Skip to content

This site is in beta and not (really) for public release. The data is real but the design and copy is subject to significant change.

Planning Board Meeting ~ January 3, 2024

2024-01-03 · Planning Board · 2:19:06 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board held its regular January meeting, opening with the annual election of officers and acceptance of the December 6, 2023 minutes. Most of the meeting was a section-by-section review of the draft land use ordinance amendment on solar energy systems, drafted by the Conservation Commission, with Jess Costa and Michael Friendly present to describe how it was written. The board made five changes to the draft and then voted to recommend it to the Select Board. It also voted to accept a draft amendment to Article 18.4 listing the permit fees the Select Board may set, over the objection of the code enforcement officer, who argued for a shorter general clause instead of a list. George Thebarge reported on a consultant proposal to digitally codify the town's ordinances, and one resident spoke during public comment about the housing amendment. John Talbot said all three articles would go forward to the Select Board as a package and that the Planning Board would hold the formal public hearing in March.

Who was there. The town's written minutes record these people present: John Talbot (Chair), Juliet Caplinger (Vice Chair), Allan Purinton, Tyler Hutchison, Brian Lanoie, George Thebarge (Town Planner). Recorded absent: Anne Torregrossa. Names in this summary are checked against that list.

What was discussed

  1. 0:45
    Election of officers and December minutes

    John Talbot conducted a roll call and confirmed a quorum of five voting members. The board elected John Talbot as Chairperson and Juliet Caplinger as Vice Chairperson, and accepted the minutes of the December 6, 2023 meeting.

  2. 6:10
    Digital codification of the land use ordinance

    George Thebarge reported on a meeting with the town manager, the code officer and John Talbot with a consultant proposing to digitise and codify the land use ordinance and other town ordinances. The work would include a language scrub and a legal scrub flagging provisions inconsistent with state law, and would identify gaps such as the absence of cell tower standards, but the consultant would not draft ordinances. Thebarge put the cost at roughly ten to twelve thousand dollars and the process at 18 months to two years once funded, with adoption at town meeting no earlier than April 2025.

  3. 11:36
    Public comment

    A resident who gave his name as Nathan Ledger (?) told the board he had invested money based on information the town gave him more than a year ago and that the housing proposal has since changed. He said his only recourse is to pay fees to go before the board of appeals, and that the proposal would require him to buy more acreage. He also objected to how he was treated at the December public hearing.

  4. 16:44
    Housing diversity and density draft

    John Talbot noted the board had already voted to forward this amendment to the Select Board at the December meeting, and asked only for formatting comments. A board member asked about section 5.1(C) on accessory apartments and the meaning of the main residence where there are two dwellings on a lot. George Thebarge said the maximum number of dwelling units per lot is three and that the wording confusion is the kind of thing the legal scrub would flag. No change was made.

  5. 21:55
    How the solar draft was written

    Jess Costa said the Conservation Commission spent about six months on the draft, reviewing ordinances from other Maine towns, Maine Audubon guidance, and meeting with the Topsham conservation and energy commissions. A town information meeting was held December 7 and comments were reviewed at the commission's December 20 meeting. Michael Friendly said a mitigation fee for arrays on ecologically valuable land, and discouraging arrays on prime farmland, were tabled for lack of time.

  6. 27:09
    Exemption threshold raised to 8,000 square feet

    George Thebarge said rooftop and small ground-mounted systems are exempt from board review. The initial exemption limit of 2,000 square feet of surface area was raised to 8,000 square feet by the Conservation Commission after solar developers testified it was too restrictive; Thebarge compared 8,000 square feet to the town office parking lot, which he put at about 7,200 square feet.

  7. 32:51
    Review levels and districts

    Medium scale systems, between 8,000 and 20,000 square feet of surface area, go to the planning board for site plan review. Anything over 20,000 square feet goes first for conditional use review and then site plan review. Solar would be allowed only in the rural residential agricultural district and the aquifer protection overlay.

  8. 37:55
    What counts as surface area

    The board debated whether surface area should include access ways, the space between panel rows, fencing, inverters and transformers, and whether the calculation should use panel tilt. Members argued the threshold is only a trigger for review and should be simple to apply.

  9. 43:12
    Cumberland example and the code officer's view

    George Thebarge showed the site plan for an installation on Route One in Cumberland: 20,000 square feet of panel surface area, about 40,000 square feet of ground including the rows between arrays, and about 1.57 acres within the fence. Alan Plummer said he would be the one doing the calculation in the office and that he did not want to be computing tangents. Thebarge said Topsham measures at maximum tilt.

  10. 1:00:42
    Visual impact assessment and vegetation management

    Juliet Caplinger asked whether a registered landscape architect should be required for the visual impact assessment or only for the vegetation management plan. George Thebarge said the landscape architect is needed because the assessment covers how visual impact will be mitigated through buffer design. He confirmed the vegetation management plan had been extended to cover the buffer outside the fence as well as vegetation inside it.

  11. 1:06:32
    Lighting standards

    Brian Lanoie asked whether fixtures should be required to be dark sky compliant and whether a photometric plan should be required. George Thebarge read the existing item 10, which requires shielded, downward-directed, full cut-off fixtures, and said a full lighting analysis would be excessive for a solar site. No change was made.

  12. 1:11:48
    Decommissioning and enforcement over the life of a project

    Members asked who tracks the decommissioning plan and the five-year updates to the financial guarantee. George Thebarge said the code officer reviews and enforces it, and that on any change of ownership the new owner must certify awareness of the requirements. Alan Plummer said such projects change hands rapidly, citing three sites in Mechanic Falls, one of which changed twice in a year, and asked that the code officer's duties on transfer be spelled out in one place.

  13. 1:17:07
    Vegetated buffer and noise separation

    Tyler Hutchison asked what the boundary line of a solar project site means for the 50-foot vegetated buffer; George Thebarge said the buffer applies to the project area, not the whole property. Hutchison then said the 400-foot noise separation should not be limited to inverters and transformers because other equipment may generate noise.

  14. 1:27:32
    Roof-mounted definition and 100-foot setback

    The board removed the phrase about tilting toward the south at an optimal angle from the roof mounted or building integrated definition. Juliet Caplinger then asked what equipment the 100-foot property line setback in C1 applies to; George Thebarge said the fence is set at 50 feet and the setback applies to the solar development itself. The word solar was added to C1.

  15. 1:33:02
    Land use table line 44

    John Talbot asked whether the land use table should show site plan review alongside code enforcement review for medium scale solar, so an applicant sees the requirement in one place. George Thebarge said the same omission runs through the whole table and warned the change could imply the requirement applies only to solar. Alan Plummer argued for making the one line correct now, and said afterwards he had persuaded at least one member who had intended to vote against it.

  16. 1:38:21
    Emergency services plan and battery storage

    John Talbot noted item 10 requires an emergency services plan acceptable to the fire chief. Juliet Caplinger asked what would apply to a standalone battery storage facility; George Thebarge said the solar standards would not cover it and it would be handled as a conditional use, and that the Conservation Commission was asked not to take on battery storage in this draft.

  17. 1:43:48
    Recommendation of the solar amendment

    A member asked whether a building permit is required; George Thebarge said generally only an electrical permit, unless there is a building or a road cut. John Talbot then read back the five changes the board had made and moved to recommend the draft to the Select Board.

  18. 1:48:54
    Article 18.4 permit fees

    George Thebarge explained that the 2022 town meeting moved fee setting out of the land use ordinance into a separate schedule the Select Board can amend, but the town attorney advised that a new fee must first be authorised at town meeting. The draft would list the current fees and add occupancy permits, subdivision sketch plan, amended subdivision, Shoreland zoning, solar energy systems, driveway permits and e911 permits.

  19. 1:54:30
    Disagreement over listing fees

    Alan Plummer said he and George Thebarge disagree on this. Plummer argued a list must be maintained and will be missed when new ordinances are added, and that a single sentence saying the Select Board may set a fee for anything referenced in the land use ordinance would be simpler. Thebarge said the attorney's opinion requires the fee to be referenced in the ordinance and that listing them in Article 18 does that in one place rather than in twenty. The board went with the list.

  20. 2:11:03
    Public hearing schedule

    After the vote a board member said public comment should have been opened on the fee article before the vote; John Talbot invited comment and none was offered, and said residents could email the board or the Select Board. Talbot said all three articles go to the Select Board as a package, and that the Planning Board must hold the formal public hearing no more than 30 days and no fewer than seven days before the April 6 town meeting, so sometime in March.

  21. 2:16:38
    Cell tower fee and adjournment

    John Talbot said the Select Board should set differential conditional use permit fees for uses such as cell towers, home businesses and solar, and asked Alan Plummer and George Thebarge to work with them on it. George Thebarge said any fee must be justified by what the service costs the town. The board then adjourned.

What was decided

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.

Motions the minutes record

The town's own written account of what was decided, taken from pbminutes_01_03_2024.txt. It owes nothing to the recording or to a model: the clerk typed it, with the vote. Where the summary above claims a decision this list does not carry, the summary is the part to doubt.

Worth knowing

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 6 passages of motion language, against 11 decisions summarised.

Show the 6 passages

Elsewhere

Source & method

Town of Durham meeting recordings, YouTube auto-captions, and the town's written minutes
Captions cleaned into timestamped transcripts; topics and motions found by pattern matching; summaries written by a language model and required to cite the second each item begins. Every name attached to speech is checked against the attendance list in the minutes, and marked (?) where no record confirms it
https://www.youtube.com/@durhammaine/videos
Summary written by claude-opus-5. Attendance from pbminutes_01_03_2024.txt.
Data as of 25 August 2026 (the date of the newest recorded meeting in the index); retrieved 2 September 2026.