Planning Board Meeting ~ November 1, 2023

2023-11-01 · Planning Board · 2:32:42 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board worked through four ordinance items it wants ready for the April town meeting: housing density, solar, permit fees and resource protection. George Thebarge presented a simplified housing density draft to comply with LD 2003, allowing a second accessory apartment on a two-acre lot or full-size dwelling units at two acres each up to a maximum of three, and the board agreed to take that to a public information meeting on November 15. After a long argument the board put the planned public survey on hold, on the view that there is no time left to act on the results before town meeting and that a small response could be used to sway the vote. The solar draft was reviewed and members agreed to send written comments to the planner for the Conservation Commission's meeting later in the month. The board then rejected, on a 2-3 vote, a proposal to redraw the Resource Protection District boundary around about 30 already developed properties, after members argued the lines were arbitrary and might amount to spot zoning, and the item will not be ready for April.

What was discussed

1. 0:25
   Roll call, agenda and minutes

   John Talbot opened with four of five members, noting Tyler Hutchison was out of town and one member might join later. The agenda was confirmed to cover housing density, the solar ordinance, fees and the board of appeals question. The October 4 minutes were accepted.

2. 0:25
   Informational exchange

   George Thebarge said the Union Church committee is still waiting for a report on the condition of the church and has not met for about a month and a half. Juliet Caplinger was congratulated on taking a position on solid waste; she noted the town needs a new contract by June and that solid waste is a large part of the town budget.

3. 5:32
   Timeline for the town meeting articles

   John Talbot set out the plan: a public information meeting on housing density on November 15, the Conservation Commission to take the solar draft to its own meeting and hold a session in early December, and formal articles written by late January or early February for the select board. Anne Torregrossa joined the meeting at this point.

4. 11:31
   Housing density draft under LD 2003

   George Thebarge said he had merged three earlier variations into a two-track scheme after hearing the board say the earlier drafts were too complicated. A single family home on two acres may add a second accessory apartment, each no larger than half the floor area of the main house; full-size dwelling units require two acres each, so a duplex needs four acres and a duplex plus a single family needs six, to a maximum of three units. He said the Department of Economic and Community Development and MMA legal staff agreed the approach complies in concept, with final wording still to go to the town attorney.

5. 11:31
   Definition changes

   The draft adds a secondary dwelling unit or accessory apartment to the dwelling unit definition, with a specific exemption from the two-acre requirement for accessory apartments, and drops the reference to allowing them on duplexes. George Thebarge said a leftover multifamily reference still needs to be crossed out.

6. 16:54
   Whether to run a public survey

   George Thebarge presented a draft survey with two questions on the accessory apartment and the two-acre requirement. Members objected that the questions repeat last year's, would confuse the issue, and that answers such as opposition to the lot size requirement could not be acted on in the time remaining. Others argued a survey reaches far more people than a meeting and that the state expects a public participation process when ordinances are amended.

7. 28:08
   How to frame the choice for voters

   The board agreed not to present the proposal as a menu of options. The presentation will show the planning board's recommendation and what happens if it is not adopted, which is the state default allowing up to three units, rather than a third option voters might try to invent. Brian Lanoie said the town should stick with the comprehensive plan approved five years ago and keep it to two.

8. 33:17
   What a survey result could and could not change

   George Thebarge said the useful question is whether people support increasing lot sizes, which was taken off the table in the 2018 comprehensive plan discussions. Members answered that a strongly opposed result would leave no time to rewrite the proposal, and that a small response could not fairly be quoted at town meeting to sway voters who are present.

9. 48:53
   Decision to hold the survey

   The board settled on relying on the November 15 information meeting and a further session, and revisiting the survey only if the turnout produces unexpected demands. George Thebarge said the results of the earlier public participation process can be cited instead.

10. 54:02
    Last year's survey results

    Of 216 responses, 110, given as between 51 and 57 percent, favoured the option that increased lot sizes, which is why the current proposal includes the two-acre per unit requirement. Board members said this should be pointed out at the information meeting.

11. 59:17
    Wording questions on the draft

    Members questioned why the ordinance defines both dwelling unit and residential dwelling unit; George Thebarge said the second is required by DEP for shoreland zoning. They also discussed whether single family and two family need to remain separate uses in the use table, given the new law requires that where a dwelling is allowed, two or three must be allowed. The section numbering in the handout was wrong because it had been prepared that day.

12. 1:04:26
    Handling further comments

    The board agreed members would send marked-up comments to George Thebarge in Word ahead of meetings rather than working through them at the table. The chair summarised the outcome as simplifying the November 15 presentation to the planning board proposal and the state law consequence, and pausing the survey.

13. 1:09:40
    Solar ordinance: where systems are allowed

    George Thebarge said use table item 44 allows solar only in the rural residential, agricultural and agricultural protection districts. Systems under 2,000 square feet are not reviewed, those up to 20,000 square feet go through site plan review, and anything larger needs a conditional use permit first so the board can consider scale and site before the applicant pays for full design. Juliet Caplinger suggested the use table should also show where site plan review applies.

14. 1:15:22
    Decommissioning, ownership and installer

    The draft requires a decommissioning plan, posting on site of who is responsible, and written certification when a system is sold that the new owner will comply. Members discussed whether the installer or the owner is the right contact, and agreed the owner is.

15. 1:20:30
    Battery storage

    The definition of a solar energy system currently includes storage. Members reported inquiries about standalone battery storage connected to a power line, storing power and selling it back at peak, which is not tied to solar. George Thebarge agreed to look into whether a separate provision is needed, and members agreed it is not something that can be added for this town meeting.

16. 1:25:36
    Buffering and fencing

    The draft requires a landscape architect's visual analysis so buffers are planted where a system will actually be seen. Juliet Caplinger objected to specifying chain link and proposed an agricultural style wire fence, which she said blends in better and lets wildlife through, and asked to raise it with the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission had already spent time on the gap at the bottom of the fence for Blanding's turtles.

17. 1:30:47
    Codes and lighting

    A board member asked that the International Building Code be added to the NFPA and National Electrical Code certification requirement, noting Maine's adopted edition is 2018 and that referencing MUBEC as the umbrella might be simpler. The lighting provision requires any lighting to be shielded, directed downward and full cut off, which members related to dark sky standards.

18. 1:35:50
    Fee schedule

    A member said the ordinance refers to a fee schedule adopted annually by the select board but that the schedule is not findable on the town website. Members noted the select board sets the fees, that the current permit fee is around $120, and that a solar farm fee might be several hundred dollars. The proposed E911 addressing fee was explained: assigning a number takes four or five hours including a site measurement and notifying the state, the county and the fire department, and has been done for free until now.

19. 1:41:02
    Resource protection: the proposed boundary revision

    George Thebarge said that because the two-stage map process was combined into one vote, the detailed look at individual properties never happened, and about 30 properties now have houses inside the Resource Protection District. He proposed redrawing the district boundary around the already developed part of each site, using Beginning with Habitat developed-area mapping and aerial photography as a check, and said the Conservation Commission was supportive of the concept.

20. 1:47:00
    Objection that the boundaries are arbitrary

    Anne Torregrossa said the lines are drawn by hand from aerial photographs, are not based on the factors the district was built from such as the 100-foot stream buffer, and look like spot zoning. Juliet Caplinger added that without going into the field there is no way to know whether cleared ground is wetland. George Thebarge said the lines follow existing clearing and offered to ask MMA whether it is spot zoning.

21. 1:57:41
    Examples and the alternative of the board of appeals

    George Thebarge showed properties along the river where houses of 75 years or more sit inside a 250-foot resource protection band, and the Hager Boat Works site, whose owners cannot expand the business or house without going to the board of appeals. Members asked whether the appeals route could simply be made cheaper and faster, and George Thebarge said MMA had called moving that authority away from the board of appeals problematic.

22. 2:08:17
    Expansion of non-conforming uses as an alternative

    Anne Torregrossa said a properly drafted expansion allowance for non-conforming structures, with real criteria on water quality and habitat, would be more defensible than drawing boundaries, and noted state shoreland zoning already allows expansion up to 30 percent. Members accepted that could not be drafted in time for this town meeting and asked that it be looked at for next year.

23. 2:19:03
    The fairness argument

    Anne Torregrossa (?) used her own property on Snow Road as an example, saying her whole cleared and fenced field is in use but only a loop around the buildings would be carved out, while a neighbour who built recently has a small clearing, and called the result fundamentally unfair. Others noted that carving out only the developed area gives no relief to a landowner whose woods may be worth more than a cleared field.

24. 2:24:18
    Motions on the resource protection concept

    George Thebarge offered wording to continue exploring the concept with the next step being a check with MMA legal services on whether the revision would be spot zoning or arbitrary, and said there was no point in his doing that research if the board was philosophically opposed. Motions followed, and after the vote members said the concept would not be ready for the April town meeting but that the non-conforming expansion idea should be researched.

25. 2:30:18
    Next meetings

    The next event is a public information meeting on November 15 at 6 pm at the fire station, where comments will be taken but in a less formal setting than a public hearing. The next regular planning board meeting is December 6. Members agreed to get their solar comments to George Thebarge so the Conservation Commission can consider them at its meeting.

What was decided

• 0:25
  Accept the October 4, 2023 meeting minutes, moved by Allan Purinton and seconded by Brian Lanoie, carried 4-0passed
• 48:53
  Hold the planned public survey on housing density and rely on public information meetings, revisiting it after November 15 if neededtabled
• 1:04:26
  Present the November 15 information meeting as the planning board's proposal and the consequence of state law if it is not adopted, rather than as a set of optionspassed
• 2:24:18
  Motion by Allan Purinton to continue exploring revision of the Resource Protection District boundary, with the next step being to check with MMA legal servicesoutcome unclear
• 2:24:18
  Amendment by Anne Torregrossa adding the words "or otherwise inconsistent with State Laws" to the motionoutcome unclear
• 2:24:18
  Motion by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton, that the town planner continue to look into the legality, with an illegal answer ending the matter and a legal answer sending it on to the Conservation Commissionfailed
• 2:30:18
  Adjourn, moved by Juliet Caplinger and seconded by Allan Purinton, carried 5-0passed

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 pb_meeting_minutes_11-1-23.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.

• accept the October 4th, 2023 meeting minutescarried 4-0

  Moved by Allan Purinton, seconded by Brian Lanoie

• continue exploration of the concept of revising the Resource Protection District boundary with the next step being to check with MMA legal services to determine whether this proposed revision of zoning map would be consi…

  Moved by Allan Purinton, no seconder recorded; no outcome recorded

• include “or otherwise inconsistent with State Laws” to the motion

  Moved by Anne Torregrossa, no seconder recorded; no outcome recorded

• have the Town Planner continue to look into the legality and if it comes back that it is illegal that ends it. If it comes back that it is legal, then the Board will continue on and go to the Conservation Commission and …failed 2-3

  Moved by John Talbot, seconded by Allan Purinton

• adjourn the meetingcarried 5-0

  Moved by Juliet Caplinger, seconded by Allan Purinton

Where the minutes and the recording disagree

Two independent records exist for this meeting: the town's written minutes and the video. For the items below they do not agree, or neither one settles the question. Both accounts are given as they stand. This site has no standing to decide which is right (the minutes are the legal record, the recording is what happened in the room), so the conflict is stated rather than resolved, and nothing here says the town got anything wrong.

• 2:24:18The written minutes record this motion as failed 2-3. The recording alone reads as though it carried; the minutes' count is the more specific record and is what the summary follows.

Worth knowing

• 11:31
  Under the draft, a single family home on a two-acre lot could add a second accessory apartment, each limited to half the floor area of the main house, while full-size units would need two acres each: four acres for a duplex and six for a duplex plus a single family, with a maximum of three units. If voters reject it the state default applies, which allows up to three units without the town's lot size requirement.
• 54:02
  At last year's public information meeting on housing about 20 people attended, while a little over 200 answered the survey. Of 216 responses, 110 favoured the option with larger lot sizes, which is why the current proposal requires two acres per full-size dwelling unit.
• 1:47:00
  Anne Torregrossa argued that drawing the Resource Protection District boundary around each developed house is spot zoning and arbitrary, because the lines come from aerial photographs rather than the stream buffers and other factors the district was built on, and would let one landowner build within 100 feet of a stream the town voted to protect while a neighbour could not.
• 2:24:18
  The motion to have the town planner pursue the legality of the boundary revision failed 2-3 by the town's written minutes. Members said any relief for the roughly 30 affected property owners will not be on the April town meeting warrant, and that a non-conforming expansion allowance should be researched for a later year.

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: 3 passages of motion language, against 7 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2023-10-04 Planning Board2023-11-15 Planning Board →All meetings