TranscriptSelect Board Meeting ~ March 4, 2025

the uh durm select board meeting here on the fire station Tuesday March 4th uh 2025 at 6:30 p.m. um calling the meeting to order and we have a quorum with uh Joe Tom being excused we'll begin with the pledge of [Music] allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice over all okay uh do we have any amendments to the

agenda the only thing I wanted to say is um I do in new business want to have a discussion about the um how we want to discuss get feedback regarding the war memorial gazebo and I do want to add that for a discussion so I had some thoughts on it and I real that we hadn't put it on the agenda we have checked with the lawyer we can add things to new business from the floor though we are trying to avoid it it's just it was a mishap on my part um to ask it to be put on the agenda uh but we have received a lot of feedback from folks that they want us to discuss it we had some questions so that's on me so other than that do we have any other amendments to the agenda I didn't see this um I do have a question I didn't see the cemetery issue on here I think it's in the warrant article

go into public comment Jerry and I did a little bit of an adjustment here on the agenda to try to make the um the note the note taking a little bit easier so you'll look um motion language is built into these these articles and I know that and I'm very guilty of this in Robert's rules are motions are supposed to try to be short and simple and sometimes all of us myself included kind of start rambling and Jessica is kind of doing this number the whole time so there's essentially draft language for motions that we can use if we uh want and if we decide for against some of the things in the motion we can do minor uh edits there to try to make them more concise um so just just something to know uh public comment any public comment it's only two members of the public so 50% nice and just as a reminder for public comment um name Street and uh your comment and it's not a question back and forth but just a chance for us to hear

what you have to say so if we don't respond to a question it's not we're being rude it's just here to get information so so I'm Jeff Wan I'm Brook Ro and um I was taken a on Friday when we received the uh news blast to find out that the town of dermid um is changing from a uh calendary year to a fiscal year and um that was done without any public um there was no uh public

hearing there was no uh information there was no uh referendum no Town meet no town meeting to to discuss it or anything and it was just done and um although I I I did I I looked around and found that it is within the purview of the select board to do that um I thought it was uh not a very good way to do that without um to make such a major change without um any public comment for it um

I also question the legality of the select board changing the date of the town meeting as that was I'm pretty sure voted on at a town meeting by the town that um now obviously it makes sense if you're going to a fiscal year you've got to change it but I I would question the legality of that um whether it should be a town vote to to change the date of it

um that's that's basically what it was I I was um just rather up said that you would make such a major change without soliciting any any uh comments from the town thank you so much for the feedback feedback I'm not sure if this is the right time to do it I'm here Bas did you want to give some feedback on the ordinance um recommendations yes uh in capacity as individual or as uh someone from the Conservation Commission I guess both okay well I I'm okay if we get a little bit of feedback during our review of the discussion on that in your role as the Conservation Commission or you can give give it now um whatever your preference is I don't have a preference okay cool we'll do it when we get to that one then all right uh we have our meeting minutes from last meeting we've also uh move that earlier up in the agenda because it kind of makes sense to accept meeting minutes from the previous meeting meeting first so do I have a

motion to accept the meeting minutes as presented to us from the February 25th meeting I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for Fe sorry what did you say to approve just I I told us all that we have pre-written motions and then I didn't read the pre pre-written motion so so Josh made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 25th 2025 do we have a second I'll second do we have any discussion on the

motion any opposition seeing none all right okay so uh we're going to Dive Right In here to Old business which is uh starting off with the draft Amendment to the contract zoning and battery energy storage system um we had a pretty robust discussion last meeting about this and you can see in our packet that uh the we have highlighted here that edits that we requested to be made uh primarily those edits had to do with um increasing the

square footage to 400,000 square ft for the uh solar arrays um taking into consideration feedback from the Conservation Commission uh and then I think those there the language that pertaining to the sorry I'm trying to find it under

5.8.5 uh pering requirements for tier 3 battery energy storage system it says tier 3 best shall meet the following minimum requirements unless otherwise specified in a contract zoning agreement that was kind of the line that we were waiting to have put in there um just to let you all know uh Joe Tom obviously is uh excused from tonight's meeting but this was something that he had brought up as a concern last meeting he sent an email to me saying he had reviewed it all and this was in line or met his recommend uh and he felt uh that he could approve it obviously his vote isn't being taken tonight but I just wanted to share that he did provide some feedback there uh so

do we have any discussion on the best contract zoning or the amendment to the contract zoning and battery energy storage system I just have a question and I know this is silly and I should just be able to read that and understand but when I'm looking on page 15 and it's I

noise so do you get you 15 where i i i y and then what's in Brackets it says number changes with enactment of this amendment what are we talking about I think it's referring to the 5.20 number right I think I think that's an annotation if i y yeah we this is going to be inserted as Section 5 which bumps everything okay yeah I knew it was something simple but my brain just wouldn't get there thanks George um Michael did you have comments from the Conservation Commission on the pest storage no we don't have an issue with with contract Zoning for best St or well we the this motion will be on both best and solar because it's all going to be part in one did you get did you all wanted to share your comment on that sure I don't know if you received the letter we did receive some some uh in writing but I just wanted to give opportunity for the rather than me speak for you all let you all speak on that we

name and oh sorry my name is Mike friendley uh run around Pond Road um I'm a member of the Conservation Commission and I think I speak for the Conservation Commission on this issue we would prefer that solar not be included in contract zoning um I think first

first of all we understand that contract zoning allows sighting and mitigation but I think there are other ways to handle that for solar and I think we don't have an issue with best being included because best does there are some real risks with best that are not present with solar such as chemical spills and real risk of fire with some of these battery uh formulations but solar doesn't have those risks and I think the town would really benefit from solar um I think it would increase our tax base which I think has been a long-term issue with this town we don't really have any industry and it would decrease individual tax um liabilities um Without

Really causing solar wouldn't sort of increase our um fiscal responsibilities MH so I think it would benefit the town um I think I've people that are concerned about the impact the visual impact of solar but the ordinance addresses that there's um um visual impact studies that are required and there's buffering that is required that should address um people's concern for that um I also

think there are other ways that we can control sighting for solar that we really haven't discussed uh as a group there are other towns such as topsum that have Maps um overlay maps and it's more of a a carrot uh they tax they they charge less for

development in certain areas and we could develop those maps and we are sort of in the process of doing that on the Conservation Commission I think it would would have been helpful if we could have t talked to the town lawyer regarding this but I I understand that that there real cost to that but we weren't really able to do that uh but I think that would be a potential way of addressing sighting without having to go through town meeting and I think town meeting I understand it's a very Democratic process but we don't really require that for any other developments we don't require it if you want to put a supermarket in you don't have to go through the town meeting if you want to put a big Gravel Pit in that you know occupies hundreds of Acres there's no requirement to go to town meeting it's a very high threshold and it's really going to inhibit development for solar uh and I'm not sure if we

really want to do that as a town I think um if we're doing that for solar I think we really need to do it for all these other things we're really singling out solar for really unclear reasons there aren't really risks to solar aside from you know people just don't like it because of their its appearance um so I think it's I think it's unfair to put solar in the same category is best so I want to say I 100% hear where you're coming from I think that often times with development we hear a lot about opinions on development but don't think about the tax implications and like you're saying if you're adding valuation to the community that is now being covered by especially because these valuations are going to have be higher than adding a house or something like that that provides more valuation which means that when we're figuring out the m there's more to divide by everyone's mill rate drops so I I 100%

understand that I think you made a really good point that sometimes I think that that the I've attended a lot of these hearings and a lot of the discussion on this um there's this uh repeated phrase that like well I don't want to see the solar I don't want to see the solar our solar ordinance has really really robust buffering already like the most robust I think robust that I think any municipality might have so I think you're correct in saying that our ordinance already addresses that buffering and that visual ual um our buffering is 50 ft wide and I think some people hear that and go oh that's 50 ft from the solar panel it's like no it's 50 ft thick of vegetation of varying Heights so I think that that's a really good point that you just made and I also think you do have a really fair point there about we're not asking any other 20 acre impact like a pit or anything like that to be held to this threshold

um my personal thought on this is that I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of good and I think that this is the best tool we have for right now to develop that because to your point about the topsum for those of you who don't know the topsum the way they do it is essentially you have a Zone and if you're developing that zone you pay a mitigation fee per acre that you impact or per square foot or something like that in a Zone where they would like to see solar that fee is very low in a Zone where they wouldn't want to see solar that Fe fee might be like three four five times higher so a perfect example was there's very little to no fee on top of this CA landfill but this Prime agricultural soil in a farm has a huge fee then they take their money from that and they put it into an account that's used for conservation projects within Town setting up that framework is something that I think would will take

us a long time especially because they also have a Brunswick topsum Land Trust that's right active in there we'd have to maybe come up with an agreement with some of our local land trusts as well so for me I think that this putting it in here is a good holding

place until the town can explore those other options because right now this still gives us the opportunity because what I'm concerned about is I am admittedly a fan of solar what I'm concerned about is a development in a really bad spot in terms of right on top of a agricultural production that has high value soils that are now taken out of out of that we have a lot of those mapped in town I think we've been over that together so for me I think that this is a good holding place but I hear what you're saying about we need to be more Equitable and how we evaluate all all um um development and so I think that we need to have continued discussions on that but for me I just think this is the the best spot for right now if and then we can maybe re-evaluate over the next year and figure out the nuts and bolts to this process so Heather I just have two things said add to that one I feel like

um going to the 400,000 square feet um that was in direct response to the conservation commission's concerns around Community size solar and not wanting that to be part of um not have that be a hindrance and then go ahead we actually argued for a much larger but the planning board chose that okay so that was I thought you had all request uh recommended 20 acres we did and they went with 10 acres so we we increased it we're increasing to 220 Acres so the it's weird because the square it's sorry if you don't mind me it's weird because the square footage based off of the panel square footage and so it was listed as 200,000 Square ft which represents about 9 Acres of panels and we increased it to uh 400,000

ft or sorry 200,000 ft represented 175 is 9 9.6 Acres 400,000 is about 19 Acres right so that's 19 Acres of panels not of total area so we thought that that was a good um that's that we haven't accepted that but that's what we're discussing tonight we thought that increases it to allow for more flexibility to so someone right now could do community solar almost yeah Community solar 100% fine on Farm solar production

100% fine but those bigger projects we're now talking over 20 acres of panels not over 20 acres of impact so we felt like that was a good Bridge okay there so that that's what I wanted to highlight is that I I wanted to make sure that you understood that's the level that's going to contract Zone and if this is accepted we we were unaware of that does that change no well I understand I think they're separate issues but I appreciate that I understand your your point of it seems like we're saying this is the big bad development that we're worried about in town where we're not and we've heard people say well I just don't care if it's a big building I care if it's solar panel and I understand that feeling I think that our ordinances and our sighting rules are a product of a lot of previous work and that we're we're looking trying to look towards the the future um and I think I think that there'd be opportunity in the future

should contract zoning get inact Ed to discuss and get feedback from the community are there other places where this should be appropriate as well um but we felt that by increasing the 400,000 ft it takes away all those Community projects and now it puts it at a threshold that if a project were to come in it is large enough that it likely has the necessary backing and Staffing and levers to go through the process of a of an agreement that was the big thing we had for discussion because I brought up at our last meeting like the the return on investment just isn't there to take the risk for a one-year process for a a 10 acre right project once you get over 20 acres and you're getting into not that I'm saying we want what green has which is 600 acres there's some that's already going to take that organization a year to work through things there there can be some more wiggle room there so we F felt like

this we by hearing your feedback from the board from the commission and doubling it it's a good step to try to meet in the middle as we move forward so I appreciate that and I will be a very strong advocate for development other than these here for contract zoning I I actually questioned why as we're doing this we aren't putting a threshold in that when there's a site plan review that gets to a certain size that that shouldn't be part of this initial conversation um I'm I am an advocate of that so I can respect that opinion and appreciate it um because I share those same concerns thank

first step you know we did this pretty quickly really and U we can continue to improve it the especially with experts that we have on staff and in the community and in the community yes had some questions for Michael this would be a good time to ask some question you probably weren't expecting to be in the Hut seat tonight I wasn't sure like but if you have any questions about further recommendations from the Conservation Commission um that's great time to ask Michael of those if anyone has any more so I I mean my my first thing is is I wish you had come to us sooner because it's I think it's a good thought um and you know I may not be here uh in May but if if I am uh I I I would not want

you to give up this this other stuff you're working on because I really have a more thorough conversation when it when it's not like we have to make a decision tonight to get to get it on the town meeting in April uh so uh you know no matter I I hope you continue with that and I know I'm I'll be curious

whether I'm here or not you know what Josh isn't ill he's up for reelection right sorry uh I was wondering if you had a diagnosis that you wanted sorry yes uh sorry I I did I didn't want to be presumptuous uh so but I do appreciate I just wish it was sooner um because now it's like oh you made a lot of good points and I think it's something we well frankly we should have thought about sooner um but so I appreciate that uh there was something else I wanted to ask you and I can't remember what it was but so Heather I do think the work is really important because I think if contract zoning passes if we in in the inter room

have the ability to identify where important areas not to do sighting are I mean whether or not it's an ordinance or not an ordinance you know the the layered map thing is happening or contract zoning is happening I'm going to want to know if we're going into if we're talking about going into a high valued area and that will impact my decision as a board member so the work is absolutely important whether it's happening at for this particular Avenue or if we were doing some sort of layering I think it they're one and the same for me anyway the information is very important information and that goes not only for solar and for vest but for any other development it's it's just another planning tool that's really important for us to have sorry that that's what I wanted to say I think I think whether or not the the solar Farms

stay in contract zoning in the future or not that's important information to have uh and and so I I I agree with you 100% not only for solar any development but yes and I think that this could be really good thing a really good goal for next year because for example we obviously know we have resource Protection District but we know that highlighting the comprehensive plan too like critical rural areas have been talked about as having some something looked at them uh agricultural areas uh you know some resource protection is doesn't R some resource don't rise to the level of resource protection from standard activities but could so even if there's no matter where this goes I think that that work can be used moving forward um and even if it's not a mitigation system but almost like a ranking system like red green and orange places for industrial or or you know commercial development in town um I I'll

just end with saying that the reason I'm okay with parking this here here is that I know that when the Conservation Commission went through the process of developing a really great solar ordinance they started off that process and said holy cow trying to develop this ordinance and a sighting tool in the same year will be very difficult especially when we have to consider if we create a mitigation fund who holds the money where does it go what's all the charter language around that and so they said we need to this is going to take us time to work on for me parking large over 20

acres of panel development into contract zoning puts in some um some some sighting tools for the town that aren't existing right now while other work is can be done and I'm more comfortable especially because we're going it's going to be 18 months before our next town meeting to have something in place there while that really important work is getting done so that's that's where I felt okay with this so that's just that's my appeal back to the con Commission but you're invited back I can't Ser on Conservation

we really appreciate and I just I just flag to Michael that you w Michael's a doctor like I don't want to thinking you're on the way out on not yet okay do we have any other uh discussions on like uh clerical questions or information on the ordinance before we entertain a motion we're just talking about just best okay yeah just uh contract zoning and battery energy storage systems I I would make a motion to approve part two draft amendments to contract zoning and battery energy storage systems as written do I have a second second for

um I just want to know if George has anything to say I feel like when our planner is here and we're talking about ordinance changes I know you're here to answer questions but I didn't know I don't want to like pass over and you're being polite not raising your hand and saying you have something you want to say do you have anything you want to say okay let the record note that gave two thumbs

feel like a lot of good work went into this um and I feel like we learned a lot we we really leaned well on our Conservation Commission I appreciate their feedback and on the planning board and their feedback and then the multiple Fe all the feedback we've got from the community um this is a lot of work to do in a moratorium type setting which I don't think we've had to deal with that sort of work here for a while it's been a while since the last moratorium um and so I think that this was really good I think that it gives us it like everything we work on it seems like when we come up with some solutions we get four more questions so I think that this is a good learning process for us and maybe set up some future goals that we can go over at our next uh goal setting session which somehow will probably be less than two months at this point which seems a little crazy but any other questions on the uh

motion any opposition okay the motion has passed unanimously and again I'll just note Joe Tom is not here tonight but he had provided uh affirmation on this as well historic properties um so this you can see here highlighted

are the changes that came out of our discussion from last meeting um they look good to me I just will pull up thank you Michael thank you here based off of our discussion during the last um to last meeting which was 7 days ago uh you'll see that they're highlighted oh I'm still in best

can I can someone remind me remember how I offered to read a statement was that for I was offering for tonight to read a statement because they couldn't attend or that I would town meeting um you said that you could read a statement at town meeting okay but also we do we are going to discuss the email that we received from them I was going to go digital but okay I couldn't remember I couldn't remember when I said I was um I just want to go over real quick so as you can see section 21 B2 this is where we've got some um

changes so it now say if any portion of the subdivision is in or budding to any George we'll just m this one in or budding to any site of historic or prehistoric importance importance identified in the comprehensive plan or designated as a historical resource set forth in section 5.14 the national register of historic places or the main historic preservation Commission the project shall be subject to advisory review by the historic Commission in accordance with article 12 appropriate measures for protection of the historic or prehistoric resources shall be included in the plan the board May seek the advice of M historic preservation Commission in reviewing such plans so the major change here is we add it in or abing to any is being added um and then identifi by the comprehensive plan or designated as a historic resource set forth in section 5.14 and so so this is addressing that concern about the you

know hypothetical gas station across or sorry this is the subdivision so this is addressing the concern about um the previous situation that we've had in town and I feel like this this meets that concern George do you want to add anything on to that no that is for subdivisions and the next one is 8.6 is for site plans so basically the construction of a subdivision or a commercial non-residential building next to one of these historic properties would trigger an advisory review from the historic commission and I'm going to go over the changes here real quick through everything but then we can um once we' been I think that was the major change here but then we can address the questions that uh the historic district commission sent in um so yeah like George said

8.6 then talks about um nonresidential properties I think that that is all we have highlighted here for tonight's review um so we received written comment from the historic district commission and um one of the things that they were raising concern about is the review period And I think there was just a slight misunderstanding of the review period that they were referencing that is for notifying AB Butters correct okay under the under the the draft ordinance um for any advisory

review by the historic historic commission there's a 15-day a butter notice process uh and then they have 45 days from receipt of the application or determination that it's complete to make a decision uh the 12-day notice that they referenced is for in addition to that on a demolition they have to post a

legal ad and that legal ad in the paper has to be done at least 12 days before that meeting so every application Butters get notice 15 uh days before the meeting once the the uh historic commission determines that the application is complete they then have 45 days so theoretically they would have one meeting they'd review the application discuss it determine whether it's complete and then the following meeting they could make their decision so they'll have 45 days total 15 day a butter notification and only in the case of a demolition there's a 12-day legal lab notice require so that that timer isn't for their response that timer is for other elements and they'll have longer time to respond and I just wanted to clarify that for them Heather uh when you say that the application is complete it if the application is before the planning board and the planning board needs needs their review is it from the

time that the planning board application is deemed Complete because I feel like that might be a situation where there's not a lot of overlap so can you explain that sure if they either have to go to the code officer for permit or to the planning board for a u whatever the application subdivision or a commercial site plan next to one of these properties then they're going to have to go to the um historic commission for

their recommendation either before that process or as part of that process but until that process is completed the planning board and the code officer cannot issue a permit okay so is it a separate like application to the histor yes it is a separate application with a separate list of requirements in terms of submissions okay thank you so I think

that um we have I think that if uh anyone from the historic commission were here today they'd say cool that addresses our issue we were concerned about there was just a little bit of a confusion on on that timeline I disagree with that in one instance if you don't mind just me saying I think their issue is with Demolition and that they feel like they want to have time to make sure that if a

property is going to to be demolished they have the opportunity to be able to record take anything from it that they can you know like that type of stuff I think in addition to the which I do think they misunderstood I think their concerns are around if they do if the notice is given a property can be demolished within 30 days and they don't feel like that's enough time for them to turn around being able 30 days not being enough yes right to be able to document the yeah because like when the when Parker Schoolhouse got turned or torn down the the developer didn't have to wait but they chose to wait I think because it would have probably created a big public outcry but they went over they they were able to document they saved like wood and some bricks and you know the whole whatever they did a whole thing to be able to document that existence of that building and I think what they're saying is that

30 days isn't enough days for them to be able to turn that process around yeah yeah 30 days seems sufficient to me and so that that's I'm I'm okay with it as written personally but um I'm open to hearing what other folks think do you did you read the email from them do you agree that yeah and what they're asking for basically is 120 days which is four months yeah I think that's excessive and part of that with the Demolition is and if you look at the language of the draft ordinance uh really talks about exploring Alternatives so see if seeing if there's a not off for profit that would be willing to purchase the building and move it those sorts of things but um the issue becomes you know the property owner rights and I do think before you consider and this had was done at the Parker Schoolhouse but the code officer at the time had real concerns with the idea of people going into the building that was determined to

be dangerous and collecting uh materials and also I would certainly talk to your attorney in terms of whether or not there's a legal right for anybody to take anything from that property it's one thing to do a visual survey which is what this calls for and I think that's why the town attorney included it but the idea that you're going to give them the right to go into buildings and take property away from it that I think is a very questionable activity so the question becomes the real issue is should they be given any somebody be given time to look for alternatives to the demolition that's a policy question I think that that might also lean into some of the discretion of the property owner because there may be hey sure if you can at no cost to me find someone who will come pluck this building and pull it away go for it but I think saying but I have to wait four months for you to come up with that is is

really tough because we think about the shorter building season we have if we have a winter time situation or we think about maybe the developer or the property owner has some funding constraints or contractor constraints just putting in a four month hold for someone to fund raise to ask them to do something that they might not even be interested in doing seems a little I think four months is excessive I'd like to see a compromise and do 60 days instead of 30 I go ahead then um there's nothing that prevents them from getting an extended time with the owner and that language is in there right so I mean it's really a 30-day minimum yeah it's 30-day minimum and if they in that 30 days want to need more time or whatever they can work that out with and to me this this

discretion um to the owner too rather than hey you have to wait for people to come forward and potentially fundraise and because even even 60 days in a construction window with how quickly uh construction companies are gobbled up in the time frame for all these sorts of things um that just seems like a lot especially because what the and I'm not saying that there's any sort of um ill intent here but what the commission could want to do might not even be something that the um property owner wants to do the property owner may not want to move the building or may not they may just want the building gone so to say you have to wait 60 days for someone to come to give you a proposal to take your building away and you don't want that to happen it just seems a little onerous to me where I feel 30 days is fine because if they have a interested party who wants to explore those sorts of options they can then

work together to come up with an agreement and so there's nothing saying the land the the property owner can't say sure I want I know I only have to give you 30 days but I'm willing to wait 50 days or 60 days if you've got something so I think it's fair as as written here Josh did you have something you want I agree I think the developer is going to take into consideration the importance of these historical properties and structures to the residents of this town if you know if they're going to want to do more business here so uh I think I I don't

think tying it up un necessarily for that for for much longer is necessary because I think you know if something's going to get done there will be an agreement to get it done within 30 days this says that they the commission has to be notified before the like they okay so

they're going to know before the 30-day window starts yes okay yeah so there's the notification which is 15 day for a butter yes 15 days for Butters right and so in theory the commission may become aware of it at that point correct like if the a butter wants to say hey commission or if there's a not like when when will the commission have to be notified the code officer will notify the commission upon receipt of an application so that that's the 15-day window there no from there

when they schedule their next meeting meting at least 15 days prior to the meeting they have to notify the abuts they're going to know more than 30 dates in advance they're going to know when the code enforcement officer knows that's right and so that's giving them time to start that process and that conversation and then there's the 30-day window yeah and again so let's just say they they file somebody files an application uh let's just say there's 30 days um so 15 days before the meeting then uh the notti says go out to the abutters the the historic commission meets they review the application they determine it's complete they have 45 days from the time that they determine that the application is complete until they have to make a decision so the clock for the 45 days starts at the first meeting and then they would have at least one more meeting unless there's a voluntary this is to make a decision

on demolition this is for any permit the only difference with demolition is that they have to post a legal ad in addition to thearter notifications and that the 12 that's where the 12 days comes in it's just for the for the ad to be posted so for if a building's going to be demolished the commission has to weigh in on the permit to demolish the building yes it goes It goes right through with any other permit oh okay so to me this this feels like it's giving the commission do you agree that also lot of opportunity I just want to read that one more time yeah which section I don't know I'll I'll help you get there thanks um the 12-day notice is on page 31 of your packet where does it say that the commission okay so on page 30 of the bottom for standards for demolition or relocation of a historic resource so that's the section with the 12 day is list 12 days is listed so if you go over to page

31 uh C2 in addition wait I I'm not lined up yours must be different you pack it this is the right off the website we have a on thir page 31 it's the administrative procedures okay so it's it's section so C4 standard for demolition or relocation C and rs his advisory

historic preservation revisions so section c is advisory please okay so on page 30 is that the page you're on I don't know you tell us yeah page 30 C4 process process no this says standards for demolition or relocation of a historic structure isn't that what your says jar stands stand C is advisory opinions for is

processed this is I'm going on the website and and see what's there where are we so we're on page 24 in our packet that's oh sorry that this is a misunderstanding you're talking about um page 30 which is um 12.1 see that was tell me where to look please so page 24 which which is part so let's go to page 23 we'll walk through because I know that's what we need to do section 5.14 historic resources okay and then we flip over to the next page and a is historic resources B is applicability and C is standards okay P I'm sorry it's page 26 is the demolition yeah okay and

then and then demolition standards for is uh because we're now under c one it goes all the way through we get to three additional standards page 26 is four standards for demolition or relocation of a historic resource is that it

page 26 of this version okay great okay so four if you go over to C2 so underneath four we're moving to C presentations of the application to Historic commission shall be delayed to allow additional posting and notice as follows yeah the yeah so you got in addition notice shall be published in a newspaper of General circulation not less than 12 days prior to the date where they will consider the application and that's the opening statement is in addition yeah so then if you go

owners let me find it here see notice to owner and this is for any application for uh advisory opinion of the of the commission within 15 days after submission of the application the code officer shall inform the following persons by mail and it goes through the the list of people including the budding property owners and then uh three below that the commission shall make its recommendation on the project within 45 days of the receipt of the completed application unless the applicant has agreed to wave that

so so basically the application is complete MH it's turned over to the commission they review it within 15 days of receipt say it's complete and then 30 days after that or however may you know if they made 11 days 3 uh 34 days after

saying it's complete they have to they have to issue their opinion within 45 days can I just want to ask one other question that I think we talked about but I just cannot remember the answer uh the application is that going to be the same application that's available at town office already or do you have to create a new one we would probably create a new one or at least update the one that we have for these new Provisions right okay and that yeah because the one that's currently is for a certificate of appropriateness we we're not doing that just something to think about yeah

the beginning now that we've got our page line figured out Heather no I just give me one second just give me one second to read this one section moved unless the property owner can demonstrate okay historic re the historic res resource shall not be demolished unless it is deemed to be structurally unsound by a licensed structural engineer or the code enforcement officer C presentation of the application to the historic commission shall be delayed to allow additional posting and notice as follows

so I'm just clarifying one more time that if somebody wants to demolish a building that's over 100 years old listed not over 100 years old listed as a historic unless it's a school or church or church but other than that it's not just a 100y old building have to be the one of the listed ones plus schools and churches right and that's a change cuz currently it's any building over 100 years old no okay it's not no

oh um and then the othered thing too Heather if you don't mind me interjecting it's saying here that a historic dis risk resource shall not be demolished unless it's deemed to be structurally unsound by a licensed structural engineer so in terms of like the fundraising to pick up and move and that you're only even allowed to file that demolition permit if it's considered structurally unsound right so that's also limiting the ability to demolish you can't just buy the Bliss Farm in and I know we're not supposed to use examples but you can't buy one of these properties just say I want to level it even though it's in perfect working order because I want to put in a KFC you know no that's KFC you know okay

my my thing was just that I yeah it's fine I'm good no this is no no it's fine it's fine it's fine I just want to make sure that the that the any demolish ing per application goes to that's why Parker Schoolhouse came into play because it was a school yes and that building had been declared by the code officer as a dangerous building right right okay um so the other

question that they had in here so I kind of highlighted what they um again I was going to go off my phone but thanks for printing it then um my take from them is they essentially had four questions they're talking about the historic resources but doesn't Express Clear guidelines for which properties receive identification Beyond placement of the national register historic places that's what is considered a historic resource and should they do an architectural survey that recommendation that they find after we do an architectural survey goes to the main historic preservation State historic preservation officer commission commission commission then the state deterent says thank you for all this work we will make an evalu on whether this should be listed or not or whether it should be considered and so I think that that is the correct process to go about here I don't think a process of where we do a survey and just say

we've identified this as a building without anybody checking our work this is now received these protections I think following the process for getting these buildings officially listed works and my understanding of what we have here applies to the buildings if or when they are listed or listed as um potential is that mhm is that correct and so I think that answers their question number one there I I disagree again I think that what they're saying is that if we're doing this ahead of the survey that there are potential resources that have not been identified that could potentially be identified in the survey go through that process right we don't even know other than the ones that we have that are the eight right and that if we did the survey it could shed light on more than the eight not just every building over 100 years old or whatever criteria right that they those ones that they would potentially

identify in the survey would then go through the process of whether or not they would be eligible or be listed and so what I think they're trying to say is that if we do all of this before we do the survey there are potential losses that could happen in the meantime if we're waiting until 27 to do the survey but they talking about the historic district we request that exist protection stay in place for durm historic district in the interim before the survey and so which what I'm what I'm seeing here is they're saying we identify buildings outside of what the state has identified just that we suspect will be protected and we want them protected before we have to go through that process and I'm not comfortable protecting something based off of a suspicion that hasn't been confirmed just like we would not do that for resource protection we'd have it go through the official channels and so for

me I disagree they're talking about the district which we have identified as but there's not been a Sur there's not been a survey done on the district to identify and list the buildings a historic which is what they're asking to do first before we remove protection but there's no protection on them right now well there is not it's not that we're removing protection there's no protection on non-listed buildings in that District that's not true Okay so I

think a fundamental uh point of this whole discussion is remembering that the town attorney has said the current district is not enforcable so even if you were to maintain the district it's not going to be enforcable according to your town attorney and that's that's what I mean when I say there's no protection on those I think that there is the thought that there is but legally there isn't and so maintaining a ordinance or maintaining language that isn't legally enforcable doesn't make sense to me especially when we're going through this process and my understanding of it is if once we go through the survey once we get the properties that gets sent to the main historic preservation commission and they say you surveyed 275 buildings in town that are over x amount of age we think seven of them are we're going to list and five that we're going to uh consider for listing that then triggers that this applies to those new findings

correct yes and and just understand the process of the main historic preservation Commission is not just the age of the building it's what architectural period is there any historic significance uh what alterations have been done to the building uh has it has it lost its historic character because of modifications what condition is it in is it a building that's like a a falling down Barn those sorts of all of that goes into the evaluation process and then they have to determine that it is either eligible uh if it they have to make a determination that is is eligible for listing okay and so my understanding is this gives the uh protections to the existing buildings and sets up a framework that should other buildings meet the criteria they receive protections and removes language that isn't enforceable anyways from the ordinance and so I I think that that that answers their question about the

inter term because we've already had the legal opinion that what they want us to maintain in the interm isn't legally important questions that they had posed and then they posed a fourth uh question or recommendation um that really says you know break this out into three phases where we only would do the renaming from durm historic district commission to Historic Commission in 2025 and then wait have them complete the survey and then wait until 2027 in 2026 and 2027 and then wait until 2027 to determ protection status of the historic district after evaluting the survey results but again phase three doesn't apply because our historic district isn't legally enforcable and waiting to put these Protections in place until after the survey to me I think is unwise I'd rather see is put the Protections in place with a framework that allows the survey to provide protection to the to the appropriate buildings and so for

those reasons I I take their feedback into consideration but I think that it is addressed either addressed here or the recommendation isn't legally enforceable so I don't think we can can accept it so I'm open to hearing what anyone else thinks before we move to a

thing I would say is lawyers can be wrong yeah I mean never happened to me but the attorney is and I'm not I'm not saying that you're not right George it's very possible that I am understanding that wrong and maybe she it's even in here I thought what she was saying was not legally enforceable was the 1500t radius and that the district she

said was created uh according to whatever you know because obviously it's there we voted for it to be there right and so what my understanding was was that the district was created the the way that it was supposed to be created and the 1500t radius around the anything that's outside of the district is what she was saying was not legally enforceable that was what my interpretation of it was she was saying that both in the 1500 foot without question right no there was no process I'm not question but for the district itself there are only three buildings out of 34 buildings and that was another concern that she had there's not enough historic district basis to

create the district even if it went through the process so that's her that was her concern making it suspect whether you can legally enforce it and correct me if I'm wrong right now outside of those three buildings the remaining 34 don't have any extra process they have to go through for for like enforceable process yeah again see and that's part of the problem this process is in the current ordinance is so confusing I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question and people will argue about it does this and they have argued about it does this have to go doesn't have to go the church that was replacing its buildings uh its Windows excuse me the staff was just spinning on that and the district commission was spinning on that so this the lawyer has given you a template for getting a Le clear legally enforcable ordinance and in my thought processes from what we've heard from our attorney

is I think this would be a very different conversation about dissolving this District if they said hey of the 34 buildings or of the 30 seven buildings in the district 50% of them have been listed as historic I think now we're dealing with a all right well contributing factors within the district but as it sits right now there are a a small number of three that have been listed as historic and the rest are not listed and so to me it just makes sense to say well we're maintaining robust protections on those buildings we're also now making sure that there's protections associated with any sort of subdivision development adjacent or nearby but we're not going to have this amorphous un non- understandable language around non-contributing versus contributing factors within that that framework so I think that this addresses that while still leaning really heavily towards protection of known historic

resources far more so than an ordinance uh necessarily needs to and so I feel like this strikes a really good balance and then sets up a good framework for additional surveys and then should additional survey work get done and now all of a sudden someone a group of people in a neighborhood decide they want to come forward for a historic district that's data driven rather than opinion opinion driven and I think that we've made it very clear on this board we make data driven decisions you know and get the information so that's why I'm comfortable with it as written can I throw one more curveball in the mix sure this is this is my thing this is what I think that that area I've said this before right I will not die on this

hill right about the district but I think the district has more significance than just its buildings that that area has historic significance other than just the buildings that are there um I know I'm not going to win this argument but I would like to add to the churches and schools um Municipal municipally owned I

don't know how if I'm saying the words correctly um structures because then the adjacent conversation would apply to your and the BST is not in the district I know we're getting rid of the district I'm saying if the language around what is considered was a church a school the granite stone walls that if we included municipally owned structures that would include Eureka and the Bandstand and whatever else we certain age over a certain age the same things that apply to the that it's my proposal to stop trying to convince everybody that we need to keep the district is that a motion sure yes I'd like to make a motion rephrase it just so I don't know I'm not good at motions let me go to the line that defines the things George can you help me you you would be making a motion to edit the proposed ordinance I would to include language and then you can insert say I make a motion on page includ the following

language can you tell me the right word is it municipally owned what would the right word be would be municipal buildings or Municipal structures can can before we I'm no expert in this but wouldn't the eurek fit under something that the main historic preservation commission would list it has historical importance

well we don't know they did they did a survey and it's not on their list it's not on their list and I think part when did they do the survey it was they did like all the major routs because dot has to do that review and they did not determine that that is

what we get into is what we want to be or feel should be eligible versus what meets the the criteria and for me I just really struggle and this is with we have an evaluation it's not determined to be historic I still want it to be though because it's important to me which is fair but for me that's just not how my brain works so I I'm not supportive of that and I I know that like the Eureka Center is old and there's a lot of history involved with what the bild's been used for but there is an addition on it there is modern components to it the facade has been changed so I think I think that your motion doesn't get to your concern with like Eureka and then with the band stand I don't know how you go about getting that evaluated but there's disagreement there on as to how much of that's historic because most of it's been replaced it's broken hasn't been used the the area around it is different so like I don't

think your motion get I guess I'm doing the work your motion work for you I don't think your motion gets to what you want it to say I think you are trying to speak for me what I said when I started the conversation is that I feel like the area itself has significance Beyond just the structures and where the Bandstand sits is a historical area for a reason more than just the structure itself the same with Eureka like the dance hall that used to exist there and so that's my opinion we don't have to share opinions You can disagree with me right and that's fine I feel like municipally owned buildings because a 100 years from now like this fire station maybe this is something that we're going to want to protect historically I'm not just thinking about what's existing right now I'm also thinking about what we invest in as a community in the future and that's a different thing than the argument that you're making about

individ the onus on individual land owners right these are Community Resources and I feel that they're of value and to protect the ones that have been existing the ones that exist now in the future that's my opinion we don't have to share the same opinion do you want the motion to just State Municipal owned buildings or did you want to list out I just want I don't want to list them out because like today the fire station isn't a historical structure but 100 years from now it might be and yes viously ordinance change I don't even know if this is legal George I'm stressing you're rub concern because mind you know it's one thing to talk about that area being historically significant which it absolutely is they call it fery Road for a reason uh but

but the question is does it rise to the point of exercising the zoning police power of the community to regulate individual property rights and I don't think it does okay that's fair it's fair but I do want to take a moment to recognize that what you're saying like it was the downtown Center there were other builds used to be there I believe there's like a a cattle pound that was there too at one point or something like that so cattle pounds up on pound Ro s yeah wrong thing but I understand what you're saying that it just because the space doesn't have certain resources doesn't mean it isn't the historic downtown so I I definitely hear that so I think that's I think and there are other ways to approach that too

don't thank you for asking you're welcome to Good discussion though yeah I'm I'm just I I wish that the district was legally enforceable until we can get the survey that okay I make a motion or are we in discussion we in premotion discussion we haven't even got into motion discussion yet um so do we have a motion on draft part three draft Amendment historic properties I'll make a motion to approve part three draft amendments to the historic properties as written second do we have additional

appreciate your points on this Heather as someone has a different perspective on these resources than some of us else on the board I think it's an important voice and it shows the need to support and do a historic survey and have a more robust discussion about our our resources especially ahead of our pending comprehensive plan as well so I think it's really I just want to say it's an important thing to be heard here so I appreciate that a lot do we have any uh any additional

discussion all right all in favor of the motion any opposition passes unanimously Joe Tom is also in favor as yeah written Joe did indicate his support by email tonight all right so new business um we have to open a public hearing on updating the general thank you

man thank you George sorry I didn't mean to stress you out oh the the life of a town planner is a baseline of that most of us don't want saying when the rubber hits the road I'm sitting in front of the tire thanks George um so we have to open

up a a public hearing on updating the general assistant ordinance to get feedback um from the public so I would do we take a motion to go into public hearing so I would take a motion to enter into public hearing on updating the general assistant ordinance so move move by Josh do I have a second seconded by Deb any discussion um I'll just say that this is the opportunity for the public just one person here tonight to provide um feedback on the general assistant ordinance uh updates based off of the numbers we have from the state so any other discussion on the motion I mean this to go into the hearing sorry all right all in favor oh we're going in the hearing okay yeah this okay we're now in the hearing do we have any public comment okay do we have any board member comment I was just to say this brings us into compliance with state law and it adds $200 four $40000 to the to the budget General

assist and we've when was the last time we spent any of that it hasn't been yeah so we don't we don't get a lot we haven't but it puts us in compliance with state law so I think we have to do it most requests that come through the folks don't qualify for it so we actually don't really use it much um all right so I will take a

motion to close the public hearing so moved motion by Josh do I have a second second seconded by Heather are you getting these just all right uh any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing all in favor of the motion any opposition see none so now um we have closed is that we do not need a motion to approve it because we've already approved it in the previous meeting or would it be easier for you if we did a motion we approve the so um we

to put this on the town meeting so that okay is is that part of the new business C where review and discussion of the draft town meeting war or yes so should have yeah we do we do all right so we'll make sure we'll just add that so we just talk about it at that time right yeah sorry I didn't mean to take over for you but that's what I thought was so um next thing on new business is appointment of the uh so ballot clerk

[Music] four five people who does that sound correct five people who have volunteered uh do I have a motion to approve them as a slate of volunteer so mov do I have a second a second all right motion by Josh and I apologize I didn't use the motion language but I'll get there some do we have any discussion on the um the folks additional discussion Joe was in support Joe was in support and uh as always appreciate people stepping up to the plate yes yes you know I think one thing just pontificate here for a second I know no one wants me to but before getting involved with town government you just show up the town and things work you don't realize how many people volunteer or step up to the plate for these sorts of things so I just want to really call thank the people who are willing to volunteer because I guess I just lived in this world where the election happens the people are there and then getting

involved you realize there's a lot of work so we really appreciate people willing to step up is it a can I ask a question is it legal I don't know what the rules are like I feel like do we recognize these people in the town

if it's legal to do that or not I mean I think we don't want to make town meeting last longer than it already last right to like read the names of the volunteers that actually help us with our elections but I have been having multiple conversations with people lately about how our town report is like really a historical record of that year and so I think I go back and I look at old ones you know like the historic commission uh Society is now scanning them all and like they're available whatever I think it would be nice if it's legal to list that in the town report so that like a volunteer page like the following people volunteer I know we do Wards and commissions but like the especially like when it has to do with the elections and stuff like there's a lot of people that really make that happen and I think it it's we're allowed to I would like for that to be recognized in writing if we're I don't know if we're

allowed to but if we are I think it would be a nice thing to do yeah I think you're a good point there uh any additional discussion on the motion all right all in favor any opposition seeing none wow we are flying um all right uh review and discussion of Draft Town Meeting warrants so in front of us we have our Draft Town Meeting warrants there are including 19 that addresses the change in the town meeting yep yep number 19 does address the change in the town meeting a long time to get to say that and and we have articles through 30 article 30 and then um we have the warrant articles the 31 through 34 that's the placeholder yeah for yeah and so I think that we

have reviewed this document a lot I will say that we all the fiscal uh warrants the budget committee voted last Thursday night as a slate to approve all of them as written in one motion with um there's no discussion indicating any issues with any of them and that passed unanimously um so those have been double checked by by them uh I will say and I want to address this in the new business line that we added after this there's nothing about the uh kazeebo in here but I wanted to discuss that separately from a from a Warren article so where is the cemetery

well so we addressed the warrant article changing um but Jeff I know you sat here for how many years s is that it I thought it was a lot more felt like it felt select board your count as two so 14 and then uh is there one day is going to be the Wakeman Homestead near the old historic district right no probably not okay I was trying to say uh but one of the things we keep heing is you know we don't know about this we're not hearing about it we've talked about this change in uh fiscal fiscal year for over a year and so what I would ask is if you could send an email or come to the next meeting for public comment what I know I know you mentioned like having a a special meeting or something like that but I think in our experience we don't get a large turnout and there's I I just so I we love to

solicit input on how how to get it out because because you know you you said that and and I started thinking about it and I was like you know we get we had one earlier this year we had what 20 30 people maybe I mean even the public hearings on the ordinances with which these are really big ordinance changes show up and I I

understand that that special meetings and stuff like that often are less attended but if there is if there's something sent out it gives the option of the town's people to come and say and say something and my my biggest thing is because this was such a big change that's so and and so you think it should go out as a se you so it's been on how many meeting agendas well all of for the last couple of months and then um so and the budget committee has discussed it ex those don't go out to the town as a whole yes you have the option to if you go look at it where if you had a a special meeting that would be in your news blast and other things that would catch people's eyes better so do you think that possibly a solution would be for something like this a separate news blast could have said at the next SB meeting they are discussing the fiscal year change yes and but also allow for comment during that time because comment

ahead of time is um we've had that larger conversation this over the last year too yeah about allowing comment preemptively have a public comment is difficult because we don't you don't know what we're going to say yeah exactly I mean I understand why it was

put in in there um to some degree I don't necessarily agree with it but that's that's a whole other things but I know that the meetings have to be somewhat streamlined well we appreciate the feedback I apologize for probably inappropriately asking for but I I do appreciate it because we do have the ability as a board to vote to allow people to speak Y and then close it after I think in the last few minutes we've kind of just used discretion but it's a good point yeah I'm just saying we I'm totally fine with this you guys know I'm always the more the marrier but no that's true well speaking of that public comment I sat through a legislative session earlier this week uh in Augusta I they do do public comment after presentations take place they vote before I mean before the workshop that they even consider working on it I see so there's multiple times and they do allow it before but they are

tight to that time limit so I do think it's a good discussion for the beginning of our our next cycle because I think we've learned a lot this year that we can build off but thank you so much for that public input thank you um any

additional discussion on the article language like a missing comma or something like stick out to your Keen eyes that I miss but um other than that this good based on feedback those types of things I would um I would email just like those types of like grammatical things that can be done in email but yeah either way I'm just I sometimes I feel like when we have something in front of us that looks really good there's not much to say other than like looks good but I want folks to know that we go through it with the find yeah um I did read through all

of the you know because sometimes the warrant tic the warrant article structure in terms of to see what sum or to raise an appropriate and like that type of stuff so I did go through all of that you know and everything looks good to me should vote to add this and then vote to it together that one your sorry that's that's what I was I was trying to hold this up to remember to say it's not in here so we should so um as article 31

Yeah question article 23 about uh see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to dispose of town owned property which a be is no longer needed is this a normal article yeah it's in there so like because we know we're going to we want to start looking at property Town owns well and I got hung up on that a few years ago by property it's not like just physical properties it's like if the fire department gets rid of the boat we have the authority to put the boat up for sale for a blind day but excludes proper it would include physical properties as well okay um we probably want to vote on that but I think that we have discussed it Tom mean that real or personal transfer of actual

Pro like physical like land is something that would we would want more input on than that's a process yeah you know there's a lean process there's a foreclosure proc that's like automatic yeah so this is cu when you you read it in the uh vacuum it can be pretty jarring yeah we when you when you dispose or or sell property whatever there's a whole State statue you have to follow to to do that but I think this

is like real or personal what do you mean when you say real or personal real estate or personal property like the boat yeah yeah I don't know lingo with over here I was like it's all real Town own property not personal like so I'd make a motion to approve the draft town meeting warrant to be included in the annual Town report and make the uh general assistance ordinate article 31 unless there's a better place to put it just you get that language seconded by Deb any additional discussion I just have one quick question oh go ahead Jerry you can go first so I've been to two Town meetings so far I think both towards the end they just do all of the ordinances that I got once and I don't know as if if if they do that if keeping article 30 there is appropriate I think that's that's kind of a yeah I agree that's a different mhm that's not like a normal that article I've seen that kind of thing at the beginning before the

before the financials um so if I just threw it in there you know because it was it's easier sorry I I would put it as article 18 because I think article 18 and Article 19 well what would be I mean put it in as Article 19 soone else down right and then the what's here is Article 19 but would then be article 20 which is a CH change in the town meeting date we'll have some discussion and will not be voted on as you want to withdraw your motion I will withdraw my motion so I move that we take article 30 and move that to Article

19 moving all articles down one and numbering appropriately okay do I have a second hold on a second please so the business article heading will go not Article 19 which will read no let me talk for a second please the B that's not going to be a business article the cemetery and the town meeting right

those aren't won't be under the header of business article or they will I think they okay okay I think they are because we're talking about changing the town meeting which is business and I think accepting the cemetery is so the reason why I was suggesting pull them out of business business article is because under that header is because of what Jerry just said we typically vote to to do all the business articles at once so if we don't take them out of that heading but we can exclude them so so if so so if I were asked I would make the motion right now I would say I would uh vote I would I would move to vote on articles 20 through 28 as one slate right because I think there needs to be I mean I I'm okay with the 5% budget line I think is typical and I mean I have no problem leaving where it is because I don't think there really needs to be special discussion on it but I don't really care but I the

semetary one people need to know you know there is a minuscule fiscal obligation but also you know I think we have this duty to to to make sure this property is taken care of and so that special um yeah so I I think we can pick and choose which ones we vote on and sorry for interjecting I should let you no um no it's not um article 30 my thought process like Josh said is if we just move those two special ones CU I do think they technically still meet the category of business articles to Josh's point we're going to vote on this one vote on this one and should it go smoothly will we approve the rest of the Slate so we just going to make those motions to line that up so if you want my motion 29 and 30 no

article 29 is the right percent 5 percentage 5% um transfer so I was going to make the motion to um move move article 30 to the first of the business articles first read about Jerry I think he was talking about making this so I'm saying my my motion is to make the adjustments here and then vote to approve it as amended that's my thought process so I'm making the motion to move article 30 to the first of the business articles is there a second on the motion second second okay and so the intent here will be to move the language and artic 30 to the first of the business articles everything gets renumbered is there any additional discussion what's the number of this um I'm going to make a motion to add that to the last of the business articles or or the second of the second of the business articles after well then your motion what is that this is the general assistance oh okay well the general assistance we're going

to the ordinance oh sorry yeah so that BEC the first of the or so we're just going to re number put in the cemetery 19 the rest going to follow general assistance will be under ordinance war war articles number 31 yeah and so just for process my thought process was we make the motion to add this move this we make the motion to add the ordinance warrant article and then we make a motion to accept got as amended sounds good so my motion as it states currently which who seconded that I did Josh seconded it well the r chair Vice chair motion um that would be to move article 30 to the first of the business article do I have any additional discussion I favor any opposition seeing none that passes unanimously I now make a motion to add the adoption and of

updated general assistance ordinance to the first of the ordinance warrant articles second second from Josh do we have any additional discussion all in favor of the motion any opposition seeing none passes unanimously we'll let you all number them because that will turn the first of the ordinance warrant articles to 31 one yeah you just said you were going to let them number them moving on so I'll make a motion to approve the draft town meeting warrant to be included in the annual report as amended tonight a second pass any additional discussion all in favor any opposition seeing none okay uh next on new business

um we added this again we don't normally to add new business but this was my fault for forgetting to have Jerry put it on ask Jerry to put it on the um meeting in advance uh is discussion about the war memorial and the War Memorial Park and the um the Gazebo we've received some public feedback both from I'm messing up my Historic Society the Durham historic commission and the Durham Historical Society the the Durham history groups I was and another we've received some public comment just wondering um I got from some a couple different people are you all asking about the um the Gazebo this year and Jerry could

you give us a little insight because the uh Public Works manager has gotten some feedback on the Gazebo about the the situ a of where it sits and costs and things of that nature yes so the um Road commissioner has had a couple different contractors look at that kazeebo um some of which live right here in town and have for a long time uh recognize that that gazebo has been there a very very long time and it has been remodeled several times and don't feel there's really a historical board in the kazeebo itself self but it has

historical value value um and this particular person feels you know the town um is or at least some want to see some sort of kazeebo there whether it's a refurbished one or a renovated one or a brand new one and I think that's where we have to where the where the board's going to have to make a decision or ask the town what they would prefer to have done now the road commission has gotten quotes and to get a brand new one there you're going to spoil a 14x 14 you're going to spoil 25 Grand that's getting it built delivered and in place might not cost a total of 25 but somewhere probably between 20 and 25,000 to redo

that one you're going to be looking at close to 15 to 20 anyway um and a matter of fact that one sits high off the ground so it's not really ADA Compliant so if we was to get a new one or refurb that one you'd want it lower to the ground so really depends on and and that if you don't mind me inter and that becomes what I'm learning is there's n clature difference here that fact that it is higher up is what makes it a band stand not a gazebo and the fact that the roof's higher because it projects noise more and so then you get into the question of just refurbishing it to meet the way it used to be now create a non ada8 compliant structure um out there too so something

else so I think the question before the the community is do they want a kazeo there and how much are they willing to spend to keep one there and I know that there's a difference of opinion because I know that some folks have expressed to us that any piece of that that still is

historic or original should be kept my understanding from what we've for feedback is there's nothing original there from the 18 I think it was 1860 something that it was built so none of the wood on there is from 1860 but it might be from an update that happened in the 1900s and then you get into what to keep and whatnot my thought process would be we can ask via um at the municipal

election via a a ballot poll would you entertain uh that would you like to see the town move forward to replacing or renovating the Gazebo not to exceed $25,000 yes or no the reason I think we should ask is because while we could spend this money out of the p uh the public uh Municipal Building reserve it is not one of the things that we have listed to the community as a planned expense in that 10 10-year Reserve plan and I I know we take very seriously diverting from that so this is an opportunity to get some public feedback if the answer is yes then we can have a public um meeting and get some public feedback and invite the people who are vocal to say do you is it better to put a new one is it better to put a a refurbished one and then we can proceed from there my recommendation is to do this as a um like a local ballot as part of the municipal election because um we get more people who vote in that than do

attend the town meeting it's not the great turnout that we had for like the police um policing discussion but it might still be 400 people versus the 150 that turn up to town to town meeting and so after we get that feedback and have the result we could have a a brief facilitated discussion at the town meeting to get additional feedback from people then to just ask but I just wanted to get this get the get the thought process from the board on how best to proceed Heather if we take that route does that mean we have to wait another year another 18 months to go before town meeting to to use the money if people if the majority vote that they want to do something no because we are allowed to expend out of the reserve Accounts at our discretion I'm just saying if we're we have been very clear that we have a 10-year plan this would um divert from that 10-year plan and so I think we just need to take very

seriously any diversion from there but this would be a way to expend out of that so if the town overwhelmingly said yes and we feel that that the feedback from the public is build brand new we could buy and build brand new within the the next year so I think if we um put it at the vote versus the town meeting allows people who are passionate about the topic to express their concerns which might influence someone's vote so whether I I think it might be better to be done at the town meeting versus the the voting you could share the results of your poll at the town meeting to to

discuss it would kind of be like what we did with the police at the last election but this would just be at the town at the municipal election but I see your point too is that well no if if it's a poll only and then at the meeting disc

discussed because if the well we decide like how we decided as a board not to pursue the police based on what that feedback from the town was in the vote this would be our information gathering like it could be the poll and the information that we gather at town meeting and then we make the decision I I don't think I I I don't think discussing it at the town meeting is the best idea because we're going to be there for a while it's going to be a long day um and this is a

discussion that I think needs to have ample time because um you know in my view we need to re we we we need a band stand should be made ADA compliance uh but it should look similar to what we have uh the question and I think taking

what Calvin's been told that there's nothing original we should start over but there's going to be a difference of opinion and it's to me this is a discussion that could take 30 minutes it could take a couple of hours uh and frankly before we do it

I would like us to go out there with Calvin and take a look at it so um because that is something we had started we had we had gone to the union church we had gone to Public Works we have haven't really done that here I think we all know the town office but um I think that's something we should keep doing as well but I think I'd like to be there I'd like Calvin to point things out to me uh I I think I mean I will tell you I'm going to support it something has to be there um and uh based on what Calvin

said I think it's something that uh should be new should be built to last and then we can say in 150 years this was our contra contribution to remember the past and provide it to the Future in a way that's going to last so I'll let you go ahead there but I want to say I think that what you just described Josh could be we get a vote at the municipal election via a poll if we get the feedback yes we then start we will develop a process where we will go visit it we will solicit quotes and then we will have a we can do a at one of our meetings do a special public hearing to get feedback from people of you've got the quote here's the new here's the refurbished here's the whole situation and get that public feedback and then move forward from there that's that would be my proposal on how to do it I just like to can we put a book end a timeline on that process I don't want this to like we already have it shimmed

up with a pressure treated post like I don't want this to turn into a year-long process so I mean I think it would be something we would want to do um summer right like you know our meeting in April me make a decision by August I would think or at the latest I know way before that well that's I mean I I will say that I will want to go out there yeah because because people want to keep it because they say it's original I want Cal to to the extent he can and I can understand it he can show this isn't original and then we could say I want to be able to say I went out there is with someone more knowledgeable to me he explained it is a June 1 deadline for this reasonable then cuz we're going to meet in April gives us may to get solicit feedback and all that information and then we vote on an action in our first June meeting yes and I would like to to how we're going to include the

historic district commission I would like to get you know I know the Historical Society has pictures of the the roof and like I know we had talked once about maybe the only thing that gets saved is the roof and the rest of it is what gets replaced new like I would bu I want their opinion also other than just the three minute public comment like I I think it's important with to get their feedback I want to do like a direct invitation to them so I think we've got a plan what do we what do you need from us to to get direction to write uh a PO just give me the language that you want can I can I also say that with recent National events the 25,000 20 25,000 is probably going to go up MH um so maybe we should look it up to

think that there's some this is the kind of thing B just based on the Facebook group feedback that this is the way that people donated for the and I know donating to a to the like we can't donate to the town right but like the how we did the thing with the flags I think this is something that people would would make donations to that business business owners in town would make donations to I don't know how that would work but I do feel like that's an option I think there are a lot of people that would donate to this cause I think I think we would have to team with the Historical Society Y and have them take the lead and then fund what they can't you know say we'll we'll give this we'll give x amount and you raise the rest okay so do we have a motion for language to direct the straw pole on I would make a motion that uh

election on uh April 4th uh a straw pole asking the residents whether they want to spend up to $30,000 to replace or repair andl the band stand Jerry information that I need to make an informed vote is what the laws are about

ADA compliance okay do we have a second on the motion oh sorry thank you heather that's all right so we have a second on the motion and we're in discussion I think I seconded it I don't I didn't maybe that's what I meant with my comment I think Ada comes in one you're when you're doing any remodeling of a public space so I think it would come into effect does it apply to a band stand I don't know the answer to that but I didn't know if like if we

refer or restore maybe restore is the right word sometimes I feel bad that we're not using the right language I mean I always do I guess if we were restoring something I didn't know if ADA compliance comes into effect if we're replacing something I would assume it absolutely does and so that's just where I would appreciate knowing what is legally required for both of those Avenues right so I looked at it today and so if it's up off the ground you need a ramp that's at least 36 in wide and a 12 to1 ratio so it's like a/ inch per foot and with that it would have to be a zigzag well not necessarily if it wasn't too bad you know you could it could be straight too you know it just depends on it really determines how high it sits up off the ground right and then you need to have a radius inside the Gazebo enough for a wheelchair to turn around but I can I can uh get you okay and just if that's also the case I know

for sure if it's something new if we're restoring is it also the case that it needs to be ADA Compliant yeah I think if it's for I I'm almost sure I'm 98% sure but if it's a public gazebo it'll need to be ada8 the municipal election on April 4th asking residents to replace Andor repair the or Andor restore the war memorial Band Stand not to exceed $30,000 oh so we nor we normally don't do public comment but I'll let you jump in um I'm just wondering uh on the question if it may be confusing by putting uh the money amount in there whether people will think they are actually voting to spend that money I would people to actually be thinking that if there's a way just to yeah so maybe some language could be to include municipal election April 4th asking residents to direct a future date direct the select board to explore explore repair replace restore the band stand in an amount not to exceed does that and know it's still

gets into some Nuance what if you just say straw pole right at the beginning mhm yeah it'll be on its own paper it has to be a different color than the and the clerks will explain like they did at the presidential MH sorry no thank you it's a good point really especially because we're doing it as a written ballot and not we don't have the opportunity to explain it you guys and it also should indicate that this is to expend funds out of Municipal Reserve not raise inappropriate because then I don't want people to think that we're voting to I know we're getting real messy with this motion at this point but this discussion this discussion might lead us to withdraw right but I just want to be clear you don't want any money value in there no no I do I think I think we have to put the upper limit because I think the unknown would just because people say oh no way can we say transfer so that they don't would be

transfer though it would be spending at our so can I can I rephrase it yeah you want to withdraw first you want to withdraw the motion first or do you want to can I just make an amendment to it I don't know it depends on what your amendment is it's teasing you no I just I just sorry it just went

out U you know does do we do we want to say something like do you support the town expending from its Municipal Reserve municipal buildings Reserve account and amount up to $30,000 to re Furbish repair or replace the Gazebo question mark new

second sentence would be uh to be further discussed and decided by the select board no later than its first June meeting so that we give us a deadline people know when it's coming so they notice to look be on the lookout for it right and we can incl I'm trying to does that make sense or is that too much I know I I know what you're saying um I just do have a that's that's that's a lot but my question for Jessica would be being a straw pool and not an official state elction is there a can can we put in a note note to say so

the the top would just say the following question is to ask for your consideration voting for The this does not mean the funds will be expended to the total amount yep and then the question could state do you wish to have the select board explore the restoration all the language that we just talked about and then what yeah Jerry you seem like you got something on that well we could come up with this between now and March I was going to say what are we doing I'm forgetting that the timeline this doesn't I'm sorry I'm thinking I'm thinking that this needs to go to the printing press and that's my bad there's no early voting actually early voting yes and okay so because people got so we do need to hammer it out so that you can put it out tomorrow yeah because that they people did comment that the police straw pole wasn't with their early votes and that we only did it in person so how about okay do you do you

going to say exploring the replacement or refurbishment of the P Duram more Memorial Bandstand right that's what it's called or and you should put gazebo in parentheses CU gazebo yeah I didn't know what band me neither the refurbishment or replacement

memorial $330,000 and expended out of Municipal Reserve account is that when we wanted to explore to the best of our ability if we were exploring expenditures out of the reserve account that hadn't been previously shown in the capital Improvement plan that we wanted to give people the opportunity to weigh in m and so this is saying like we we have the authority to do this without asking but we want to get the opinion of the community because it's not in insignificant sum of money

language so do you support the select board exploring the refurbishment or replacement of the war memorial gazebo band stand with a cost not to exceed $30,000 and to be expended out of the mun municipal buildings Reserve

again I think so it doesn't include the language of the the deadline we're putting in but I think if it passes at our meeting we can the first meeting we can we can talk about it put it in the news blast yeah and say this is coming the other thing too is we could flag in the news blast that this is for consider yeah that we should we should we should put that question in the next news blast I think and say this is a St a straw pole that's what I'm

this almost looks like warrant well this is like now I'm like well we why not just put it on as a warrant but then the problem is there's so few people and it's a I just don't think that's the right place for a discussion like this I have a question what if the Poland comes back in the negative then we don't then then we decide we can go against it or we don't or but if it comes back is no I think that that's just what it comes back as just like when the police came back is no we didn't explore it and unfortunately you just say to some of the really vocal proponents like we asked the community about this and they didn't want to move forward because frankly if they say no like what do we say like too bad too bad these four people really want it like I I don't it's just I I mean saying no doesn't mean they don't respect the Band Stand it's just a fiscal no and that's that's a big well that's the other thing

is that then not that we're going to do like the whole committee and all that stuff because we do not have time for that based on the condition that it's in and I do feel like it's been you know it needs to be addressed if the answer is no then we can have a discussion about does the Historical Society want to take responsibility for it does you know what I mean like then we look at other avenues if people don't want to spend the money it's not just a we're just GNA let the thing fall apart like that's then it's our responsibility to figure out what to do next that's the way I look at it at some point it becomes der it becomes dangerous children you know yeah know it's uh so I mean we we have to figure out but I I agree with Heather and I was going to say the exact same thing so if it doesn't pass we either say we ignore it or we look at different options right because you know with everything that's going on in the

world people might be like 30,000 is a lot of money for our P yeah I mean just the you could do something like they did at the school and sell bricks or something and put bricks around it to make it to make it more wheelchair accessible or something like that I don't know I think but this is just gives us the opportunity because there's been a lot of vocalization it gives us the opportunity to try to quantify some the scale of some feedback and then if the answer is yes we know how to proceed the answer is no we will address it as something this year um that we will in 2025 that we in fact I think we should actually see if there's a way to to do it that will not distract from the historical significance of the Band Stand but maybe do try to raise some money by selling like boards or something that you can put your name because I know when I go to the school I still look at them even though I've seen

them all a million times yeah totally um you know and my and my kid still says oh I wish I were here so when they did this so we could have my name up here right so I think I think ultimately you you want to have a discussion right here at a meeting and not on social media yeah

and I also I also think that we can do a better job with that discussion of not just putting on an agenda and having the discussion but doing some Outreach to the his the Durham historical groups to say and to the public this is the town meeting the the Slick word meeting where we're going to discuss the future of the Band Stand based off of our information and the the vote so cuz you've got design color if they don't if they want to do something new you've got a lot more there's a lot yeah um I make a

motion for Josh's language to be added as a straw pole second second all right any additional discussion all in favor any opposition go team way to Fumble through that you failed forward okay um cool okay short meeting but um we've

already done that so now we're moving into uh manag report just a couple things here are the trifolds that are going out come out pretty good take a look at still hot in really nice and uh we're addresses and stuffing envelopes so they hopefully go the mail the end of this week if not it'll be Monday yeah come um the only other thing that I have for you is Road commissioner will be posting roads Monday March 10th them along

upate has it only been a week um C can I ask a question there's been a lot of comments about the escrow and the the 18-year budget 18 month 18 month budget is not going to be before August oober right it'll be October 15th which would be after the first payment would have been due es will have so the escrow should have the 12 plus months already by then and then you're going to have only be n months for and the bill will be right and then you'll have in the next 6 to n months time to make up for that so you're going to have the the full 18-month payment escrow with how escrow money in the in your escrow by the time the second payment I mean you should have the first one already and the second one should be N9 months or more by the time the second one is due because if August 1st you would have 12 months normally in your escrow if the payment then moves to October you now have 14 months worth of money in your

escrow and then the second payment being um um April you'll have another month that's six months but you'll have the carryover of the two extra months so just want to make it clear like your bank this is we are not the first town who's done this this is not the first time your bank has dealt with this it's not going it's going to be a seamless process or it should be a seamless process and so there's been some miscommunication um stating that Banks won't know how to manage this and that it's categorical false they will um and we working withy deal lot morgage holders they're also getting that've been yeah yeah I just want I I saw that

post and I meant to reach out before and that's okay and it's well written in here that section is thankfully other people have done this process before so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here um and we're just it's going to work out nicely did you have questions for Jerry I did have a question for Jerry we talked about um after we approved all of this that this was going to go on the website and we're also going to send a text through text myg saying here's the link to the website where all of this information is okay and can we it's on the website already every the warrant language is it because we haven't approved it no no this the pampl is right can we just include in the text that there's information about the fiscal year change and all town meeting information is available on the town website what how whatever however you want to word it just say both things I have to be like too separate okay once

we get over certain character limit once we have everything I mean so did the news blast from some they right so for Town staff we have to manage this because we and we're going to probably get a lot of calls once they get into the mail so we try to like roll it out in phases yeah because we will get blasted me possibly so we got you got to think about that right M so they got the news blast now they're going to get the the man mhm we can do we can also do text I me do it as many times as you want but we're trying to manage the the I think it would be response well jar in plenty of time because this isn't really happening until what August October yeah so

there's plenty of time I mean but I'm very cognizant of their time my time you know this is a big deal no doubt I was thinking about that a little bit more and like this is now on the website it's in the news blast it's going to show up in the mail and so there's going to be a whole glug of feedback that you all receive when people see it on the website there's going to be the glug of feedback when it shows up in the mail the phones are going to probably go off the hook for a couple days um this doesn't take effect until after the um town meeting so it's not for a while I think that that's an important process to get that feedback though cuz when we do that video about GP CG's recommendation is you get the feedback and then you curate your video of the interview between Jerry and myself based off of that feedback to answer those frequently asked questions and so um I think that's going to be important too

but I do think that once the warrant language is on the website this is already on the website and then the to the budgets on the website that maybe next week a text could just go out and say everything all information require pertaining to the town meeting is now available on this link right and so it's we've announced it by the news blast this week it'll be go out in the news blast this week again and then next week in addition to it being in the news blast again it will also be a text so people are getting notification and then another notific another notification so though I think the overlap of people who have signed up for the text and the people who read the news blast is pretty similar it's still it's a good chance for us to utilize the technology we have to communicate

have also have a stier that says check the town website like maybe we get custom stamps or something like that tell sorry didn't means tot your report no no um board member reports I'll start off I just wanted to say heard some feedback that the uh just want to say I'm always impressed and happy with the town staff because um you know they get some tough feedback from members of the community sometimes and they have them the last couple weeks and they've been professional and provided great information and helped people even when some of the feedback from the community has been um a little tough to manage and I just want to say always appreciate all the great stuff I hear about the town staff and how professional they handle themselves so I just want to acknowledge that in my report um and I won't take up our time tonight but I had some really cool thoughts on things to do next year for public

hearings and how we manage those based off of some some professional development I had this week so I'll save that for later though Josh what that oh Joe's not here k um I went to a conference this week on uh de real estate and Commercial

development in municipalities and where gaps are that make it difficult um for Town staff and also for it was it was so informative there was tons of stuff that I learned and I want to like write up a synopsis and share that with you guys because I mean and I have like data graphs and like all that stuff it was really really really informative um I also Al got feedback this week and I think we hear this a you know I think it's feeling a little more 5050 split which is nice that we have some people who are saying I was so impressed with everything that's on the website and I was able to find what I was looking for and I appreciate the way that you're communicating this information and you know that type of stuff and then we have the other people who are saying um you know there's not

enough information out there there's not enough information out there and this particular feedback was with regard to um a public comment that was made or a request that was made and our untimely or lack of response engagement or continued updating of that

process that the person came here and made like had you know direct feedback or questions for us and so I just you know I always love for us to improve and I just think that that's one thing that we can look to is to make sure that when people are taking the time to come here and make a public comment and you know because it's easy to just stay home and not do that that I really feel like it's important to make sure that our level of communication with with residents is is important because I do think that's also a mitigation strategy for how much residents are then complaining to town staff so just thought I would share that awesome thanks H de maybe it's raising awareness about the compliment Complaint Form that we have that not a lot of people are probably using I think there's also an element of like sometimes folks do make comments and a plan is vocalized and they don't like the speed of the plan

too and there is that element of you know making a complaint but it's being addressed at the the next meeting that's been vocalized that some of those things are unavoidable but um I think there's a way we can repetition repetition repetition figure figure out a strategy so I just think it comes right down to level of service got three people there and they doing the best they can if they're not updating the website probably a good reason for it's not because we're I think this or we comment more I think the feedback was more towards our it was definitely it was definitely about us I think it was about

necessarily about you but because that I don't think that that's necessarily the case like but we and I and I try to explain we do have protocol like we can't just one off go deal with something right we do have a protocol that we have to go through and it and whatever I just think maybe you know that's up for future discussion about the ways that maybe you delegate a point person for one specific thing or you know whatever I just think it's something that we should address because I do think communication is important I think communication is important but people should also send us an email rather than kind of town crier on the town page because it's like I'm I'm aware of the comment we' communicated we we've communicated our plan tonight it's being addressed but no one asked me and so then to say this isn't being taken care of even though it's been communicating we've seen other comments like that where we're doing

this tonight and then the public comment is why aren't we doing this it's like it's it's on the agenda you know you never reach out to ask for after to clarify after we've already told you the plan and so some of that just comes with the job yeah and I I don't want to single one situation out because I do think it's feedback that we've heard more than once and I'm not saying that it's on you Joe I'm not I'm not saying that I'm saying as a board no I'm I think as a board you know we have to look at the ways that we want to increase our communication with residents which would go to the issue about the reevaluation we need to really make a good communication plan that's getting up and running sooner than later even though it's out there there the anxiety associated with it and never I know we talked about that before and I know you're going to be working with GP cob on that is that right on the

re-evaluation communication um they're available to yeah that get started January 27 the re yeah it's yeah it's like so I think after town meeting we should start having those conversations we we want to hold we want to we might not need to do it that soon I mean we all know it's coming we know towns have struggled with it we watch the Evening News where it talks about the impact of towns yeah I'm just not sure about it right now will be remembered in a year and a half because that's that's only my concern with that it's like yeah I don't know how how deep we need to go but people can study up on their own too

right well by most of our standards this has been a short meeting but uh anything else El before we move into the consent agenda from any of board members all right do I have an a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented so moved Josh any second second Heather any discussion oh there was a big Bill in there for the

discussion I don't any discussion onot for approval all right seeing no opposition we are unanimous um upcoming meetings with the planning board meeting March 5th here at the fire station a committee meeting March 5th at the Eureka Center I should State agriculture committee meeting uh March 5th at the Eureka Center at 600 p.m. saw waste committee meeting March 10th at 2020 uh March 10th at the Eureka Center at 6:30 p.m. uh public hearing on the land use articles March 19th at the fire station at 6:30 p.m. and then a select board meeting March 25th at the fire station at 6:30 pm is there any need for an executive session I seeing none do I have a motion to adjourn so moved have a second all right any discussion all in favor all post see no opposition pass uny we are good signature time

sener of tonight no but you enjoyed it