TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ November 1, 2023

thank you everybody for coming to the uh November 1st as I tell everybody to talk in the M November 1 uh regular meeting of the uh Durham planning board and the first item of our on our agenda is roll call and determination of forum we have a uh quum we have four of five members and m t may join us as we're going into that and as I said Tyler is out of town and will not be here are there any amendments to the agenda um I've got a question so we're talking um the last item here we're talking um the affordable housing or whatever we're calling that right and hous housing density sorry housing density and then we also discussing the solar ordinance as well okay and the board of appeals yes that one as well okay great and thees are rolled up into solar is it the list of thees yeah I saw change so we can talk about that we will talk about that as well perfect any other amendments to the agenda moving on uh

acceptance of the minutes of October 4th everybody had a chance to read them any questions comments yeah I wasn't yeah looked at them I've got some questions have you read them over and watch movie and then we'll be good yeah I I have I've got questions I don't see any issues I just have questions about what you guys please but now but this related to our stuff later on so I think we just hold them till yeah we definitely can yeah and so any no questions no issues do I have a motion I move to accept them as presented second I'll second move in second any further discussion seeing none all in favor raise a hand please or zip uh um George informational Exchange in on non agenda items I think we've got plenty to talk about tonight on agenda yeah I don't really have any outside information um just quick and dirty did Union Church committee is still waiting for a report back on the condition of

the church that we haven't met for probably a month and a half or so and I want to congratulate M ginger for accepting a position on the solid waste so if you don't get your trash picked up please call Juliet oh God it did you want to say anything about that no just that I'm glad to be part of it I think it's really important for Durham um we need a new contract by June this year yes we talking about that as a huge chunk of the town's budget yes okay uh no

residents no nonresidents uh no new business and so we'll move on to um the draft land use ordinance and stuff and u i the goal that I would like to accomplish this evening is on the we just talked about it but afford housing density um the solar the fees and then

resource protection what I'd like to come out of tonight is for the housing thing are we comfortable with what in Georgia has done a good job putting stuff together are we comfortable enough to take that to a November 15th uh public information meeting not a formal public hearing but a public information meeting and if if we are after we've had a chance to review it uh we will keep that on track we will make the fixes to get there solar uh George and I keep throwing George's name out there but George and the Conservation Commission have done a good job putting together a rough draft on that and they will meet at uh the Thursday or whatever

it is of this month and um if they're comfortable with what is out there proposed um they will then set a date to review that in December public the they'll do the public information meeting they be the conservation meeting we'll do that sometime in December early December so that the solo one won't be presented on the 15th it will not uh I we talk about it you know s hand it off to them but I think well no because I think they want to talk about it internally at the end of this month okay um then the other that Theses already kind of wrapped up in that the other thing is and I'll let George give out the detail that we have been kind of talking about uh on the appeal process for resource protection uh I don't say take it away but the for a certain uh 30% whatever it was anyway code enforcement would look at it we would look at it uh and I'll kind of give a little bit more information we're going a different

direction if you've had a chance to look at it I'll let George give that so and then two questions are we comfortable with where that's going and do we want to since re Conservation Commission did the original resource protection stuff are we comfortable letting them pick up this that the new piece of this and what you'll see is it's basically kind of carals of the the approved to that so um

so that's I'd like to today are we going to keep that and drive on with it and maybe do it on the 15th of of November for comfortable or do we have the asset Conservation Commission to pick that up and take it from there so since they've already started that process so so timing wise what is our anticipation of what will be presented at the annual Town meetings or changes okay so welcome mosa for joining us so

um if it all works out we would housing housing density Conservation Commission what you know the conservation Comm commission SL it's on the agenda for town meeting housing density conservation resource protection they that's our goal is to have those four issues uh ready to go for a vote by the town on the first so even even though the solo won't be available to be presented on the 15th of November we still going to meet our time crunch if it's not going to happen until December to present to the public the Conservation Commission did not look at did not bring up resource protection till about the same time last year okay so and I guess kind of my thought going into that is uh they would have their meeting in December we would then Sor the other Mee I was the survey George just prepare a survey so we would send out a survey after the November 15th our informational meeting public meeting get that information back in

January we would tweak uh I keep losing track all four items and then give put the Planning Commission tweak on that blessing on that to send to um the select board in the end of January early February because the formal article has to be written SL by now okay do that make sense yeah I just want to make sure that we all uh meeting

all of our primary I think we are I mean January you recall January February March well some people in Florida get uh gets kind of busy U so yes I think we can okay we just need that but we like tonight we kind of need to make a decision on what we want to present on the 15th and then conservation needs to make a decision at their meeting but they want to present in December so so they couldn't really say yeah we're not ready we'll do it in January and I think they know we got enough conversations with them that they B into this timeline okay so George I let you take

process so um I won't get into any of the background because we've been over this many many times thank you painfully aware of what's involved with the having to meet LD 2003 so um probably the biggest uh change to what's has you have been looking at is I was processing your

concerns struggling with the complexity of this issue from day one with LD 2003 it's hyper complex because it took took the uh the state staffers and attorney general almost a year to try to figure out what this thing means and there's just so many variations within it so uh I kept hearing from you folks too complicated too complicated U and it's hard to present how are people going to understand it so as I was processing that it seemed to me and we're in addition to all the complexity on the state side we're trying to weave in some recommendations from Durham's comprehensive plan in terms of the multi

so uh where it came out was we had like three different variations and what I've done is kind of melded those into two and and you brought up some comments last time about definitions that that again was part of that complexity trying to differentiate between these different things so where it came out was what's before you tonight in the latest graft which basically gets rid of that housing uh unit uh provision and definition and rais questions with and basically says look basic program will be right now you can do a single family home and you can have one accessory unit uh accessory apartment that has can be no larger than 50% of the floor area of the main house and it can either be attached to within or in an out building like a garage or Barn so that's been the policy 2 acre laot you can do one accessory Department uh town has for at least 20 years if longer ow a duplex on 2 and a half acres

uh you can't add an accessory apartment if you have a duplex you get two units that's been the policy to this town for a couple of decades so the state has said you not only have to allow that you have to allow up to three units and the

latest final uh decision of what the what the law means and what it says was that those can be you could do a duplex and a single family on the same and from pretty much the beginning we've understood that the town can increase the lot size uh with that and so where

I've come out is we're trying to mix and match keeping what we had and adding the new so what I've done is just gone to simplified program where if you have a single family you can add a second accessory apartment on two acres without having to increase your lot size uh if you go with fulls siiz housing three fullsize housing units each fullsize housing unit will require two acres per dwelling unit so if you have a single family it's two acres if you have a duplex it's four acres if you have duplex and a single family it's six acres so that's what the latest draft uh kind of presents simplified to that two track uh program now I did in processing it U this latest draft that I've done that I'm going to show you tonight I did have to TW the definitions of it because I had I had eliminated U multif family

in one part of it on definitions but it's still mentioned it's still mentioned U multif family below it so on page hand out everybody got one now sure sure no I I got oh we yep so on page um it's number 13 from the or uh definitions you see I I did put this in red track changes so a separate secondary dwelling unit accessory apartment is added to the to that definition and we were earlier talking about allowing these on duplexes so that's why it says the main dwellings that's crossed out because now we're saying we're only going to allow it on a single family and so what that does is that makes the dwelling unit definition include uh accessory Apartments so uh you would have uh two

acres per dwelling unit but there's a specific exemption on the 2 acre requirement for accessory apartments in the other provision and then as you as I said I I neglected to cross out multif family down below so those are the only two changes and this this incorporates pretty much what I just presented to you

family on that what would allow right now we allow one accessory unit Y and this would allow a second accessory unit correct it does not allow a stay alone single family no unless unless you increase the lot size okay and that would I guess the real question is I know you look talked to MMA I think you talked to the town attorney and they blessed that they they think we're in both the Department of Economic and Community Development and MMA legal staff said that this approach in concept complies with the law obviously we haven't run the final wording of what we're proposing prob do that with the town attorney okay that was my initial question so any questions for George you have any questions I guess size well what I was going to do is just limit it because you know I had done a presentation which we could do again for the public that just basically you know gives all the background we don't need to do that what I did was I

took some of that and tried to do a a first cut at the survey uh so let's and that's got the graphics and the explanation so see what you think in terms of presentation to the public is this something that they can process and I did send you uh uh an email with it I think just a day or so ago when I finished it and uh so hopefully you had time to read down through the explanation so what still so on the 15 what generally what do you see as your presentation it would be the slide presentation as opposed to the survey but that basically the slide presentation this this describes it in just a few Graphics so you see that the first page of the survey has the current zoning and then talk about the planning board proposal and then the two tracks that I just uh described is on the second page with the questions and what I propose to do for the questions is again keep it simple keep it direct uh and so basically review the

questions that you asked last time to see if the pulse of the community is is where it was you know you may may have had it back then it was kind of evenly split between people that want to uh limit restrict it and people want to make housing more available uh so you getting feedback from both maybe that shifted in one One Direction or the other so that would be good to check that and then just have two simple questions um should the planning board is proposing uh to allow a second smaller accessory apartment on a 2ac lot would the prop propose the proposed design controls that I explained earlier do you strongly oppose that oppose it are you neutral do you support or strong support and then the idea of requiring two acres for each full size long unit with the explanation of what you have to c a single family duplex and single family and dlex again oppose or

support or you don't care as the options so my first thought on uh last year survey out there if you going to two things is to confuse the issue and then the thing is if you get a survey and you get results what what impact would they have on this I mean you know we're going to get feedback Y what are we going to do with that feedback well question becomes you well

all right if you part of the idea of doing survey uh as well as public you don't want to go to town meeting and just informational session yeah I mean we should not go we should not be surprised with or without that with this survey public information meeting January meeting a formal public hearing I I'm so what happened last year the informational meeting as you will recall um on the housing we had maybe 20 people show up M but when we did the survey we had 200 people F the survey so the idea is you both you don't just do one or the other and I'm not arguing doing that my concern is why go back to

last year's what are we going to get by do I mean we'll get feedback on WE maintaining the real character but is that going to confuse the issue with part part what it does in these questions are aimed at not just do you support it or do you oppose it why do you support oppose it and people support the idea of accessory apartment because they are concerned about relatives being able to move into town or if they're opposed to either or both because they're concerned because the grounds towns grow too fast taxes are increasing losing their Royal character this gives them you gives you some sense of why and

GP Cog is going to be doing Survey Monkey and you can do cross tabulations to find out is their correspondence it's usually pretty common that that's you think people that are concerned about housing would uh vote for adding accessory second ex department and people that are concerned with uh too much Gr taxes

but I I'm still the fact that not 100% of the people say we don't want any more grow we still have to do this I mean so if everybody says we need a didn't listen to me I guess what is the end we we get that survey it's like last year you go into the town meeting and say look we did an extensive public participation process and here's what we heard I don't but this doesn't help with this right I

think that's what you're getting that's what I'm trying to say is that it I agree and I thought we decided this last meeting that we wouldn't do this till after the vote the the going back to last year well I'm sorry you mean after the town meeting vote yeah okay this isn't this is just simply about the housing I know but this doesn't help it doesn't help educate people it's going to confuse people it does not give us any usable information for this question I think it's important to know to decide where we go next but what we talked about last time is this will confuse people if we put it out before the town meeting when this proposal is all we're talking about

George yeah this was just a first cut get something on the table because we want to have this thing ready to roll either after November two weeks from now and GP Cog has to process it and set it up with Survey Monkey and get everything set it link to ours so this was just a first cck so you want to ask different questions you want to just have two questions whatever you want to do it's fine yeah I app I appreciate I just probably said it better than I did I'm not sure what we get out of going back you know say this and stop talking I I think the question is to me do you want to do it the way the town does where way the planning board is recommended or you just want to stick with the state law that's kind of the questions in my mind because that's what happens you either approve what we've submitted or you don't in which case you basically that's you're going to follow state law here one July I I agree that I

think at some point time going back and talking about rural character and but housing diversity and some of those other things I think that's fine but that's no that's only my opinion so I'm I'm going to look right and see what other folks say I think the biggest thing people are going to be asking that if we don't go with the recommendations of the planning board go to state law what is what are the pros and cons of doing that yeah I think we could be be yeah clear about that somehow in this I think that's important also I do agree the survey is important like you mentioned we're going to get a lot more people's you know input with the survey in our meeting um and so I do think it's really

important but I think you're right in the fact that we could be more focused on our questions regarding the two proposals right and like you know the pros and cons perhaps bringing that in somehow the third one nothing option then just has the state lock right and what would that and what would that result right and there would probably be people who would support but I think at least then we've educated that hey look it you can kind of do what we're recommending if if you're you want to limit you know single family homes if you don't want to have a bunch of those but i' like to see us just really keep it focused and and after the fact and I

think it's important as an said it's after that and say okay look we got this new law and we're going to we're going to have an increased density because of if you know because of this is there more houses or whatever you want to call it what other things bother you and then might people talk about subdivisions or

I want to have apartments or whatever it may be but okay I'm doing all I'm talking so Brian putting you on the spot thanks um I mean I think I don't know how much the town has grown since 2018 when the comp CL came out and how many different opinions may be out there but I think it's important to note that you know we're we're we're trying to stick with the comp plan that was approved five years ago um and

and listen to what the public stated and approved to back then and maybe two options is the better way to go than three options or stick with what the planning board is um uh recommending or go with what state law says we have to do I just keep it at to and when you're talking three options you're talking it's an existing single family and a duplex those are one options one two the two well this presents the first current zoning so if we now go to the planning board proposal that's two and then if we go to what what happens if we don't do the town planning B proposal that's the third outcome that we have to explain to people so that's the comp but we don't have I guess we always have the option to do nothing but it's an it but

just what we present in the survey and then the public so if you want to go in that direction then you may want to consider dropping the full explanation and Graphics of what current are just say that and then show the two options of either going with the planning board recommendation or if you don't adopt it what happens when the state La was so keep it at two two if you take away the

confusion Factor you don't the more options we give the more confusing it's going to be to people so so um our if we did it that way this whole thing would be one option right and then the other option would be if we don't do anything yeah this would this would be the first thing we present yes recommendation that's that's the first thing I agree I like that and the second thing we present is here's what happens if you if you don't you have two options here yes and we can explain the pros and cons easily in the survey or whatever yeah but how do you get out of the situation if your the public is so loud about

trying to PR present a third I it could be anything you don't know what's going to come out of that tenal LS no we going that no but what you're saying something could come up yeah I mean but I think we our job is to present two options and if the you know people are there with pitchforks and and say you know we need 10 10 lot but that might be the follow on survey is that if you follow do another one people say okay look it the minimum L size is 10 acres I don't know if that's going to happen or not following the compant it did probably does so I think we survey down the road for bigger Lots whatever my opinion is our job is to give them options and option one is what

George explained option two is if we don't do anything you get you can have up to if it fit you can have up to three Standalone houses on a on a lot and two a duplex and another stand alone so you know folks aduring decide what you want to do when we first started talking about this we decided not to present options right we started with three different options we decided not to do that so I would rather present this as the planning board's recommendation and the consequences of not voting for it I think the more you talk about it as options the more people feel like they're picking and choosing and can choose a third option or whatever like here's the planning board's recommendation if you vote in favor this is what you get if it doesn't pass pass here are the consequences not so it's not option one and option two because you're not voting for one and two you're voting for one if it fails

you're getting two whether you like it or not right you're feed to the fire yeah I mean that right that's their choice you'd write the write the survey to say do you support planning board's recommendation I mean I'll be honest I'm not sure if we need a survey but yeah if you want a survey I guess that's it yeah and then I I I honestly believe in definitely doing those two diff those two options and I don't see any benefit from doing this what is the survey going to gain us so the biggest thing I think for the survey is just public participation and getting it out there there's you know we're going to do this via email right and the website the news and all of that so there's going to be a lot more people that are going to see it this way you can put our education that way without putting out a survey that way right what are we going to do with this education is one thing participation is

another right but what are you going to do when you okay so so no no not this not this it needs to be redone we need different questions we need different yeah we need to focus on what we were just talking about for sure definitely redo this what would be on so what do you okay so the question is do you support the planning board's proposal everyone says no I don't know if that's a question to put it in there okay I don't know if we need to put that question specifically in there I would just say this is the planning board proposal

I think maybe our question could be around you know um look at the difference between the two right and then would you prefer you know um less density or more or something like that why are we asking this now right like we should have if this is important we should have asked this six months ago I'm sorry I don't I'm not frustrated I know I know I I apologize that it sounds that way we are where we are right so my piece is what is going to change between November 15th and whenever the hell we vote on this that this survey is going to influence and the answer is nothing and when you ask people a question and they give you feedback they expect you to do something with it so you were setting up an unrealistic expectation on that well I I think in my mind the question is um and I'm not a big fan of surveys uh I won't say I don't care what people's opinion is but I'm not a big fan of survey um

but do you support the question is do you do you support the plan planning board recommendation or do you support the state uh because there was a portion of I mean we had three options last time one I can't remember what they were but one was definitely do what the state says so do you want to do what the state says you know the state rule says which is and say what that is so your two options are you can say I support the planning board recommendation or I support the state recom and if 85% of

the people come in and said I support the state I want to have a house for my son to live on you know a single family home and I want to do that then we probably have you have an obligation to look at at look at doing that now I don't know that that's going to happen but that those to me are the two questions but look at doing that just means do you pull the question is that what you're saying you pull it off of town meeting all together then you're stuck with the state yeah I think you have no option at that point right it's like you have no time to react right public meeting so true I think Ann had a really good point that I didn't think of it's November right we have to have this thing finalized in a couple months we don't have time to respond to whatever we hear on the survey like I think I think you do do we yeah so what would we do with it George what would we do with information so there are two questions

in here that I that I think should be on okay first is how do you feel about the idea of allowing a second accessory apartment on a two acre lot then the other part of that is probably the one you might get some feedback on that would been helpful and that is you you support increasing lot sizes when you do the full size increasing lot sizes itself is a potentially controversial thing when we discussed that back in 2018 at the comprehensive plan remember we had the idea of going to larger lots and the feedback was no don't do that two acres is should be the standard but at that time they didn't know what the state was going to do coming through with I understand that saying at the time the idea of increasing lot sizes was was taken off the table this this is say the framework has to be that's important to understand that on the table talked about that's why I'm saying survey it now and see

people might just say no don't increase lot sizes so then the option is to re redo this to say let's take out that idea of the two acres per GL if you get that kind of feedback but what if they come back and say increase them that opens the Pandora's box of what size do we increase them to well if 90% of the respondents in the public participation process say that then I think they should consider it then but then we don't have time to change it because then you get a whole discussion of how big is it how many what what do we increase it to if if 90% of the people come back and say lot size for a single family two access should be six acres one two acres each or whatever they just come back says it should be bigger that that that is an the wording of this question says do you support increasing the lot doesn't say if not what size would you say just well it it doesn't it just says do you support requiring two acres

for each fulls size dwelling so you could get strongly opposed with people who think two acres is too much and people who think two ERS is too little and they're giving you the same answer and you still don't know what to do with our proposal so if if this is what we wanted

we should have done it six months ago because what are you going to do with this surveys but getting back to the 90% you mean 90% survey response yeah I mean I don't think it's going to be that much don't don't give me R last but what if that 90% is 20 people it's not a good cross-section of the town right and then you get to town meeting and all of a sudden thousand yeah no that's one of the challenges with the the survey I think what everybody says education is key we got to why are we recommending what what's George's is put together here um and I don't know the way would

probably there's an expectation that there's going to be a survey you know amongst a whole bunch of I may have been the one who sold that uh so um but I do want to make sure that the survey gives us information that use I think we got useful information 50% 57% said bigger lots and then it was a split to follow the states and versus our you know planning board recommendation um so I in my mind we could probably write this we'd be George if we're with our help maybe could write this so that the question is do you support the planning board's recommendation or if you don't then we're going to have to go with the the this point with the state's recommendation sorry sorry goe I was just gonna say the survey where we shouldn't make any decisions based on the responses of the survey the survey is just going to give us an idea right and be a particip gives more people the opportunity to participate it's not like

if you don't do something with it they're going to be cranky about it and rightfully so yes yes yes for sure we should bring it up but if you go back to the comp plan we had a lot of surveys of the comp plan that drove that process we did something with it we did something with that information it drove it influenced the comp process this is going to influence nothing because we don't have time to make changes is to the ordinance that is true George if those two questions that you po you you mentioned just a little while ago if we think we don't have time to deal so that's that's the I think that's what we have to figure out two questions I mean I that are not open-ended you support the planning board recommendation you want to do what the state told us to do and what we did last time was quite trly what we ended up be the recommendation was in was the second highest score the The increased lot size

if I remember right was 57% or 51% and our judgment we used our judgment said well the other two equal 49% and this is what as planning board members what we want to what we want to do and I think that I I think that same thing if you got those two questions if if given those two choices I think people are going to come out and what our job is saying we're trying to give you the best option we spent a lot of time talking about this over two year a year and a half at this point and so I'm content with saying we've spent a year and a half working on this and this is what we think is the best option but if you don't want to do that then fall back is the state thing so what do you do with that information when you so say 90% say nope we support the state the state in my mind if it was that big a difference the state we have we should strongly go back and look at you're just going to follow State well we we don't

do which just means you pull it off the warrant which I would not take that out of the voter's hands based on survey I wouldn't either well no you don't have to you could go back and write it as the state's version if you wanted to or you could you could just say look we did a survey and we you know we had what we believe is a very strong uh option or or

idea it came back 100 people 50 people came out 45 of them said you know they want to follow the state option but we still recommend you do this and if they turn that down then basically it's the state option yeah but you can't you can't go to a survey regardless of how many people respond to a survey the actual law is when people go to town meeting and vote you cannot take their vote away from them I not saying we do well yeah you were when you said if the survey comes with a high majority being swaying one way then this is what we're going to promote at the town meeting so your survey depending on the results right with the two questions you just asked a high percentage comes out in favor of the state plan yes we're not going to pull it we're not going to change it we're going to go to town meeting and be like hey 80% of the however small handful voted feels this way you're swaying the vote of the

people in there by other people who frankly they don't know who the hell they are or if it comes out in favor you're going to be like look 80% of these people that you don't know supported this in an online vote and it could be 20 people either way I think that's not helpful information to the people voting at Town meetings right 80% or people that you don't know thought this but maybe they didn't bother to show up today so it seems like you got a freshh question here do a survey or don't do a survey and you probably ought to resolve that first yeah I'm so I'm open we have one person who's who has spoken so the other three I don't want to get into a bias situation no I don't either I I think that at this stage um we don't have much

time um we have to go I think we have to have our own proposal a one proposal go with that and then I think the survey could be confusing right there yeah I mean if we go if they're question on the town meeting I would think it would be the proposal from the planning board and the discussion then it can be at the public hearing too the discussion then because well what if I vote against this okay the state law is going to take effect what does that do to me gives them the option there you got one or two you don't have option three which is who knows what size do you want to make them line you know that was it I'm good with that folks I mean I and I think we're going to have a meeting in November on this topic we're going to have a meeting public information meeting in January we're GNA or we're going to have another a formal public Hearing in February when it comes back from the select board um

and we can certainly put out a a email flyer whatever ever you want to do it say go to if you want to learn more and we did that last year doesn't have to be a survey here's what you just said here's what we are recommending if the default is uh the state Rule and that's this is what that means it wouldn't be a survey just read the right read the fact so you mentioned a meeting in November January and February so this is going to come to the public in November right in a couple weeks and then what are we doing in January well in January what we did was U maybe my months or off the last year what we did was we did we did our this additional thing I think in October but we did uh a over at the fire

station we did a u a public information meeting and in January we had yet another meeting that was not a public hearing and then after that meeting we said okay look at select board this is what we are you know we ended up ping but the intent was to send it to them they would then uh agree that it's what they wanted to do they would formalize it and in February is the informal public hearing where there's no changes after that as part of that process so it would be two public informational meetings and that's what we did last year you remember on resource protection conservation did it in December we did it in January and then we had a formal hearing

do we are we is that the route we want to go can we make change do we want to make changes like I guess so we're going to hear the public if they you know come out and enforce then possibly changes to this are we thinking that there could be changes there always could be changes they could come out and totally agree with what the planning board's recommending right right I know you always have to look at what's what ifs yeah yeah I mean I they

again it's whatever comes out I mean it probably my guess it probably be 5050 you know I guess those who want the opportunity to have more uh grand grand kids living with them whatever they're going to come out and say the state law work with me and when I presented this at the town at the election last year it was probably 5050 I truthly some old guys said oh my God this is great because I didn't know what I was going to do for my kids house I didn't want to get into the whole back thing said I couldn't afford $100,000 road to build my son a house now on my front 20 acres I can put another house um so they could very easily you know that could be 5050 it could be that way I've always thought that our public meetings that we have prior to the town meeting are basically to educate people so that when they do come to the town meeting there not all this back and forth at the Town me that's what I was thinking more of is

that again back to timing if some I don't know we if we should be planning on changing anything in our proposal at at this time right now given a couple months I I just feel like we don't have much enough time so another criticism that you get is what's the point of having a public hearing if they're not going to change anything well you're educating people you we're right now if we don't have it you're assuming that people have been following our meetings and know what's going on and I don't think that's necessarily the case was a big big assumption well I guess my thought would be on November 15th we're GNA get some feedback and then December whatever 4th 7th whatever the first Wednesday is we sit down in group and say hey what I heard on the 15th of November there is mostly supportive um and then um you know we tweak it or we don't we just say okay another informational meeting in January and you know and if

if not I mean if it's kind of like the gist is that people are in sync with what we want to do right and you put out a an email that says this is what we want to do if you have any questions call George here's his cell phone home number and address but we get feedback and then so we got another planning board meeting in December we got another planning board meeting in January um I do I mean I I hate when you go to the select board is all you get a very strong push back about you have to have all this information open yeah they have you looked at this and have you looked at that well the planning board yes that we have yes period we don't need to get any more discussion right just yes the answer is yes it's frustrating at time I I know when you it's frustrating when you get push backed that it's almost like the second guessing what you've been doing for months exactly and that's only some I know I know yeah but I mean

we we don't have to make any change unless you know we come get together on the first of December and said you know there are 100 people in that room and they all don't you know want to go at the state thing or or we just but I I think if we have what it amounts to two many because the problem with having an informational meeting and then waiting till the select board hands us there will be a human outcry maybe of five people who said we you didn't listen to what we said you know you didn't pay any white you know and I I would like to at least not that we're going to but at least be able to say look at we heard you in December or November come back in January say look what we heard you I don't know we tweak something what or not we didn't need to but we didn't need to you know we talked about this here's what it is here's your chance first Saturday in in April vote on it and then

uh we just do s that the select board the select board are always pull it I me they don't have to do what we recommend so if you were looking at doing a survey what's the time frame of doing something like that You' run it through the end of the December so certainly what I would be thinking that on the 15th depending on the turnout from that if there's any push back from that then we could re-evaluate or may may not even need to I mean that's why I was asking what's the time frame I'm putting on a survey if people came with all these different ideas then maybe you would have to or maybe you would think we would have to well or do a survey because we still had the time to do it we do another meeting in in December no well that's why I said let's wait until the 15th or after the 15th talk about it on that was kind of where yeah it's kind of where I so you know two weeks later we beat as a finding board

we we go through this call it's all these people calling from Florida and they want to buy your house and you know um Everybody kind of say we don't do it at this point we're not going to do a survey is that what I'm hearing from folks that's my recommendation at this point then we just we go into 15 November we see where we are um and then I I don't think it's going to be a a great out I don't think there's going to be people 100 people in there that say I want 10 acre lots whatever you do you gotta I just don't see that happening I think that the choice will be because there were people who came up last time I said why don't we just follow the state but that's kind of Durham's fireworks other issues is just Why do we need a ordinance when there's a state law on it and I'm not I'm not picking up anybody out there so can I clarify you're either going to can the idea of a survey completely or you going

to put it on we have to rewrite it but that's 15 well that's what I'm thinking too but that's why I'm saying let's wait till the 15 we still have enough time put it on hold yeah I think two public hearings one in November one in December what kind of feedback we get after that put put it on hold at least for now and does anybody know like what the response was on the last survey bring compared to how many people went to the public hearing were the numb was for the housing part yeah I think you had about 20 people show up and there was had 200 survey respon a little over 200 survey response the January the jary meeting with probably more at the meeting uh but

part of that was because they had the resource protection was that the same meeting yeah we did when did we get these results back again the ones that you included in the um this meeting's thing do you remember went through January of this year okay yeah so I think I'm I like to KCK the

can down the road so we kick this can and see what comes up on the 15th of November live it's a big assumption maybe I'm naive but I'd like to think that you know people trust that we're sitting around this table doing the best that we can with the information that we have and making the best decisions based on comp plan or past experience or what we've heard in the past and um yeah I just think that public information sessions is the way to go than any Ser right now I'm sorry George I think the guid is pause just put the can up and pause were we good with the what

George's proposed I guess we kind of jumped over that with the what our recommendation is we're good with that can I bring one thing up real quick I look at the survey results again I know we talked about this before did we increase lot size much if anything additional dwelling units we did okay that was really the one big thing that pops out of the survey right more than half of the people responded with they want to see larger lot sizes

impact on World character because that was what we asked I don't think we ever asked you want to increase lot sizes did you um oh sorry well no we asked him which of our options would you pick right option one two or three three they picked by over half and the thing there

was increasing loss you get it FR was that 53 57% yeah uh 110 out of 216 so yeah 5 which kind of why the current proposal does include that okay yeah so I'm just just it's just jumping out at me so that's the other argument hey you told us this what you wanted last year why I don't want to reinvent go this this is really good to think about that yeah you need to reiterate that for sure so that can is sailing through the air and going down the road somebody catches and runs back just just let me conclude by saying okay I know the idea is on pause it's likely gone uh if you go in that direction and decide that you're not going to do a survey forom of time to get better results and I think what you should do is point to the that you've already done AB based what we're doing on that survey because again public participation is very important whether it's effective or not because people aren't interested but you know the state

law talks about when you amend your ordinances has to be a public participation process right right the more robust that is it's good politically as well as legally and getting something done yeah we did that us very useful but again no we're going to do something in November we're going to do something in December January and then we're going to have a formal public hearing so and then the end of the day they get to go into the to the school and speak or vote right so it's not like you know well we told you a bunch of stuff and and don't bother showing up because you know you get to vote and this one's a little bit more straight up just recall in terms of the resource protection you had a second you had two public hearings the first public hearing was to consider changes and changes were made yeah uh and then the final public hearing is just purely educational this is what you're going to

be voting the formal survey or postpone survey put it on pause that say thank you and then we're good with the language George has for the actual article well [Music] no you want to send me things in word and sent you around but I didn't have it in word so I wrote it in my pen um start from the back residential dwelling unit is that used anywhere in the ordinance can we just get rid of that

through and Rewritten the definitions this is just what's in the ordinance right now right but I don't I don't think that's anywhere in the right you've included it in this which implies we need it but I don't think that is shown anywhere in the ordinance so we Define it but don't use it oh yes I'm sorry it is it is in there because it's required by D so you see sh article N9 Shoreland zoning so that applies just to the Shoreland Z okay and that's a de definition so is there a reason then why we wouldn't I don't know why we have dwelling and residential buing unit because the D you got get them to certify our plan they have to have the D stuff in there because they Define a different a little bit because they try to do nuances of what they're going to regulate under sh zoning which is different what Durham does so that's why it's there okay so what is the difference between functional difference between the

definition of dwelling unit and residential dwelling unit they mean the same thing right uh the only difference Recreation yeah they throw more stuff in there and for regardless of the time period rented you know rentals they that's all their language right out of chapter 1000 yeah I I see the word differences I'm asking about the meaning differences could can you eliminate dwelling unit use residential correct dwelling unit and then in dwelling do we have any more need for the definitions of single family and two family

question do we ever use single family and two family dwelling as a separate definition now that we've changed the way the um minimum lot area is written um single family does clarify that modu homes and mobile homes are considered to be single family loans some towns don't do that but do you use the word single family dwelling yes where uh

so in the chart single family is a use two families list of but we're not we need to get rid of those right because anywhere that a dwelling is allowed we have to allow okay so a two family right so if you go to page 23 of the

dwelling so the question might be someone is going to apply for permit for fild permit and they've got a mobile home and the code Officer says well we got mobile home requirements but is that the permitted use again sometimes don't allow mobile homes on individ L they have the mobile home park ordinance Provisions so this was drafted whenever it was drafted to address what are the permitted uses where they allow what what requirements they have right but if

the the new law says if you allow a dwelling unit you got to allow two or three right correct so single family home you can't say a two family home is no longer an allowed use in XY and Z done you can't say single family F2 family now right but you can regulate them differently

currently does okay but you can't the table of uses says yes it's allowed no it's not allowed we can't say you can do a single family home you cannot do a two family home right so the table of uses would be the same for both right and it is right now and it is anyway right it is right now single versus the same

those and are we allowing accessory apartments with get you either get a duplex and a single family home on one lot or you get and re six acres and that requires six acres or you get two single family homes and an access four anch which would requireed four or you get a single family home with two accessory which is two yes maximum of three dwelling units

any law 4.1a dwelling needs to be changed to something like building containing the accessory 41 accessory Department no yeah 4.1 I'm sorry I might have wrong I'm sorry 19 on page 13 so let me go back to okay one main entrance the whole idea is you have more than one dwelling in this building so I think it needs to say something like the building containing the accessory apartment or something like

says an entrance leading to a foyer with entrances leading to the foyer to the two dwelling units I think that needs to say two or three conceivably if we're going to allow a single family with two access okay so again what threw me off was I think you mentioned 4.1 this is actually 5.1 correct and I don't know this is what it show I know and the reason that is is because I just prepared this today and I didn't get a chance to change these headings because when you use the automatic numbering so these the numbering in the handout tonight is all off that that kind of thr throwing me for a so if we're go to packet section

okay so now that let me let me ask something this is not unimportant but is this something where you could send George a marked up copy because that does it change the gist of someone send me a word document I would be happy I can do that I can do absolutely be more than happy to do that and in fact next time I will do it before the meeting well I that I don't mean to no you're right you know minimize what you're saying but no you're right I it is definitely a more efficient way to do that and that way that way too if you do that I can respond to it explain things like that that's Shin Z definition has to be in because I don't think it has a major impact on what we present on the 15 no the the the pr the concept is still the same

are you good with the concept sure okay it's been a long time getting there I better be by this point but we're not inviting you anymore Fair no is you either have to listen read your outlook or whatever uh because we do have a bunch of other stuff to get to I there's one area there's just one spot that I have it's on page 13 of the handout it's under 5.1 it's in the first

into single family rural character of residential neighborhoods and there's that word in should be in the community oh and actually this draft in the PDF changed from Crossing out single family so in that definition or excuse me in the opening of accessory Apartments is that what you're have it's it's five it's the first paragraph under 5.1 5.1 right so the first right now both single family and Rural are cross are underlying the single family should be crossed out

residential neighborhoods in and the community or and or in the community one or the other it's neighborhoods and the community okay and I guess what I'd like to do is if anybody else has any more like that that's the only thing yeah three major I have one question that may be a substantive change we haven't talked about it yet okay that last sentence if the accessory department does not meet all of said requirements and a conditional use permit should be required that's been a long standing poliy but why wouldn't it just be another drawing like a another single family or a duplex and maybe we don't want to touch that I get it it's a change but that doesn't make sense given the changes we're making on the housing side well I don't think anybody's gonna we need if deleting it or changing it nobody's going to care I mean I guess what I'm saying is is anybody going to are they going to it down saw that

comes into play okay so because of the the structural design it's like it the main dwelling has to be at least 1500 sare F feet and the accessory unit can't be more than uh 50% of that so like I did one in my house and the lower level was like 1,40 sare ft but the maximum allowed it might be off like 20t or something so this gives some flexibility that the board can make minor tweaks without having to go to a yeah so that's why it's in there okay all right anything else of somewhat major to get this because we got a couple other big ones to get there and if you do have any we do have time to get it to George and make the change by the 15th Yeah by you know well in advance and so just to clarify what I've taken away from this meeting is we're going to simplify the presentation to be just the plan of R proposal and the state law consequence of the we're going to um uh pause the

survey and I'm G to send an a word copy for her to do some editing anybody else want a word copy we don't want you to feel left up what word word copy all right let's move question on page 30 when we talk about permanent application submission requirements it talks about the the fees are where are where is the fee schedule where where are you P 30 of the packet of the packet page 30 of the packet so are we jumping so let's talk about fees then that we're doing well want to wait guess the Bigg thing is solar I guess are we okay with what the yeah two things Conservation Commission George put together a package they came in with some tweaks about vegetation which I think George and out their concern was invasive species Juliet did a very nice job of going through and U

making some comments based on her I would say long years of experience but that is not true her her youthful experience but a good experience so um if we could kind of talk about that uh that P because that the question is are we what do we want to how do we want to tweak it and get it back to the conservation they're got meet of theth it's fine and we'll get the fees y it's good so can I ask George uh unless you want to say something about this solar first well let me just I reviewed all your comments and I think they're all addressed in what we've done I'm not sure if you saw all the new all the pieces the new version the newest version well the newest version only has the parts that the conservation commiss asked for changes on which were the performance standards okay so in addition to that the use table which is in your packet on

23 T you asked where they're allowed in town yes the use table number 44 clarifies these are only allowed in the in the rural residential and Agricultural and Ager protection districts and and depending on the size they get either reviewed as both they don't get reviewed at all if they're under 2,000 square F feet of what they callace

20,000 Y and if it's over that up to 20,000 it just goes through site plan review and if it's over that then it goes through a additional use review first to see whether or not the scale that you're proposing say a 20 acre solar farm FS opposing it so before they

go through all the design all the site work site design landscape architect if that's going to be included uh all of that engineering ref first to a threshold look are there are there issues here with the size of this project or with this particular site that you're going to say doesn't pass conditional use so they're going to get a conditional use permit before for for the larger systems for the larger systems that gets done and then they go through site and yeah so for example uh you asked a question today what about uh storage yes what about storage facilities well today I got an inquiry did you really yeah it's coming I don't think we have we do not have time to go into storage it's a big um we could definitely do it but it's a fire department this gra this graph number one it defines so storage as a solar

system solar energy system in the definitions I haven't looked at that yet I let's can we talk we'll talk about that can we sorry can we go back to the the use table sure so and this we can do maybe next year but I wonder if we should put in here um the site plan review you know how we talk about conditional use we talk about planning Board review we talk about CEO review but we don't talk about site plan review the only reason I say that is no no no there there was a separate process we don't listed in the uses table right but if you go to article eight it's in there I know it says it's required cycl riew so I just I just say that because say this the medium scale solar and other things it just say CER which means uh code enforcement review but really it's also coming to the plane board I think the hard part is is some of those uses depending on something like size or tting area it could be site

planner it couldn't be so but I I understand what you're saying someone's just looking at that they're be like right like if I'm a developer oh I just need to go to CEO but this one's absolute this one says we do have to go through site so just a thought but if we just add it for the solo then I think we can add it for other things so maybe not right yeah it's kind of like you know you have single family right you have to get subdivision you can't just do a single subdivision that's that's understood by developers yes yeah and that's not listed in the table either yeah subdivision is easier in Maine because it's relatively consistent solar is different per town like what you mean so any was just a thought there y so the other the other kind of overarching thing Juliet is a lot of your questions I think uh must be understood within the context of many towns have Standalone ordinances solar ordinances and most of

the stuff that you discussed and the Conservation Commission had a lot of the same questions um is covered under site plan review for example all the details about the site we don't put that into the standards for the uh solar systems these are in addition to normal Cy review yeah absolutely as long as it's covered in Cy review but like with a solar you're talking more electrical stuff than is so I'll do I'll do you know an's going to look at the housing part maybe you would look at the solar dep what I'll do is give you detailed responses to each of your points here's where it is in there and then if you don't think it's like for example you raised the issue of the installer okay so typically you look at the applicant is required to do the installation but they make sub contract with somebody else that does it it's like Towers you have a tower owner and they hire somebody put in the tower

that's information to know who's going to be installing it then then we could add that so that was one of the things that should be we should be requiring a decommissioning plan that's already so that's where we put the installer that needs to be in the deom plan how is that why because we need to know who to talk to when who built this project if there's an issue would you not go to the same with you would go to the veler own it right why would you go to the the guy who installed it would you not go they may not business so there's it's it's complicated the developer could be selling the project right to the installer who's now the owner okay so and the owner and there's a provision here that talks about transfers of ownership yeah I mean I so as long as you know all of that yeah I mean I I really meant to say owner so I mean same with the you know if we don't like the subdivision we've talked about

that before we go to the owner of that and I would think we do the same thing with a solar as long as we know who that owner is going to be ordinance they have to have who's responsible for it posted on the site if they sell the system they have to notify the code officer and provide a written certification that the new owners understand they're going comply with all the standards yeah yeah okay so it would probably be helpful if um you want to send me yeah that in word and then I can through it yeah absolutely uh you mentioned storage where is that where the definition

yeah bottom the first what is a solar energy system it means a complete assembly consisting of one or more solar collectors and Associated Ming Hardware or equipment intended to provide for the collection storage and distribution of

solar energy for heating blah blah blah um is relating to a battery when we say storage here and so I would recommend we get out take that out because we're not talking about batteries here yet right we're not permitting if someone comes in with a battery proposal are we that's storage of solar energy so we're okay with that then I think so okay then we need to add a lot need to add more stuff to this then okay okay yeah well here's the challenge is you we need to get something to the Conservation Commission by their I can't remember the date but it's I think it's the last Thursday of the month so we need to get it to George and then you you can email all of us we can input in it uh and say yeah look at I don't understand you know let's not do that or whatever but at the end of the day Conservation Commission is going to kind of put together this final rough draft or whatever you want to call it and we

will also have an opportunity to continue inting so you know and a lot of the technical stuff um may or may not draw much attention from the normal citizen if I were not sitting here I don't know that I pay a lot of that it's not important but it's probably folks like you and us and the Conservation Commission and the fire department so I'll get you if you can get it soon I'll get it back to you maybe within a week and then what I would recommend is that we start talking to the fire department about the story well and again I at this stage we need to recommend to the Conservation Commission to you know that they should get the chief's input on oh yeah sorry yeah we'll ask the com do that sorry George yes because I think the same and I believe I said Chief and Kelvin an email saying we're working on all these and get us your so they at least have a heads up that not sure George has done the same

thing that you know we're going to need your your input on this Calvin maybe we're talking about roads or leading to the site or whatever that he wants to do it not that it's not important but throwing another monkey wrench into storage is my neighbor got a phone call

and nobody's ever followed up with it the other company apparently you can uh put a storage unit on a power line and is cheap you you store it and then when energy Peaks you sell it back into the grid is that something and it's not solar and C you suck it off cmp's line you store it you put it back and we've had inquiries and it maybe well that's storage so that's what we're talking about here you can have a storage paired with solar which might be what you were asked about today and then you can have a standalone uh storage or what was inquired could it could it doesn't really matter they're both batteries they're both pretty much doing the same thing um

so so that is actually a really good point we usually they're separate it's not solar and storage it's usually you have the solar energy system you can pair it with storage if you want but then you also have storage separately and that's the question is and I don't know who called you but my neighbor got a phone because on a power line wants to somebody was interested in a storage only unit and so is that is do we need a

how do we cover that is it something we down the road is it something well if it's in the works you better get it in your organism you need tell so I guess unrel this is unrelated to solar this not related to solar well could be used for solar but not might not be used for solar we have storage covered under s talking about storage this is Standalone storage that's something separ should Ki down the road until right but but what he's talking about is the same thing with solar you do the same exact thing but you pair it with your PV so you can still be connected to the grid directly the question is do we need a standalone article or can we if we're covering storage in this we can do the Standalone same similar very similar and you're going to give us some on yeah yeah I'll look into that so just conceptually uh the the draft that I worked on with the um and this is different from some of the other larger

towns are doing uh you you brought up the issue of labeling how much kilowatt uh production there is out of it right megawatt so I don't know that it from Durham standpoint it really makes any difference and over time I'm assuming these will get more and more efficient and they'll produce more so it's really the site good the size it's the issue you mean the Acres yeah the and the and and the exposure area the surface area well is the CEO going to be looking at this um from an electrical standpoint from the standpoint of the national electrical code and this ordinance will require that they provide certifications of everything they do and he has the ability to hire a solar consultant just like we do for for a subis what will happen is planning board your review proc that there technical issues that come up they'll be they'll be establishing an review esro and you can hire a solar consultant yeah engineering

consultant whatever you want to do they're gonna they're going to want I'll mention this we don't to talk about now but they are going to want to know the AC and DC on these which I think is what you were talking the megawatts and kilowatts right but all those specifications are called for in the order oh good okay I thought you were saying we might not need those no what I'm saying is we're not going to define the different sizes of systems by the electrical production

capacity from from a zoning standpoint you we just have large and medium size yeah some communities say a a large system is uh 20 acres and 5 megawatt so they they use the megawatt to classify them I see no we we're just saying anything above area half an

yeah okay yeah I see what you're saying okay well that's just going to vary depending on technology so again other towns had allowed much larger thresholds are lower than for example toim to get to planning board having it is lower this is this is a lower threshold so you know basically anything over 2,000 square ft 20,000 anything over 2,000t you're going for review up to 20,000 oh W you don't have to go through a conditional use review but you do have to go through through site plan

acre uh you know well 20,000 feet is a half an acre so if you want to see the relative scale of these things they're putting one in on on Ru one and car right now between just south of The Interchange and I I I'm going to try to get the plans for it it's not a Mega System but you can imagine that system going in next to somebody's house or along an open field do you want to have site plan review for that as opposed to so this assumes the town wants to be pretty protective of these things in terms of making them fit into the community and along that lines and you rais the issue of buing so I showed the Conservation Commission some examples of other like Pennsylvania and Virginia buffering that they requ these things and a lot of it is the solar industry is selling their product to land owners to say if you do this you allow us to do this system we will buffer it for you and and to go to the planning boards and

planning commissions across the country you know the visual impacts of these things are pretty significant but what this says is the planning board will look at it require them to have a landscape architect to do a visual analysis to see where you know public roads or private roads that this going to be seen from what you know neighbor views and so you can require them to put in a real effective buffer where it's needed but you're not required to have them put in that buffer where it's not needed does that mean in the past our buffers have basically required just maintenance and vegetation that's there no this is planting does this allow us to require plantings of certain height and density all that my comments is the

fencing I don't know why we're we're crying fencing around these things you need it and vegetative it's security fencing right that's that's what I think it is keep kids and people going in as best they can otherwise I just worry about um dear Habitat areas

and Wildlife the conservation has talked about that a lot and and I think they know so they spent a lot of time talking about 12 Ines above the ground this six six whatever it was so that has been well looked at but not to say that we can't say hey would you look at this again you know we we think you can't really get too high because get think the fence in the veget landscaped area is a bit much that's double two different purposes the fencing is for security and because this is electrical system uh that is dangerous for people to don't want to be messing around in there and the buffering is to is to mitigate the visual impact of that fencing and installation I I do have some comments on the fencing um that I sent you and I would love to talk more about that with the consom um we're proposing a chain link fence although I don't know if that's going to change I would recommend an cultural fence what is it I saw you

were coming they're like they look more like a farm fence they're wooden posts and then they're typically I think taller than a chain L fence and they've got like wider holes in the fence itself so Wildlife can pretty much get through those H it'll keep people out but also it looks more appeeling like a mesh like a Wen wire fence is that what you're talking about oh they're 4 in square yeah yeah yeah it looks like if you you drive down the road when you see one in the farm field it won't be like a chain no Blends in more Blends in more yeah then you may be if then you maybe do double duty if the vegetative buffer possibly exactly you know then do you there's a chain link for security because I'm assuming it's going to be cheaper what the f the chain link chain link fence I think they're pretty comparable how high do that be what do we say plus the whatever the definition but we

can require whatever we want as a t right yeah okay yes so I I would propose that and I don't know about the spacing underneath it if there's wide enough holes for the you know Critters to go go through um so people are proposing grazing bringing animals in and Grazing In These solar projects if you have that space underneath coyotes can get HT yeah

I think their concern was making sure that the Blanding turtle can go past that and I think they can possibly I if if you would I me I think those are all good combats that we ought to pass on to uh because I do know I sat in one of the meetings that that was a big topic of discussion making sure that the Gap was in their mind what was proposed was but you may have a better idea we don't need to go with a chain link that's like old stuff can

conserv if you could I mean they might appreciate your attending to it I would love to I couldn't make the last one I was out of to whatever day it is I think it's the last Thursday but have that discussion with them or just in advance I would love to go yeah I was actually going to ask about the public participation so their first they haven't had one yet their first one will be they will schedule it at their next meeting okay I'll try and make and again I don't know that the public is going to get overly excited about a pass versus chain link P but you know we should have Conservation Commission yeah I mean Now's the Time uh solar energy anything else on solar yes you go first thank you um page I guess it's 24

of the packet we received um 5.24 B section three we talk about certification and compliance with NFPA and the NEC I think we need to add the IBC to that as well the international building code which main aderes to um also has a section on solar

fonds so can I ask I think that according to Al in before he came here I understand NFPA one and 101 are the ones that apply to these types of facilities that's for fire code not building code the IBC is building code but he also the latest edition of the national electrical code two different things and things have changed FPC and IBC three different entities I think the IBC should be included here they do have a section you were right on the cell towers so and just along those lines we're requiring certification but Allan separately inspecting for compliance with those right yes would have to he's going to need they're going to need building permits and electrical and I think one thing is important is George touched on it these These are the best of that have it so this is not something the kcom

made up I mean it's banic Falls Virginia Georgia half dozen different communities soan do you have the code reference because see Allan is dealing with mostly residential he deal with commercial and this kind of stuff that's why he didn't know about cell towers being could you send the reference like for the it's adopted as part of new IBC and the IRC are adopted as part of the effect yeah so it's already in cover the build yeah and I think we're 2012 right now I think or 2018 but 2018 is it 2018 yeah

actually I just met with the State Fire Marshal today and it is 2018 but again see Allan is 99% of what he's doing is residential y so having that in here with clue him in like on cell tower he's got to go to that part never looks at I mean honestly it might just be better to say mck because like I don't know if the energy code applies I don't I just don't know because mic's made up of I don't know five or six different codes if that I'm not sure if that's more of an umbrella but if it is an umbrella youc is the umbrella then sure you could just simply say that yeah um unless we're going to require we can't we can't require to a higher standard than Mo right so but this is something Allan look into right you should it's got to have guidance somewhere right for these yeah it's in there that he's trained on it it's in there law I mean for not just residential yeah

yeah um I think the only other comment I had was about lighting and this goes back to energy code but lighting shall be consistent with federal law I think dark sky compliancy falls under that and that's more of a broad statement umbrella statement that um lighting and call it commercial activity the dark sky compli and dark sky compli what does that mean it's an energy a main efficiency standard that

um you're not polluting you're Notting like and solar systems you don't really need light don't really need light just for security just for security possibly at the access road these are really like best industry practices that I think they would follow but there is some language think addresses that performance standard Li lighting shall be consistent of local lighting other parts shall be shielded from interference with Ving properties shall be directed downward and full cut off that's what you're talking so we're not saying it's required right but if we have it if the project has it then yeah it needs all those things yeah so we're saying you have to have lighting consistent if they require you to light up certain parts of this by federal law or state law but if they do that then they have to use the darkar sky standards okay the other thing we do want to make sure of is that fencing liting we don't we want to make sure

people can't break season yeah you know we don't want kids going in you know sticking their finger in a solar panel or whatever you you'll or vandalizing you Storage storage is a little or the connection what the else not for solar into your um the fees

is that in here for solar I want to get first yeah just so I just want because oh actually let me ask you one last thing about um we mentioned in the last meeting you guys had on October 4th something about the concom was looking at zoning treatments and mitigation yeah they've come around they've just been you know they're getting a lot of input from the main Farmland trust and not Bond about you know making this agriculture a fees and all that we're just saying look planning board needs standards yeah and I think they're they're still kind of looking at it but I think they've accepted this round exactly and I think we've been encouraging them at some point time it's going to be we don't have time because it's start you got to have you have to have a use for it there has to be an account for it and if you want to kill that that's a good way to do it is now you know have to get into impact pie and stuff I think it's

good but it's great we can definitely do it on like AGS you can add in like easement requirements or some sort of like conservation fee that the developer needs to pay definitely there's those things but it's a lot to look into and to figure it out and that would need Town input you know what we want so I think that bridge too far this particular anything else on the solar technical PES pleas it's on page 30 it's 184 and it talks about the fee schedule adopted anually by the select board where is that schedule located uh board select adopted I know they do they know that the staff has it I don't know that it's posted on the website assuming it is I I have not been able to find it unless it's under alen's yes is under do we have the fees for solar in this but if if we're talking about a fee schedule at least we should be able to identify where it is located cuz if I'm if I'm looking for all these different

Fe and I grant you I I understand about all these fees but is there electrical regulated by the state you can charge more than the the state I think we were under charging towns have the discretion septic you can septic is a safe Fe we're not going to set the fee that'll be up the select board to say if you want a solar permit it's going to be whatever it is because the way it is right now it's 120 well whatever they raise it to 500 bucks for a solar farm which is fairly inexpensive I would think so so so the select board will set the Fe and the town Journey that if it's referenced in your ordinance so this just adds a reference for all the fees and it includes solar that needs to be but but what I'm suggesting as a consumer if I'm looking at this y got it okay where is it I can't I've had a hard time finding it I'll point that out are we still working on the costs for these no no where do we have those that's not no

it's not based on an analysis of what does it cost to provide the service and what are other towns doing set that Fe as a separate okay so we're suggesting a fee be set for everything that's underlined here correct so may I ask why a fee for 911

addressing because he spends a lot of that I had that same question e911 yeah e91 I was the I was the interim assessing officer so here's what it involves okay we got to the we got to process it we got to determine what the number is going to be so like a new subdivision you have to have all the number we have to get in touch with the state to tell them we have to adjust the the system up there and we have to contact the U Anders Cen County and the fire department so you know the few that I did took them four or five hours and you he has to go out goes out so between my house and the and the next house over somebody wants to come in and put a house so he asked the go say well that's one thir I measured it it's oneir of the distance from 636 to 674 and so he's got to come up with a number between that thing he has to physically measure it and you know how much is out there so it we were doing it

for free and he was probably spending out you know George said not including driving to the you know to the site so so the state's website says they offer free assistance to towns and what what does that free assistance entail not doing the numbering or were good okay yeah I mean they maybe in terms of developing the1 usually usually okay so back when this started probably what you're referring to when they started the whole system all every town was like ruming the whole town basically and changing street names and the whole thing at that time the state was offer state was offering assistance to in that process they go out to individual property owners and say oh yeah I don't think so so it's a legit it's new one and we've not charged so anything else because we need to move on to uh resource protection resource protection and this is another one one of the things we need to uh George is

going to present something that's different than we have we have been talking about taking the vza out of the process and give it part of it to the code up to a point and then uh then we would do the rest uh I think we decided we can't do that well an had raised questions that were really raised by the select board themselves in terms of look Board of appeal sign this stuff you can't necessarily take it away so I do check with them Legal Services they didn't give a no you can't do this they just said look we need to look more at what you're doing you had raise the issue and I agree with you that the current ordinance is probably not in compliance with state law so we haven't covered that issue because that's a whole complicated one the other issu so what I thought of was a different way to just make this much simpler and straight out what we're trying to do here so I did meet with the Conservation

Commission I Flo this concept by them and they seem supportive questions uh so I wanted to just Flo it by you folks tonight so we adopted that zoning I could our goal is we're having this discussion is are we okay with this concept are we okay with can to get off to the uh Conservation Commission so this is was kind of George okay uh so when we did the zoning map I had originally proposed a two-stage process remember that first aid was fix all the flood planes mapping then look at what new resource protection areas will be added based on the comprehensive plan recommendations as part of that process would be to look at how does this impact individual properties and decide what to include how to do it but because it got lumped together we never got a do that very detailed analysis so now we've gotten about there's about 30 odd [Music] properties so I've done aerial analysis and identified about 30 properties uh

where their house is now in resource protection some of them were already in there but most of these have been added by the expansion the district actually hold on really quick you just mentioned some of them are already in there do we are those included in here because if they were already in there they should not be part of the well one of the principles that I think like George show you what I've done that you can decide because that makes a big difference to your question no go on all of it okay all go all all of it or let's look at these parts so let me just explain what it does so this is the analysis that I've done there is the resource protection and the sites where I could identify based on aerial photography clearly these buildings or parts of them are in the resource protection

okay so this is the beginning with habitat developed areas map it's actually from the undeveloped habitat block map but this is just the layer but this is what beginning with habitat which is what our comprehensive plan based on and the resource protection recalibration is based on so if I had been doing the analysis before this was done I would have presented this that said look this is these are what begin considers developed areas do you want to include exclude all of that from resource protection or not we never had that discussion so now what I'm using that is just as a consideration for

whether or not to make an adjustment to the boundary for those 32 can't quite see it very good but you can see the house there um C so you can see the houses right there and part of it is a garage where that is and that's in the resch protection so what this would do

is say uh the developed area of the portion that's the developed portion of the site we pull the resource Protection District boundary around that and we use as a as just a check with beginning with habitat data we look at the develop this is the developed area map for that whole area their entire law except for this little part is considered to be by the beginning of habitat development or within an area that's already developed so what we would do is just simply adjust the boundary to go around that existing developed area but but I think that is important Juliet's thing maybe going to cover it is this not something the state is before we approved this the state already said these are the developed areas yeah so we and their was just a broad brush right right right they're just following the roads that's right mainly is what they're doing and putting buffers okay okay so this is the this would be the proposed modification

on this slot which just simply then these people they don't have to go to the board of appeals or but they can only expand within this area and other parts of their LW so I gave you in the packet about a dozen [Music] examples

entire house side be de with habitat and so the our resource protection uh cuts into that and so this would just pull out what they've already developed are we including we're not including these begin with habitat developed areas all all I'm doing is showing that every change that we're making is within Ana beginning with habitat has said this is considered by them to be develop got it so so the resource protection on the right is that what it looks like that's what it looks like now let me let me go back to the prior slide and I'll show you that's what it looks like right now is part resour protection this would pull that out isn't the spot zoning no it's just refining the zoning map boundary why is it not spot

because you're you're picking only developed areas only areas with a building to do this on based off of not the underlying factors that the Zone's based on I don't know how this isn't spot though well if we had adopted this map in the first place and drawn the boundary of the revised resource protection that would be spot zoning I don't think yeah I do right you're your spot zoning is when you subject like properties to different

zoning based on things like this frankly um but is this not George it's not we're doing this the state has said these areas don't have to be should not have been in resource in habitat beginning whatever because they're already developed so basically instead of having a big paintbrush of yellow they they carved out land that we did not as not requiring resource protection but it wasn't just beginning with habitat that we based those zones on right there were other factors yeah like this one is a good example see this is a creek or stream that runs through it there's buffer there's buffer along it and that's in the beginning with habitat recommendations right do we have so these are the dotted lines you're showing George those are your dotted lines or those State those are ones that I did looking at the sites yeah and do we have any because the state has done the same thing for okay I will ask MMA

but also how are we drawing that dotted line that's just something that you're making up yes no I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the state is that's not the state carved out areas the state is carved out areas the beginning with habitat but it wasn't the only thing that we based it on so for example I'm guessing that zone is based on the 100 foot buffer from the creek that we also based it on they were all overlaid on top of each

drawn is completely arbitrary I do think it's spot Z could be wrong and it basically follows the tree line on that side of it you can see that follows the tree line so what about a house so there is no buffer there so but a buffer doesn't mean there is trees a buffer is an area a vegetative buffer means there may be trees but a buffer is an area that you can't build in and we're telling this person you can go build within I don't know however many feet of that stream there is or creek or whatever the hell that green line is so and why can that person have a bigger area than somebody else whose house really is in the middle of the woods and there is no tree line that is just feels really arbitrary to me and not based on

um without really looking in the field we don't know that could be a wetland you know that could could be something we want to protect do you remember the DP the subdivision they got a fine for that the zoning issu enforcement okay um that you wouldn't even know looking at it like it's it's cleared it's grass but it still matter to the D DC um so arbitrarily like like

Ann was saying making this line it's I feel uncomfortable with that without going into someone going into the field and looking at actually surveyed yeah let me ask the question do we have any pictures of what and I think if you're right it only pertains to Resource boundaries but did not this before we did this the state had already carved out areas that did not have to be in resource protection we included them and so the question is do we have any pictures of you I think to the Conservation Commission well this is this is the area that the state subject to and remember durm regulations even for streams go beyond the state oh I know I know I know so what you're saying is the picture on my left as I'm looking at that the the gray shaded areas the state has said are not in res resource

the state does not require resource protection that the state has said that those are not in the beginning with habit basic what we said resource protection is a boundary that we created understand so the state has a minimum we created a resource protection that's above and beyond that minimum right and so now we're saying yeah we feel that way as long as there's not a little house that somebody has arbitrarily drawn drawn a line into what we previously decided should be protected this is already there not the little line you made that part up right no theyve already that's just following what's already been developed the driveway is there on the ground yeah no I get it it's an aerial I understand how it work developed but we're talking about expansion right expansion that does not

option to expand in an area trying to give them some relief and so we've decided that that that stream is worth protecting whether you believe it or not the town has decided that stream is worth protecting within 100 fet right and we're saying that's okay there's a house there you can actually develop within 100 feet of that you can go stick a giant commercial garage right within I don't know how far that is from the stream Creek whatever the hell it is like this approach does not make sense to me this is like a very broad brush approach with no one looking at it or the consequence like maybe that's an inconsequential stream and it's if they stick in industrial building I don't know but we don't know because we've just drawn an arbitrary line every little red dot the question I think that we started with was this time last year we had houses that were not in any kind of resource protection

Woodlands flood plan whatever it may be got it then we passed resource protection uh on in early April and we said now these 30 plus are in fact in and so the question what re what habitat are you protecting in developed lands and the the state has want I thought i' seen I think the gray area the state has said that's developed it doesn't we don't consider that any just beginning with habitat multiple factors St does not said anything about that well when George comes back I think what they're saying is these are develop areas they would not have if you so what we did is we just said we don't care develop or not we're putting uh resource protection over the top of it right what we're trying what we're trying to do is say Well it you're not protect it it's already developed what are you protecting so if you're taking that approach then we should take out every developed area we should not be drawing

arbitrary lines around individual heal if you feel like that Gray Line is significant and we shouldn't be bothering to protect that stream within that Gray Line and we should take out everything in that Gray Line well unless there's another reason for that stream to be in there yeah but you're ignoring the reason for that stre there with the gray but I guess what I'm trying to get to an is is on those 30 Lots if in fact that stream is is a

flood plane or whatever it may be we don't you know the Georgia discussion before that we're not saying that you you could do that so I guess the the question is if there's a flood plane there's a wetland even if it's in the develop we can't say well we're just going to include an are included wetlands and flood plane what we're saying what we should say is draw the line that keeps it out of flood plane and wetlands if that makes sense the only thing you would so why are we picking flood plane and wetlands versus a buffer around the stream which we also de that it was important yeah I mean if those are in our ordinance already that they the and I'm not saying that he's got the right boundary there but I don't want to get away from somehow saying the only because we already had rules for Wetlands buffers examples beond stream bumpers I mean but this one highlights the concern right you're using a broad

brush to go around red dots that are not based in what whether we agree or not the the community decided last year was important to protect this year was important to protect I have't so can we go back to what we're doing we're trying to find relief for these 30 yes family or 30 properties right um why not just right get it if we

can maybe get it out of appeals have them come you know no fees required they want to expand come come to us legal issue getting yeah we can't and raised the issue whether it's legal MMA is waffling on whether it could come to the and quite truthly I don't see an issue with going to the the fact they don't meet frequently if to me and I think they they would agree if there's an issue where you need to to meet and so as a

bza so I don't know why you know this was just kind of like a a second yeah it just kind of said these areas are already developed if the only reason your resource protection is habitat but there's no way habitat is you take I'm not in resource protection but if you just drew a circle around my barn and my mother-in-law's house and my house there are no Blanding turtles in that CER okay so this is uh the Pres excuse me and St River resource protection uh our your ordinance defs

everything within 250 ft of that River as resource protection so these are existing homes that have probably been there for 75 years or more and those houses cannot be expanded without going to board fields or the well but they can expand outside of it they can expand outside of that red and all of those houses are right on the red so it's just saying where they can expand M it's not that they can't can't so this concept which you can decide this is a non-starter or not Conservation Commission was open to it uh this would change that to limited residential which removes it from resource protection and still provides the Shoreland zance so that box go back understanding the Box The Limited the yellow color y that's outside of shorel protection no it's in Shor it has to be because of D requirement okay I got you so for example why are we not drawing smaller circles around those instead of putting

the whole thing in limited residential because if you do four or five four circles it ends up with that whole area do you see how arbitrary that is though right these people are getting bigger circles just because their neighbors happen to be next to

this person actually came in to apply for a garage and couldn't do it because of the resource protection but they could outside of the resource protection they just can't put it where they want put where they want their that's right that's right and this was already short that protection I'm guessing right because it's the big blue next to it yes that's why the code officer said you can't do it where you want to do it because of the resarch protection so why would we that person already had these restrictions right right even before the change yes why would we carve them out treat them the same as we're carving out other people and again we're not carving them out of any resour any stel zoning standard we're just saying change that to Resource protection so that there're no longer a non-conforming use that cannot do an addition to that house without going to Bo of this like the definition

of spot zoning which is illegal okay I will check with MMA they considered to be spot zoning then we'll know I thought it was clear that there would be [Music] is what this is the couple that came in during the public participation process and I've seen at Le I remember this is Hager Boat Works they're now they have no resource protection on any part of their property other than this before this this is all the landing turtle habitat plus the other six plus and now they entire site is now nonconform so they can't expand their business they can't expand the house that's there without going to board Fields could if they go to the board of appeals and I know it's not 100% they could get a a what do you call variance or whatever the right term is to to do that if they they went to I say we do that I mean there's 30 of them let's look at them each as they are so this would just simply consistent with the beginning

with habitat it would simply carve that out based on how much of that site that's the clearing of where they've developed their business and their home that was the basis I'm not zoomed in but if you zoom in on you can see that's clearly The Edge the clearing around their house and within that they would be able to expand either the house or the business after conditioning was revealed without having to go to so jul jul IOD you correctly what you're saying is those 30 houses that were at that were not in any kind of resource protection shortland FL well yeah some of them are they're not all just added this this attempts to be consistent for everybody but I guess what I'm saying is that what we what we kind of talked about was the when we added people for last April we triy we said we will try to help you I don't know that we said you're already in a flood plane right be happy with what you

got that's all you're ever going to get no but we didn't say we're carving out your your land either we did not be specific we said we simplify the process but we can't do that with so this is an alternative I mean why can't so going to the board of appeals like you were saying we can can we make some changes to that like yeah they have to meet immediately I don't know if there's a fee we wait well it will be that they can't they don't even have legal authority to do what they're doing under the ordinance so they can't take somebody out of our resource protection is that what you're saying they can't give a no no no I'm saying they may not be able to give an approval for an expansion of that nonconforming single family residential because it's non-conforming by being in the resource Protection District so George what do you well that's what we're trying to get out these are considered potentially and I

think legally considered could be considered Grandpa correct me if I'm wrong but talk about arbitrary aren't these yellow lines arbitrary is on the onus of the owner to actually have somebody go out there and confirm that surve you are okay so number one they not arbitrary because that line rep the yellow out out of B represents the foot set back the spring or the flood Point see that little extension that goes off like an arm that's the flood point there a drain that goes up in there so that's the basis of this map now that's done at a scale of townwide scale you know looking at lar which is you know two Contours plus or minus and they could go out there and that line could be 10 ft

one way or the other and it may make a difference then this this make a difference and so they can get a survey or to go out go to the board of appeals and say Here's data that says the line isn't shown on the house it's not on my house how many out of requires them to hire a surveyor requires them to pay P support of appeals requires them to delay their project those are all the issues that complain to us every day about this stuff yeah so George what do you use for a standard to develop that new boundary basically I'm looking at the air photos I guess I can show you basically how I did

already the concern was last April week I I think was a 30 or whatever number who you know we already have Shands of law Wetlands is a law buffers are you know a law outside have a bigger long a tougher restriction but we just kind of you know said okay now you 30 homes can't be a screw U and so what we're trying to do is help them and if the BC cannot give them variance then you know is that is that a problem I'm not talking about houses that were already in Shoreland what on whatever it may have been but I think what we talked about doing as a town was

and when people voted I think they thought okay there is going to be relief for these folks that was that was what we saw we sold but was sold to them and so this is the haar property okay that line basically there's some overshadow of the trees here but basically that was the line that I grew around that develop site the John the relief being you can go to the zooming board of appeals well what George just said is can't my question go I go back to is not board of appeals have the authority to give them a variance so can we figure that out and then re re so I think there are two things one is a variance which has very strict standards and requires very challenging standards to meet but most ordinances and I've never looked at the legality of it say you can have an expansion of a non-conforming use a non-conforming building a non-conforming whatever it's in Shoreland of x amount X percentage and it usually goes and it

has to meet these CR ier right it can't make it more non-conforming so when you look at the people on the river you can't build closer to the river but you can build further away from the river and there are standards those are everywhere I've never looked at the legality of them and so I think there is an option there I mean it's in state law there's um there are Provisions in the state Shoreland zoning so I don't see why we couldn't have those that does allow expansion or nonperforming uses for buildings for take pick uh what you

want to expand without a variant up to 30% yeah which that for this house that's on this property is around less than a th000 sare feet so they're saying what does that do 3300 sare be the people who you know after the fact and I get it you know I sheline zoning is how old in the state of M uh before my time but somebody has had a house on the river for 50 years and Charan zon comes along we screw them too

this isn't been just a year this is no no I yeah I mean this this is brand new this game out not required by state law how many people of the 30 were impacted by our change last year versus we're already in it yeah I haven't done that I can half maybe but again I'm just wondering you could you could give me direction Comm could give me direction if you say this even makes any sense whatsoever and doesn't think so uh but what I'm saying is we could differentiate and give these people relief but not give people that are in it in another place in resarch I was trying to be consistent with all point to if we help one person then what about the other so that could be an issue my vote is that we wait to hear back on what the board of appeals can do do again go from no I've already asked MMA MMA say says it's problematic oh so the answer to do the board of appeals stuff is is problem to take it away from to take it to give it to us is

problematic and even to go beyond 30% currently you can do unlimited expansions because they're not in any kind resource protction no because the board of appeals has the authority under your current ordinance you say or you're say they're they're proposing 80% expansion or 150% expansion they come to you the conditional use they can't vot for conditional use because it's over 30% but if they go to the board of appeals the criteria that they have is you have to show the septic system is going to work you have to show that it's not going to have a delerious effect on groundwater standards that don't make any sense that's what's that's what right now so George I understand that you're doing this now what if another individ say starts doing this is he going to use the same process the overlays that you're using yes to determine the boundaries this will revise the zoning map and make those little car boats and that map will be

right there and he'll be looking at the gis just like this so if they apply for a building permit they add a small addition on garage you're not using other anything other than a visual of the overlay correct to determine the new boundary so the issue um they can't come to us for conditional use over 30% that's the issue for coming to us and coming to you it all is right even if we could wave fees and speed up the process my my concern is what if there is something that we want to protect or we want to in that far corner right there and we which far I don't know in the South like I I don't know this is all resour this is going to remain resource protection right up to that line right but what if we don't know if unless someone goes out there and looks but what we're trying to do is get get you know get away from surveys get away from you know Wildlife surveys and stuff like that because this time

last year they could they could do whatever they wanted to do with in that area and then we arbitrarily changed it and so now they can't do what they well not arbitrarily right I get it it was a vote we US based on based on the most pertinent information we had time not if not if we wanted to protect it it's that we said we do want well and I and I go back to if that area is only in there because of

resource in our opinion it was a reap six I'll just call it six and if the states now say that that area is in their gray area is not should not be considered you they consider developed and doesn't have to be a resource protection what why can't we then say okay if the state doesn't think it it's it take it all out what's that you should take it all out you shouldn't do it for one property if you say if the only reason it's in resource protection because of beginning with habitat but we don't think beginning with habitat matters in the gray areas that all of it should come out not little circles around individual properties and I'm good with that I remember i' gu last year so I'm

I'm good with that but I do think and I don't know i' have to think about it and research it which I'm not going to do because it's not my job anymore is I do think you could probably craft a expansion of a non-conforming use you'd essentially create quote unquote grandfathering for you know properties that were not in resource protection until April of this year can expand up to 150% If X Y and Z criteria met not can you have a septic system that's but like actual factors that matter and you know they can show we're not going to impact Turtles and water quality or things I think that's legal I don't know haven't looked at it you could do something like that is it is it more work for them than drawing a line yes absolutely 100% but

more cost yep 100% but we're talking about frankly one really an Property Owners that's driving this well no because the town said we would try we will do what we can to assist you yeah and I agree we should and then so we've had one family come in maybe they wer the only ones so they were the most local on they were the ones that visit me 10 times yeah I get it it say I get it public servant sucks

I get it and we're going to help but and then the other thing is correct me wrong this the state has said we consider these developed areas and doesn't have to be you know we don't consider them part of resour habitat hold on I don't know about that I just pulled out the building or beginning with habitat maps and the developed areas are within the protected areas it doesn't mean that they don't care about them it just it's it's just they're showing where the developed areas are they're not saying okay you know these these areas are free of I probably said that wrong but they are already developed areas that you know if you go back in in

a year ago a year and a half ago would we have said okay look at it State considers these developed areas let's carve let's not make them part of our resource protection I don't know I don't know if we would have done that I I would want to hear from Joe on that know these layers I think what we're really saying George I understand what you're doing but my concern is if you have 30 people then is someone going to come along and challenge it and can we defend

it we go through the process of revising The Zing map and we're using the beginning of habitat data to calibrate you're not using and you're carving out a little chunk that has no relation to that gray it has the relationship of it within that gray area yeah and the town is being the town is different things like you mentioned we could in the Conservation Commission could consider just using taking all of the gr

out I don't think it's a good idea but I at least think it's to figure out whether we want to end this eventually before April meeting um given where this is we're not getting this in April so that's my question is uh okay

so what be good you folks take a v if you want to kill this right here it's done if you want to continue to explore it I'll work with the Conservation Commission they've already endorsed the concept not considering the legalities necessarily but that's what we need to we I can give an opinion from MMA but if you're philosophically opposed to it there's no point in spending my time going to the Conservation Commission or going to MMA for an opinion if you're philosophically opposed to it then that's can we can we what about what an said earlier about expanding grandfathering in we don't have time to Dev that okay that's okay that's fine but can we look into that for next year yeah here's a thought too is that there's a question about whether it's legal or not whether you know the this spot's Zing if we get an answer there's there's two things coming up we get an answer before Conservation Commission we

take these questions and concerns to the Conservation Commission and if so they they weigh in I say we're okay with it because if we don't it's not considered SP zoning we want to do this we then meet a week later we can either kill it or let them move forward with it I say let's do a vote right now about yeah what George was saying yeah I think

doesn't matter what the conservation does and we're voting on this specific proposal concept cut the concept of revising recalibrating the zoning map to exclude areas that are already developed defined it which you may I agree with great as you've defined it that's right that's fine that's fine it's not fine no it's fine that you consider that and you disagree with the concept so let me give you an example of why this is problematic my property you probably can't put I'm on Snow Road actually I think I've got it you've got it my property has a house and I have used my full field I have 10 acres it's all cleared I have it fenced I have a barn um I would consider my yeah right there you were on it I think I'm zooming in on it yeah it's a different map number so that's why there sorry right there no is

that is that it yeah it's dirt road that's that's s right yeah that's map the road that's up the road okay go back that is no that's okay so your here somewh that's your house right there that's my house okay that's the one so but look at wait no go back to that one sorry sorry hold on I want to show you something so I would consider look at how much of my field is cleared that now has fencing running almost all the way around it uh you're seeing my barns I would consider my entire site developed all of it you've drawn a little little loop around the buildings where your buildings are but I use that full place I have commercial garden beds I have livestock fencing all of it's developed my neighbor who frankly just built last year knowing he was building in resource protection has this teeny little cleared area why is that fair why would that comparison be fair to to him or to him right because I've

got a field that I run with live stock like I'm going to tell you my whole place is developed I'm going to be piss frankly with that arbitrary life remember the the the impetus of this was to Grant relief to existing Property Owners whose lands are in resource protection to do expansions that can't be done or theoretically can't be done through the current provisions and that would allow someone to do an expansion within just that limited area of the law now you can argue it should the whole thing should be out sure but why can't my neighbor argue the same thing just because I have livestock fencing it it's it's fundamentally unfair based on the property what the property currently looks like like maybe his Woods are worth more than my field like you can see my whole field clear well the other approach would just be to put an oport barer of X number of feet that's what I think the Conservation Commission was doing they

said 250 ft from the structure right is that what just see I can't but then that pushes out arbitrary yeah further away too potentially right but it cuts into the resource protection more than is needed to provide the relief that's been we've been trying to

so I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere with we still have the opportunity so we need a if we want to take a vote and I guess we probably ought to take a vote I'm not sure where everybody is um do I have a motion so probably two options we kill it tonight or um we said it we find out

if the SP zoning or not and then can I say two things spot zoning and arbitrary they're both separate legal standards something needs to meet so spots we find out between now and Conservation Commission last week and I will tell them the methodology that yeah definitely yeah definitely and then if the answer is yes it is arbitrary indor spot sing then that's the end the end of it and so we we don't go to it we just say um if they come back and say it's not arbitrary it's not spot zoning we take it to the Conservation Commission it's taken the lead on resource protection if they say yeah we're at this point they're saying we're okay with it and they come back and say we're okay with it we'll take the B bu with the horns that is we we still at the first week of December have the ability to say no we're not going to forward that it will kill it so you're asking judge to present this to MMA to get

their ruling yes yeah Step One is get a ruling step if the ruling comes back but before we do that yeah let's just if you have a strong feeling this is unfair then you're going to be wasting my time to do that research let's just take this vote first okay do I have a motion right to vote so old

was can I just suggest wording the motion would be to uh continue with 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 the zoning map would be considered either spot zoning or arbitrary or

otherwise illegal or otherwise so the question your I'm sorry no no please just one comment in the packet that you sent out page 34 um one of the bullet points an attorney at MMA confirmed that there are potential problems with the existing regulations and the proposed changes that's all it says right so are we already do we already know that they're not going to like whatever you go back to them way this is really different this is really different than what George presented before and had raised a question that was picture I got you of appe right that

so the amended motion is or otherwise inconsistent with other okay so so just to get clarity on your your motion you're asking if we we agree that you should continue first step is talking to MMA and I'm sorry well it say George George can't I'll make a motion I'll follow what George is okay sorry so I will make a motion that George continue looks into the

legality spot zoning arbitrary speed limit whatever the illegal thing may be and if it comes back that it is illegal that kills it if it comes back that it is legal we continue on going to the the you know Conservation Commission um that we then decide that our December meeting we're going to go beyond that second we have a motion a second further discussion I think we beat it up now hearing none uh all those in favor of by [Music] motion okay so I guess we don't need a motion that we're not just not going to do anyway I will let the Conservation Commission not support they have the right to do a Citizens petition so that the other question that we what will we do so do we want maybe it's too late to do and n's had a good suggestion do what we what we say we put out and advertise is look at what you're going to have to do board owners and other homeowners is you're going to have to go to the

BCA and uh here's the we will help you do that as a as a planner as a code enforcement guy as a planning board will help you do that but you're going to have have to hire people you're going to have to do the application do we have the guess do they have the authority

just set a different fee for this type of schedule which is where as long as it is right exactly I um so I'm not sure George I think we just go back and I'm happy to talk to to you know Jess or or whomever and just you know they they can then if I guess the question would be because I don't think this is going to be totally dead because somebody's going to push back who's watching on TV and I'll say is it still worth a call email to MMA to say

is this idea illegal is that is that going to be so much work's no point is it worth considering drafting some kind of grandf follower not for this not for this town meeting no right okay not for the town can something the board some option I think we absolutely should and I thought that was the direction wee like what we were just talking about we were heading in that direction until we hit the got it yeah I mean we just need to do it legally which I think we can yeah so it's not dead we're going to continue to research it but I think does it really require an ordinance change well this idea yeah yeah yeah what you but but not setting is that

the ordinance so if we don't change the ordinance the the board of appeals can't do anything no so they can the current ordinance which would allow if if they so F I mean if they got challenged they maybe issues but honestly we're going to challenge it right when you think about RIS I shouldn't say that out loud on camera but um right haar Boat Works wants to expand tomorrow and go to the CBA are their neighbors going to challenge it probably not their neighbors are also family so okay so I think this skin is off this horse we he's been dead for a while and I'm tired I'm not giving any more m m to that pony so uh so I guess do we have am I missing any other so I think to recap uh H I think remember we agreed to do we're gonna go back to Sol you're going to give George some information on that and work with the I'll do it as soon as I can to so we can push that along okay yeah just so they have a chance to look

at it before and yeah and you're going to you're going to kind of Georgia get your word thing you're going to come up with all the those kinds of things on that we're not going to do a survey we're just going to go have a couple of information meetings on housing I probably would ask the conservation folks to do some stuff on on solar and fees the only thing really came up there was we just need to find out whates those are

like you your level will pay a lot more is all right so I'm sorry thank you all for oh December 6th we on right board meeting is that the next the next one November oh I'm sorry no 15th is our next meeting November 15th public hearing that's a public hearing public hearing at public information please use the term public rules fire St but are we but we're going to take public comments yes yeah there'll be an informational comment yes we will take but it you know be a little less formal than the public here um our next event is November 15 at

6 p.m at fire station I have a Eureka it's fire station fire station all right got it and then after that the six the six de for you it's whatever that last the Conservation Commission oh right it's at 6 not 6 it's at 6 the thought would be that would give us a little bit more time to to take comments FOC time okay and thank you all very much I appreciate all and actually a very professional way that we handle you

that with that I need a motion to a jur I'll make that motion to aour Second uh any discuss if anybody want to say longer if not raise your hand please thank you all very much thank