 12 in or as required by the planning board. So I adopted the language that it'll be sized and located determined by the drainage calculations or a minimum of 12 in. Um that way if they're hiring an engineer to do an engineered subdivision plan, they're doing calculations and providing the data. It's not us engineering here at the table as the pling board.

So G there still talks about a zinc coated corrugated metal P. There we go. That's one I meant to actually get rid of because it's a repeat from above. Yeah. All right. That's why I need other eyes. Yeah. No, I I I see that.

Thank you. Oops. I don't want track changes though. So we see it. So the different one of the differences in your covert section is we're limiting it to 12 in, right? Minimum. Minimum. Minimum. No smaller than 12. before we said or per

discretion. Does it say minimum? You should say minimum. It does shall be no smaller than shall be. In no case smaller than Okay, good. Cuz yeah, that's a good minimum size. And I've got just a formatting question. What I learned, and maybe it's different with ordinances, but when a number is greater than 10 or 10 or greater, you don't need the parenthesis. You You don't type the word out. Not a big deal, but just something, you know. Is that

I don't know. Not a biggie. I kept it the way it was in the ordinance. Tastes the crap on me when you put numbers in. Is there anything 10 and above? You just write the number nine and below, you write nine. Spell it out in parenthesis 9.

So like, so if you had 2012, you wouldn't have to write out 2012. Parenthesis 2012. That was not true. That's what I but it might because that's something I I copied to pasted probably. So we just want to do that then. Yeah. Okay.

I'm fine with that. Okay. Next. Um signs. That's just a straight copy and paste. That's the same everywhere. Um sidewalks is a copy and paste. Um, right from our ordinance curbs, we don't use much. Um, I highlighted this one uh just because it said originally just said gravel base uh in the construction requirements and I I changed it to say the leveling material, the gravel base, the subbase because those are all three materials used on our ordinance and

they all need to be compacted. They all need to be compacted individually, right? The parking is all copy and paste. Parking makes sense to be in the road section. the any commercial application coming onto a town road needs to be paved under

guess it also deals with parking lots it's a good question Either way, I think it would be fine. But you think it should just stay in conditional? other? Cuz right now it's in subdivision. Yes. It should also be in conditional use.

In conditional use as well, right? right there. So it's in conditional use on page 57. I don't know 59 and see in article 4 E45. right? So they wouldn't go under our article 4. Well, that I guess that's one of my questions is because you do have some of the stuff is also in article 4 for driveways, sideline distances. Some of the stuff repeats there as well. So, that was one of my bigger overarching questions. And there's actually some very detailed pieces that were inserted about driveway in uh access in that

conditional use section that doesn't wasn't necessarily in subdivision and the others. Um so what I and the the what I'm thinking through at the moment and maybe I'm getting ahead of us is so the performance standards apply to existing uses. Mhm.

And the conditional use and subdivision apply to new uses. And so what I'm trying to think through right now is what our applies to and where it fits. Well, I think that's why John suggested we do it as an appendix because then it can be referenced from any part of the ordinance, right? I mean, you probably just do it as a new article, which is fine.

Um, you have to reference it, right? So, but under performance standards, you're going to reference only the driveway pieces and then conditional use and subdivision will reference the entire article. Is that essentially that's it? Yeah,

I had messed with the article 4 yet because I was struggling with Well, part of the article 4 part was making sure that entrances for new per for new single family homes on town roads had to be approved by the road commissioner,

right? That's where that got inserted. Mhm. um where in subdivisions in conditional use that stuff is coming before the planning board but may still require oversight by the road commissioner, right? But it would require per the specifications would be required by the board. So the road commissioner would have to go and see that he met your specifications rather than go and just look through the ordinance and make a decision kind of on his own as to how that was done.

But how? Yeah, I didn't touch I didn't touch that piece, but that's how you accept a town road, which I don't know why that's in our land use ordinance, but myself. I was like playing with the technical. So, this piece that's in here is the part that Sean and you guys put together a couple of years ago.

There's no way that I signed up on that mess. That doesn't even make sense. We didn't get into maintenance agreements. We had the entrance and exit. I remember that, right? What? Oh, wait. Yeah. Okay. I don't know what this is. And I don't know why we have a maintenance agreement in here.

of worms. You want to tackle that one tonight or I think we talked about this. The maintenance agreement I remember talking about. Well, the maintenance agreement is required under um for back lot when there's more than one house on a back lot development road. Is the maintenance agreement portion in the in the road stuff as well, John?

Nope. That's only in that performance standard. When did we start having these conversations? agreement also apply for subdivision until up until the town accepts a road? Yeah. So, it's going to apply in that section. It would apply a back lot, two or more, right?

Mhm. Three years ago. Feels like it. I'm trying to find about right screenshot of the There it is. There's at least one of them. Back That's helpful. your laptop to see the version that I Yeah. played with? Which one are you looking for? The one you sent us.

The one I sent you. Do you remember when you sent it? Nope. See what comes up here. After July. July. August. So, we were going to have two two articles like they are now. Here you go. We're going to have the general and the conditional.

Yep. I remember that. Oh Where did it go? There it is. Stop working again. Am I on the right one? I don't know. No, that's probably right. So, what we were going to do is we were going to have the general and then the conditional.

Can I write on that board? Please do. And that'll I'm basically gonna put back up what we had and we can figure out where all this goes. going over this? Mhm. Yeah, we had a whole a whole meeting just this and I think we see I'm not going crazy. Got lost.

there this means at this point. So under Did you hate that part? I do too. So clear when I wrote it. So under current article four, which is performance standards, your roads and driveways. it, you can tell us whether this even makes sense anymore. We were going to have sort of like access management

in your piece right here. Roads must right there at the bottom of the screen. Yes. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Baby roads and big roads. stay with me people. I got it. I got it. I'm a big picture person. I am too. And then all we were going to do under the conditional use was require that it meet the new driveway or road standards as applicable. So does it make sense to put that

in article 4 as a performance standard and make it clear it only applies to new and improved driveways or new and improved roads. And then in conditional use and subdivision just refer back to that section. Does that make sense? Yeah, that's essentially what it's a Yeah, it's the same idea as an appendix, right? They're all referring to the same section.

We could put it doesn't matter where it goes. Yeah. Right. We just reference. Originally, I was thinking appendix, but as I got into it, thinking about it more today, I was like, you know, we could probably just put that right into article 4 in the right place

as long as we made it really clear when it applied. Yeah. Yeah. And so in subdivision, we just refer to article 4. Yeah. And in conditional use, it refers to article four or whatever it winds up being. Okay, that's easy.

Okay, good. Thanks. All right, we're done. Clearly not right on the board. So Paul's going to copy and paste it and put it in article. But it helped. What's that? So Paul's going to take that and stick it all in article 4.

I am. No, if I get my laptop started, I will. All right. So, I did make some tweaks on this table that I've got highlighted now that we probably want to talk through because we had more detail in some of these areas in the driveway standard than we necessarily had on the roads sections. And

imagine that might as well require the least offender to do the most work, right? So, what I did on this one, the minimum grade wasn't listed anywhere. Um, this is basically right out of the kind of the state standard. Yeah.

For roads. I think don't think we're hurting anybody by asking for a half percent minimum grade. Um, there was nothing on the radius for backlot. I thought if it applied for the others, why wouldn't it apply for backlot? Um, the

um Okay. No. can live with it. Am I making anyone hurt? I mean, I I'm not trying to make anyone hurt. It's just like, all right, let's have some consistency. Yeah. Well, and my thought was if it's a single back lot where there's no opportunity for additional lots, the standard could change. But then there's no way to make that determination on the first lot and who knows where it's going after that, right? So, you might as well make them if they're going to do it the first time, you might as well get the most out of it. So, I would I would agree with that.

So, our driveway standard had this about angles. I added that to the other. So why is the driveway center line radius 125 ft and everybody else is 100? This was this these two were in these two are already these are in our ordinance.

I did not change those. What about the 125? This was the only one I added. All right. So can we we seems they should be standard all the way across the line, right? I can't imagine a driveway needs a larger radius than a road.

I You're asking me. I didn't put I have no idea where this stuff was. I grabbed where does this stuff come from? I grabbed the one from the state website of the the recommendation and I left it on left it on my desk at work. I just realized when I got here, but um I have no problem.

Let's just make that the same all the way across the board. Yeah. That way there we're not No, no, no, no. Other way. Oops. Make it all 100. Right. I don't know what's the right answer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 100 125. Well, if 100 is good for roads, 100 should be good for the driveway. Right.

Okay. With that, I get you. Now, we're only changing one. We're not saying we changed a bunch. Right. Right. I'm just going to highlight it so we know we changed it. Um I added So, this driveway one had 50 foot. I added it for the others.

Yeah. the 90 degree intersection with a roadway. Um, what I did add that I and my question is this 105 is kind of the state standard for these intersections. Um, but we didn't have anything in the driveway p this driveway piece of minimum maximum of 105. No greater than 105. I was wondering if we should

to have. I think so, too. You're leaning around too hard to look back in one direction. There's always it takes too much time and there's not enough time to see as you encroach. No greater than 105. There you go. the minimum grade was listed in driveways, but there was nothing listed for roadway. I assume that applies across the board that we would

Yeah. No. Yeah. all that sort of stuff is is the same the same risk factor, right, all the way through. So, it might as well carry the same standard. So, if I'm not mistaken, I didn't find anywhere that we had a requirement for turnarounds at a dead end road.

There's a requirement for any driveway over 400 ft or access road that's longer than 400 ft has to have a turnout. Where is that? Is that in article four that I missed? Maybe. No. Why you have to ask me? I read this stuff and I don't remember where it is. I have to go hunting for it.

Do a search on on your thing for 400. What's that? Do a search on your That's right. document for 400. I'm I wish I was that good. You know, they changed everything and now I always have trouble finding find now. Where did they put it?

It might be under Go under uh home. Is it home? Yep. And then go up to upper right. See the find up up in your toolbox. Oh yeah, there it is. the new version. Yep. Yeah, there's only four of them. where to find it right now.

Okay. But there was um there was a requirement in here that Maybe it was under the Did we call it turnaround or did we call it maybe might have called it a dead head? Dead. I'm not exact. I'm not remembering exactly. I'm just remembering that there. Sorry.

Sorry. I would do that if I could. Oops. Another dog. extent. Yeah, there you go. No. 400. Mine's at 800 ft. I'm I'm sorry. I'm I'm remembering more that there was a standard than exactly the particulars and I'm trying to remember. So there is a standard state standard or something.

Okay. So greater than 400 ft, you have to provide a turnaround too, Paul. Yeah. So do we want to just go across the board turn around at dead end greater than four any greater than 400 ft? Okay. thoughts. Yes, it's a it's an emergency access

okay requirement. So shall have at least one turnout to allow two-way traffic near the midpoint. Turn around 26. 26. It says it's a turnout to allow two-way traffic near the midpoint. at the top of the page. Yeah. Yeah. We and we rec I recopied that. That should have gone.

Okay. So, how does that drive with? But this is at at the dead end. At the dead end itself, right? the reason it's in here at the midpoint is for vehicular traffic, right? To pass each other. Um, somebody's coming out, they don't have to back out to the street to get by each other.

Okay. convenient and safe emergency vehicular access to all buildings and structures at all times. Driveway with shall be minimum of 12 ft. and then uh from that piece there was also there's something about there is a requirement for um

so here's here's your turnout right there Paul. Okay so I have that already. Okay. Roads, it wouldn't apply because there's two lanes and back lot. doesn't need it a turnout either. Right. Right. Yeah. So, they're talking mainly single lane rows, which is in the driveway.

You want to say travel lane per width? 12 11 10 and 20. This is the conversation we had last time, right? It should be it should be 22 20, right? You have the pavement width. Oh, and the lane width. Lane width. That's the way we had it in our thing. And that was

all right. All right. Let's just leave it. As long as I like I said, as long as I can make sense out of it to wherever I'm telling I got to do it. I know. What matters the most. All right. So, we can move on. I think so.

What's next? so here's the one oddball one. Just the one. Wow. Another oddball one. How's that? Okay. Um, in the access way access management, uh, the driveway standard, we have 15 inches of type D gravel listed. But then in the others, we have aggregate base and aggregate subbase. And we don't have we don't have we don't have this defined in our

materials, but there's a definition under the MBLT73.06 if we're okay with just making that reference. But it's a driveway. In other words, we're not making them do a a two course. Okay. Base subbase setup for a driveway. They just 15 inches of gravel and that's pretty much

going to be what it is, right? They can run a driveway off a subbase. They don't need anything else, right? 15 in a subbase here so that we don't have this one oddball reference to MDOT? Well, that would make it simpler and just leave it at that because it's essentially saying the same thing,

right? Instead of referencing the MDOT standard, let's just you reference the ad subbase material. That makes sense to me. Sure. That makes it simpler. Just trying to have some consistency. Not that All right. So, so line 30 goes away,

right? All right. All right. It's not going to work well if it comes in at less than one page. know how to how to interpret it. Well, what I kind of like is actually when you start to look at these things, you realize how close that some of the back lot requirements and the other roads requirements aren't all that drastically different,

right? If somebody's trying to make a decision of how to use their land or upgrade the back lot if the backlot road was built correctly to upgrade it to a multi multi-dwelling access is not a lot there's not a lot more to it if it was done right in the first place is always the

right tricky part. Mhm. So that's what I had. Okay, let me save this. just got to figure out how how and where to insert it. I can probably play with that. Okay, if you don't mind sending me the up the final versions. Yep. So I will save this one. This is the one we tweaked today. And honestly, you might have to clean up all of the little

letters and stuff because as you add in it's it screws it all up. Yeah, I basically gave when I completely rearranged this, I gave up with tracking changes. Okay. Cuz yeah, it's it's just too much. I know. I mean, if we want

you see how this looks. I'm like, yeah, if we want to do a compare at the end of it, we can. Okay. The only thing we need to do then when we get ready for town meeting is have a old version and a new version side by side with a bullet point.

Yeah. List on it so people can see those people can flip to it and see what the differences are. That'll be almost as long as the Yeah. The red line, green line, underline strike up thing. It always has driven me right out of my mind. Then once they improve it, you go back and have to reformat the whole document.

Yeah. And you never know. Are those changes that they have to, you know? Okay. So, were we done with roads? I think we're done with roads. We're done with roads. I had a couple questions last. thing. comments in December? We haven't been back doing this that long, have we? Um, so going back to the definitions,

um, one of the issues with animal husbandry up? Was it in the writing context? instructor. Um, so there's a case out there that basically said animal husbandry could include things like riding schools, but at the end of the day, it comes down to what your ordinance says um, as to what animal husbandry means. So, I didn't know if we wanted to define animal husbandry as limited to breeding and raising. I mean, I don't know. Well, and the question also had come up because the department of egg considered writing stables as animal husbandry and then

which means we can't touch it. Considered it farming, right? Which means we can't touch it, right? And if we have agriculture allowed and it's considered an a legitimate agricultural use by the department of a then we're no longer having anything to do with the with whether or not they can have a writing state long necessary impacts to the community around it. Right.

Right. that then we probably can't take a more restrictive view on it. Great. definition? Can you zoom up a little bit, Ann? No, this one's me. No, it's him. Oh god. Those are just my comments. Okay. Sorry about that. define it if we can?

mean, animal husbandry is essentially breeding animals, right? As I understand it. I mean, that's the traditional definition, but if you're the department of agriculture and you're saying that a riding stable is animal hundry,

well, that's a little different. It's considered agricultural. I don't know if it's an animal husband is what I should say. Oh yeah, I don't have internet. If they consider it, I do. I do. We trust Wikipedia. No. No. I was going to see I was going to do main agriculture husbandry.

Yeah, like a something like that. Yeah, I'm not even sure. How about Science Daily? That sounds pretty good. raising livestock. There's no writing in there. Yeah, the writing part's not, but horses. So, um Thank you. Main agricultural protection at

Yeah, that one. That was the next one under the one you clicked. There you go. Definitions. Composting farm farm operation means a condition activity that occurs on a farm in connection with the commercial production of agricultural products and includes but is not limited to operations giving rise to a whole bunch of yucky stuff and the employment use of labor. So what does it actually prohibit? A farm operation or agricultural composting operation located in an area where agriculture activities are permitted may not be considered a violation of municipal ordinance is conjecture. That's practices. How does the department of how does the department of egg get that a riding stable?

He has a farm operation. I'm not exactly sure where they got to it, but I understand that as far as they're concerned, they their threshold is any any activity that, Any activity that generates more than $2,000 of annual income a year is considered protected under the Farm Act.

Yeah, but it has to be a farm operation. They what they told me when we were going through the one that we went through and that's what I came up with was that that was considered as far as they're concerned that was a farming activity.

Of course, because of that $2,000 threshold. Farm means that land, plants, animals, buildings, structures, ponds, and machinery used in the commercial production of agricultural products. And then agricultural products. Those plants and animals and their products that are useful to humans.

I've got um New Glouster has it in theirs. I just looked at them include trees burn the dairy and raising of livestock, breeding or keeping of animals, fowl or birds as a business or gainful occupation. So that includes keeping animals as a business which would probably cover a riding stable. seem to

you know when you start to bring in public in the traffic to ride those animals I mean I can see if I was in a butter I would that's that's not what I anticipated I anticipated seeing horses in the field and sure but then think of wolf's neck farm you know nobody's is going to deny the wolf's neck as a farm,

right? But they also have education programs and everything else. Pet the cow day or whatever. Pet the fish. Throw the kids in a pond. It's pet the fish day. Mommy, the little dolphins are biting me. we should we don't need to pick a fight with the Department of A.

Well, they're going to look at it as much as they think that we've restricted. They'll deny the somewhere. recommendations from Department of A. That's not it. Oh, that was my case. That sucked. Um, why don't I get a put make a note to look for that and um see if I can find

Boy, when was that was last spring, right? That's going to be up here. look for this. So, the next one I see flagged was change of use. change of scope, change of use, a change in the type of occupancy or use of a building, structure, or portion thereof and or the land such that the basic type of use or scope is changed.

old I think you added scope? So whether it's a change of use or a change in the scope of the of the existing use, it should trigger no change in the type of occupancy or use of a building land such that the basic type of use or scope is changed. Could land just be moved up to first part of the sentence building structure land or portion thereof?

I don't know. It looks like I made these comments in December. So that was almost a year ago. I don't know what I was thinking. Um I mean the hard so occupancy is a specific thing under the technical codes but I don't think we have that in here. We don't um

you know is it a change of use if you go from commercial to another type of commercial because we only have certain things covered in are, use permit for a daycare that takes care of six children and you change it to, you know, a daycare that takes care of

20 kids. It's the same type of use, but it's a change in scope. It is a change in scope, and it also requires a different license through the state for that particular application. That's the fight right now. Where is it with the Dunkin Donuts? It's changed. Tim Hortons is changing to a Dunkin Donuts.

Dunkin Donuts and they're pissed about it. Where is that? York. Why would that be a problem? It's It's a smaller town. I thought it is. Well, I guess it gets a little bit dirtier that there's like a driveway issue and right of access issue

issue. Oh, but I can't remember what town that was in. I just saw that the other day. So for example, like you've got manufacturing, light industrial, and all other industrial uses not otherwise listed. So you could go in theory from one industrial use, light industrial use to another light industrial use without going through a change of use. Whether we want to allow that or not, I don't I don't know. Somebody's got an industrial building and I I guess I don't unless this

I mean maybe you don't care. I don't know. I don't know if I care if it's an industrial building. It's approved in town and it wants to be used for a different tenant unless there's like What about a different type? Well, that's where the you know what I wonder is where scope defined.

See the scope and and will they attract more business? Right. All of a sudden they're all of a sudden all sorts of cars are coming in all the time and Right. They were fabricating stuff that left once a week and now they're going to get their distribution center.

That's right. Right. They can affect volume. It can affect odor. It can affect noise. Scope is any any broadening of any any portion of the application of the existing right setup which so in other words that could be anything.

Well, I had no idea. you're going to lose that fight. Like change scope. So scope could be if it went from light manufacturing where six employees showed up, they manufactured stuff and once a month they shipped a truck out to a distribution center where there's 10 trucks a day. Well, you're changing the traffic flow,

right? So there's a change of scope, right? I just find the only part of this I find awkward is the the piece about the land like hanging off after the comma over there with the scope piece. It's like it should be type of occructure land or portion thereof.

Land. Sure. Rework it. Makes sense. Yeah. Just need a comma after the land. Yeah. Yep. solid waste management definition of disposal. Is disposal triggered elsewhere in the ordinance under waste management? I don't know.

Disposal of what? I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attent. Disposal is defined there. hazardous material and maybe dumping the um the carpal disposal systems different systems. because disposal also just means it could mean, you know, getting rid of it in a

right perfectly harmless manner. You know, doesn't have to be negative. Like it sounds to me like a definition out of the shoreline zone. there, do we? I was spelled wrong, too. Solid waste disposal. Well, that's municipal. That's the municipality's ability to dispose of it, not controlling how you dispose of something.

streams. making the shall at least consider. really going to apply. oil, oil waste and things like that and some of the conditional uses as disposal. So, that kind of relates to this. Yeah. So, I I think it's fine. I think I wouldn't take it out. Yeah.

kind of it doesn't necessarily need to be there. doesn't come up almost anywhere else in the ordinance, right? We went over fix it. Yeah. Yeah. We called it duplex, which we're going to get rid of. Yeah. And in multif family dwelling, we had that one part in the table of uses that would said yes, duplex only, which means no.

Right. So, we're going to split that table up. Okay. action on that? Sure. Sounds like you guys are all over it. Remind me in the email when you send me the roads. Oh jeez. fix duplexes in. I'm my eyes are glazing over toxicity tonight.

Toxicity. Who doesn't want to talk about that horror of eight at night? Yikes. Look at that. I actually did some searches and I couldn't really find like a consistent definition of toxicity. That's an interesting one. What is that under? That's these waists.

Yeah, it's like a waste. Oh, okay. Right. it's corrosive waste is considered hazardous if right you know so why doesn't this say toxic waste is considered hazard if it hazardous if or maybe we need to fix the others frankly I don't know

no I think the others are pretty consistent with talking about making the wording more consistent with the Well, and just the the definition. Yeah. Yeah. What it how it it defined. hazardous if yada yada yada. Do you mind scrolling up just a touch, John?

to those that are toxic. We're defining hazardous material. Right. Right. We're referencing toxicity. Oops. should be an as after is characterization of these categories is as I'm done. You still looking up the animal husbandry one or

I thought I could find it, you know, cuz I know it's in here, but you want to work on toxicity I think we should just add that change and I think that would be that's my vote is just make it match the rest. Right. So toxic waste.

Toxic waste is considered hazardous if it includes induces unnatural genetic activity. Causes. Causes is good genetic activity. potential for a bio accumulation to cause or yeah, of the shorland zone. You can take out potential four right there.

Okay. And also, sorry, add um add the in front of potential at the top. It has the Yeah, that's good. Definition of waste of has waste Portland's technical manual. H high intensity soil survey. We are not even going to talk about Portland's stuff.

My land use ordinance in Portland is no joke. My zoning ordinance is no joke this thick. Double-sided. Well, I was looking No joke. Yeah, I can't I was looking at your technical standards and it's there's just issues there, too.

I was like, well, they're not perfect. So, you're working on those, too. I am not touching chapter 14. I'm making the planning department do it, but but that's your job right now. Yes. Yes. Wow. So, we want to find a new new definitions. I can I will take the research project to do that unless you want.

No, no, no. Definitely you. But do we have where is this talked about? It's in our subdivision submission requirements at least. Ah, right. Right. Right. High intensity soil survey the chapter that. So we don't think that's right. We're just checking to make sure it could probably

better defined for sure or through the guidelines. I think that for the you're going to check with the what I can look at a I'll find a couple and find one that looks the you know what's toxic isn't even in here is it also talked about with like do we talk about wetland delineations at all in this thing like when you need a no delineation because I know those are required for that

it's usually defined under NERPA Yeah. Yeah. Right. I don't think that's a shoreline thing. I'm sorry. I'm remembering seeing it somewhere and now it's the usual case for me. But thanks here is printed somewhere else. And I thought it was in the shoreline zone because I thought it was something that someone just took right out of here. But evidently I was wrong again. Wow. I'm consistently wrong which could be a good thing.

All right. So I will look at definitions of high density soil survey for our next go around. All right. Let's see. this already? We did. There we go. Uh so I thought we completely reworked that. We did. But my question was we have limited it to use within a dwelling or structure.

What about things conducted outside a structure like riding lessons or ice skating lessons? I just wonder if our definition is too narrow. accessory structure. Riding ramp could be an accessory structure. Really? Even if it's just a big field that you ride around.

That probably would have to be that would be a stretch. I let you make that argument on challenge. I just I would change it to, you know, a commercial use performed or conducted, you know, on a property on a residential property or something like that, right?

No, I was just trying to think to where we have a unless we don't want to allow it at all in an outside venue, which is fine. the idea behind keeping it in the dwelling because then you're not deal having to deal with anything allowing things that might need screening or various other stuff, right?

And that's fine if we want to leave it. I mean, because we have some of the homebased businesses stuff is Paul's daily wick now, right? Yeah. I mean, I had someone that had come to me about wanting to do a doggy daycare and had said they meet the requirement under current ordinance for a um a homebased business for a home occupation. We had listed out some stuff and I said, "Yeah, I'm not buying it. Go on the planning board." There's the opportunity for disruption.

Yeah, I'm sure the neighbors are going to love that. Who wants to have an oversight? I'm not approving that without planning board. That said, I could use doggy daycare for my dog. as well. Terrible. Did you actually meet them?

No, not yet. Good. They're not ready for the public. professor until he's issued a C4. going through definitions? Is that what we're doing? I am going through all of Ann's comments cuz I don't know what else to do. Yeah, I don't know what else to do either.

the issue I have with this is um this could apply to basically anything. distinctions within the IRC um in regards to class of separating a hotel motel from a bed and breakfast by certain level of occupancy and so on. Yes. What bed and breakfast is 12 or fewer, 16 or fewer?

I think it's 12 or fewer under the NFPA. Okay. Um of these come in later on. Where have we adopted the building codes? Where did we adopt? Yeah. Do we have a separate ordinance that adopted those? I mean, we got me back, but

we adopted it at special town meeting in 2014. special town meetings and it was good job. Thanks. definition for impervious service. I like it for imperous surfaces. Right. Any material because I want do I want to hear it? Go ahead. through which

any material covering the ground through which water does not readily per penetrate including but not limited to roof structures, decks, concrete, stone, tire, asphalt, pavement, gravel, and crushed stone. Gravel water doesn't readily pass

compacted compacted gravel. No, no, but they do most most definitions of imperous service, including the main D, you have a pack gravel drive parking lot. That's an impervious surface. Yep. But let's add you might um add packed to

that then packed gravel, right? Or maybe not because you could say compacted, right? because there are some is gravel and crushed stone that are considered pvious. Oh, incredibly. You can get pvious asphalt, too. But that's a stone.

I had to I had to put in a I had gravel aquifer. I had to put in rain gardens on a soccer field because that is considered an impervious surface. I believe it. And guess what? No water ever gets to those things. But it meets the definition. Therefore, we had to have treatment. So, we've got these rain gardens that have dead wetland plants in them.

What was considered impervious? Soccer field. a grassy soccer field on a sand bed. I mean, it's it drains. There's something with a with a full fouryear degree right there. I'll tell you figured that one out, right? It's that's the way the regs read with D.

The D. The P stands for pvious. Department of Environment. That's good. Sure. About this. Are we have we thought of adding um solar to this ordinance? Like if revision comes knocking and you know you and I have talked a little bit about this and they want to develop a solar farm,

do we have to define it in order to have them come before the plate board. You mean? No, we don't. But it makes it easier and it makes it makes developers So, you want to separate a solar array from a solar farm or separate a personal array from a commercial array?

No, no, no, no. I'm not getting into specifics at all. I'm just saying we don't mention it at all in our ordinance. I'm just wondering and I I don't know how we would do that, but do we maybe and it's a big thing, so maybe we shouldn't do it now. I'm just saying, you know, a lot of towns are now starting to include So,

so it's a reasonable idea. I mean, you build a 600 KW system, there's three acres of land. But also, I I bring that up because impervious solar panels is it depends on the state. I'm not really sure in Maine, but Maine does mean they don't as long as you mean the soils underneath will absorb.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. So, they're not pvious. I mean, they are pvious. So when we say roof structures, well I guess so so if someone's developing solar panels on the ground, we wouldn't include it in there. Yeah, I would you stretch making a solar panel a roof structure because it's not it's not covering something to prevent it from

Yeah. It runs not doing what a roof some states get a little bit concerned about the channelized water coming off from panel systems, but Maine isn't there yet. Yep. From my experience with a big system. So I don't think we have the time and the really energy or need to add solar here but just to think about it in the future I think it would be good to add it. Where do we regulate that under manufacturing?

Industrial industrial. We usually do if we have renewable energy section, but we don't have that. So we um just Yeah, I've seen it industrial. I've seen it um conditional use utility energy typical every other commercial use not identified here. Every other industrial use not identified here.

Right. and then just try to make Do we have it for substations? Do we have a section? Yeah. company when they came through? You did a bunch of them, right? What power company? The um high power lines when they came, didn't they come through and do some upgrades? Then you guys had one up the planning board with that or no?

I don't think so. Did we? Oh, we were two and a half years. Wasn't me. CFP. Oh my god, I'm the longest standing member at this point. What the heck? Where's Todd? I don't think so. Not while I've been here. call it a day

so far? Call it a night or we going farther? Tell me. There's no more edits. Look at that. We're done. Magic. I made them all go away. You did. Pretty good. You know, I went You really just deleted them. I'm done. So, I had one real quick question here and I brought this.

This is that mess. We don't want to get into that. That's the road piece. Yeah. So, that's where I cut it and stuck it in. Yeah. As a placeholder, but now I can take what you've done Yeah. and fit it in there if I have a laptop.

Not sure why you you highlighted a lot of this and I'm not sure why. It was all stuff that I was not dealing with. Okay. Somebody else needed to deal with Yeah. Like all that stuff. Somebody was going to do erosion control. I'm pretty sure it was not me. Maybe it was you. Maybe you were slack.

Why was I going to do Maybe I'm slacking. Maybe you're slacking. Maybe that was your job. I don't remember now. Really? We could do erosion control next time. Oh, we want to get landscaping. Yeah, that's a big disappear discussion, right?

Yeah. white cord from? Not sure. I don't either. should be a focus our next session. Yeah, next time come around and buffering. Yeah. Okay. which one? Junkyard. What are we going to do with that? I So I don't even know. isn't it?

Yeah. I don't think any of that's there's nothing There's nothing different. We don't have anything additional in town. We should just take that out. Honestly, take what out? The whole thing? Yeah. Yes. Look, Paul, you were going to do erosion.

Yeah. See? See the magic of iPhones. Curse. erosion control and landscaping are the outstanding issues. And I thought I'd done the landscaping one. We did some stuff on that, but that was so long ago I can't remember. And we've had some recent

issues with that. Here we go. On on page 54, John, item nine. It's not going to be It's probably hundred of hours under application submission requirements for conditional use. Where are we? I'm on page 54. It's not going to be on that one. That's my edit. It's not going to match up.

It comes under um hold it hold. Go too far. Go too far. No, right there. Go up. That's it. If you scroll up a little bit, The other way. That's it right there. Application submission requirements. Yeah. Keep coming down. Down to number nine.

Oh, sorry. Where does it go? Page 54. He's right. It is 54. Is it even there? Not on this one. Oh, that's probably coming off the other one. That's not correct. Is it the following supplemental? Yeah. Following supplemental information shall be provided. I probably moved it.

Um, projects involving either six or more dwelling units, 7,000 square feet or more of gross floor area of a non-resident non-residential use or common water supply or sewage disposal system with a capacity of 15,000 gallons a day or more. Require an existing proposed topography of the site at twoft contour intervals. storm water drainage erosion control plan engineered calculations to determine engineer to requirements based on the 25 year 2-hour storm frequency estimation and peak discharge.

And um it's on page uh 57 of that one, isn't it? I didn't get that far before Paul told me I was on the wrong place. Oh, this one Yeah. All of that entire requirement in there is the state is actually more stringent than the state subsurface wastewater.

That's what he's talking about system right there, John. And I don't know why if the state sets the threshold of 2,000 gallons, we need to be at 1500 or if that was an old state threshold that had been changed since it was initiated.

We're talking right here. Yeah. But all of the requirements A, B, you know, 1, two, 3, four, five, and C are all part of the state groundwater, subsurface wastewater rules for an engineered system, which is a 2,000galon threshold.

All of the site evaluators that do subsurface wastewater work in the state all aim at that 2,000galon per day threshold so that they don't folks don't need engineered systems. And we are 25% more stringent. I have no idea why.

So, you're saying you want to change this 1500 to 2,000? I would just recommendation. Well, I'm wondering, but it's but it's a if if we go to 20,000, then now we're duplicitous with the state rules and they have to comply by the state rules anyway.

So, you're saying just follow the state rules. So, does that also apply to six or more dwelling units, 7,000 square feet or more of gross? It does in this, but I don't like what you mentioned was just specifically, right? So, the subsurface wastewater rules,

is it just the volume that triggers it? Let's say we did I'm looking. Hang on a second here. So, if we had three bedrooms, right, that's 270 gallons a day under state rules. You would on the seventh throwing unit. Durham special?

I don't know. I Well, that I have no idea where this came from. One I don't think there's a 7,000 foot building in town. Um there's only been one setup where there were six or more dwelling units. That's the one that um Dit did down off of Pinkham at the end of Pinkham Brook Road down by the Freeport Town line. And if the state subsurface engineered system is sufficient, I'm not sure what we, you know, what are we trying to regulate here and why?

Well, I think you can go. So, what's the what I'm really struggling with is we're mixing subsurface sewage disposal with storm water. Exactly. But but so it says a common water supplier sewage disposal system with a capacity of 15,000 gallons a day or more. Right.

And then item B is storm water, right? which is something totally different. That's what I was looking at. So, I mean that well, but they're trying to they're trying but in an engineered 2,000galon engineered disposal system, storm water runoff is a critical part as to whether or not the the the system can handle the capacity to percolate without uh without

being overloaded by groundwater infiltration. include in this the way it's written, you're not just including dwellings. You're also including 7,000 square ft or more of gross floor area of a non-residential use. So, okay. But what it's regulating is water supply and sewage disposal. It's asking for additional information, but what it's regulating is sewage disposal and water supply. Yeah, but like so you're but you're so this whole 25 year storm, you're not putting that in your sewer system. That's running out your ditches and your sws.

Oh, but it's a but in in an engineered system of 2,000 gallons a day or more, it has a significant impact on capacity of the soil to hold water, which needs time to percolate in order to satisfy subsurface. So an engineer would look at storm water runoff for a site to determine the size of the system.

I have so I guess we're we're in different places. So I have no problem like going to the state for the A storm the sewage disposal piece but I think they still need to show us that they have a storm water plan but it's in your regular that's already in your conditional use.

I don't know not this level of yeah I don't think it's not this level of detail. I mean we could search for but this is but okay I I that's fine if you want that in the conditional use that should be there but this is solely based on strictly for storm water. All right the the the what they're asking for is an engineered disposal system that gives you all of this additional information.

Well I think that they're m they've made a little bit of a mistake. I think something got deleted in that first piece because what I think they're trying to do is to have additional submittal information in the design in the application additional application information that shows the topography the storm water drainage how you going to handle it storm water drainage swailes the engineering cuz this whole 25 year storm to ours that's all storm water it's nothing to do with subsurface waste disposal so someplace in this whole

so I think that's why it's not just buildings it's also like a site like say they're going to clear a big site and put something a non-building you know they so under general under our application submissions the location of open drainage courses wetland stands of trees other natural features with the description of such features to be retained for any new land escaping plan any buffering areas the direction of drainage across the site both existing and proposed um

uh we had somewhere in basins, dry wells, drainage uh retention basins, storm sewers, right? The engineering calculations. I mean, if they're doing this big of a development, they're doing all that stuff for the main D anyway. So, we're basically just getting copies of what they probably

plan with drawing a scale 100 ft to the inch. It needs it needs work. I agree. It just seems that if if you have to have an engineered system for a wastewater disposal system of 2,000 gallons a day, I'm not sure why we're requiring all of this information for 1500 gallons a day.

No, I think I want to see this information because I want to know that they have a storm water plant to put in a sewage system. No, I don't care about the sewer system. sewer systems approved through through the state department of health and human services.

Can we strike the sewage system out of there? Yeah, I think we did delete the sewage system, but we still have this other information. I think we need to have I got you. I'm with you, Paul. All right. I think we're kind of in the same place.

Yeah, completely. I'm so He said it so much better than I could have even thought of saying it. All right. They're like two separate things, right? two separate things that get combined in this article that are making it really

there's yeah they listed they listed four or five different thresholds that trigger all of the following needed information right and I would think that I would like to see that gallons a day get struck because strike that right there

under state rule and I don't think it's necessary for us to have it in here right I want to see it because of the size of development I want to see the storm water stuff thank you care less about that I agree no I what about the common water stuff

well I'm going to I'll get you period. I would stick I might I don't know about the common water supply. I don't even know what that means actually. It's the when all six units are using the same well but it's saying it's part of the for projects involving

Yeah. But so they're developing a common water supply. The common water supply that whole thing about groundwater impact analysis by hydraulysis hydraologist comes in. Well, but it's completely divorced from the size of the development.

I know because all this is all messed up right now. Oh, okay. I I elect John to review this. Oh, I second that election. All right. about the sewage 1500 gallons. Yep. Yeah. Delete that. it is. What just happened? All okay. Me, too. Are we off? Um,

sounds like you should mute it.