TranscriptBoard of Appeals Meeting ~ February 28, 2024

[Music] the meeting um he has something to present yeah that' be good course yeah yeah yeah yeah he is but both he and Al are going to give us a thank you for coming my name is Alan plumber I'm the code enforcement officer for Durham uh at 6:30 we're going to start this uh board of appeals meeting um thank you for coming uh we'll

we do have an agenda it's on that chair if you don't have one of those in a second um but if we could have a roll call um and I'll do that uh Terry Kirk is here Neil Barry is here Byron filb is here and Paul first is here y uh that constitutes a

quorum um uh help me with the people that aren't here um uh Milt mil Simon Milt Simon is absent uh he couldn't make it uh I I believe that's it that's it and we don't have alternates um but there are open seats if anyone's interested um so there's that so we do have a quorum um we could just rise and take your hats off

States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you um I believe we have some administrative business to take care of before we get to uh the hearing this evening and the

first item of that business is the approval of the minutes and uh first of all I want to say thank you Neil for working on those minutes uh I know how much work that is to put those together so do we have a motion to approve the minutes I will do we have a second a second okay

brief comments if at some point in where you know we're getting started here with uh new secretary new chair trying to get everybody on the same same page um so I think it might be a good time to offer a couple of uh suggestions one is with

regard to the beginning of the meeting when we do the uh the record of evidence basically you know what's being presented to the board great if we can somehow you know if it's a really long list if you can just point to it make mention of the application package so at least then whoever is reading the minutes at some point in the future knows that there is a significant packet they need to look at that's hopefully on file with the town they can do that and then the only other comment I have um and we can think about this moving forward I I would suggest we go ahead and dispense of uh of the minutes this you know this time around but the only other item is um if especially in a in a

variance if at the end of the um approval of the criteria IA if the board offers a statement or something saying why um you know we ruled the way we did uh it would be wonderful to be it's important to try to capture that if we can so um if you have any questions on

that certainly don't feel or certainly feel free to contact me um after the fact you you you do not one to do minutes for this meeting no I think we go ahead and take these minutes that you've done and we approve them and um and then on future minutes just two suggestions for future minutes keep in mind because you know I realize it's a you know it's a lot of time to put these minutes together and um you know we want to keep I think we want to keep going so we do have there's a video recording there's the decision um and there's a lot of you know great information in the minutes um but if we can uh kind of uh

if we can pull those two things together I think I think we'll have it for like you know in the for future stuff does that make sense yeah okay approving the minutes and the date on those minutes January 22nd please uh signify in the usual manner all right so we've got four so it's 4

opposed okay okay so the next it uh item is appointments and uh we had just a a brief conversation with the CEO while we were um getting started here prior to the meeting opening and um it sounds like Byron hasn't been moved yet by the selectman they haven't made the decision to move him from associate to regular member so what I will do and in order for us to have a quorum tonight because um we were we're down a member and an associate and we are missing not Simon in order to have an a quorum I will ask Byron if he would please serve in the capacity of a regular voting member this evening um which is uh Allowed by our

ordinance so Byron you are a full voting member this evening and then the um other item under appointments in the ordinance it states that if there's a vacancy that the secretary should send a letter to the selectman and that um after the selectman re receive this letter they have 60 days to appoint someone so um maybe it would be a good idea for us to uh get that going y you

know give them a little incentive to go ahead and get this done so my understanding is there are two issues um that we're looking to get accomplished here and one is for Byron to be promoted from associate current associate to be moved up into a membership position and the other is for for two new Associates to be appointed so you know however you'd like to word that and you can then pass that on to if you could CC Allen and I that'd be wonderful and um then Allen can pass that on to the selectman the selectman have to make the permanent appointment right yeah that's my what's your recollection of that with regard to for example byon yeah exactly they've got to make it permanent you don't just automatically move from associate no no we can V in that's what I yeah he's going to be always an alternate to the s thank you Terry so as usual your you know all your experience with this committee is do we need to vote valuable

on Byron tonight to vote you know I will say according to the ordinance it says it's within the chair's power just to do it y perfect but if you guys want to vote because I know in the past we voted believe I believe you so I'm fine either way but look hey let's not break with tradition let's do a vote so moved okay second do we have a second second all those in favor okay very good so three

one exstension to appoint uh Byron for this evening as a full voting member takes care of our administrative business and um now we're moving on to our new business and that is we have an appeal in front of us uh um and this is the Hagar appeal um and the business before us tonight is a zoning boundary clarification that's requested by Howard and Sandra Hagar and I will ask a question right up front so I noticed that the date on the application was November 3rd 23 is that

right it's like n nine yeah okay November 9th thank you so um could you fill us in there why is that why are was that so long ago yep um again my name is Alan plumber and um I'm the administrative staff person for the board of appeals I have no say in the board's decisions or deliberation at all uh I can answer questions if they have them for me um uh the appeal came in and I began to

process it and I have quite a few things to do in order to do that um in that process U Mr Hagar got in touch with me and said hold on a second I need you to just postpone this for for the time being um so I did postpone it I asked him to send me a letter um he sent me a letter on November 16th postponing it um indefinitely and then he got back in touch with me uh Rec not too long ago okay perfect yeah and that's why it's so long from the initial date yeah thank you um I do want to um State a couple things uh some of the information so this doesn't have to do a lot with me the code officer lots of times appeals do but this doesn't um it has more to do with um the resource protection uh change that happened last year at annual meeting um I'm not as familiar with the details of that I've asked George um theurge our planner to be here to answer any questions um with regard to those uh wonderful yes and thank you George and

we're almost to that point where we'll ask you guys for for your statements and to you know for you to give your your piece of this I um yep Terry the appeal tonight is not for any variances or anything else are correct it's an administrative it is an administrative appeal it's a little bit different than some other ones so what they're asking us to do is change an ordinance no no can't we can't change change of boundaries of an ordinance they're looking at boundaries of of something that had changed yes yes and there is I can read for you something in the ordinance that might clarify you know what it says I already know what it says okay and basically what it says is that they can request a boundary clarification as part of an appeal okay um now I will say this appeal it's

a little bit of a gray area because um it's not a decision of the code enforcement officer the code enforcement officer hasn't made a decision that's being appealed okay but it also says right after that or the code enforcement officer can request clarification of a boundary and so um I think that it's important that if we're going to look at this tonight that uh the code enforcement officer needs to formally ask us to look at it and then you know you know then we have the jurisdiction to do it or we have the power to do it I I think um with discussion this afternoon with the town manager and George I think you have the authority anyway even if I don't ask that yeah but I can certainly ask that uh I think it's a good idea because you know I read the ordinance literally M uh with that in that regard and uh I I'd like us to you know stick as close as we can to the ordinance when we're serving

in our capacity uh sure as as board received quite a number of things for the record and I will say the other piece of that with regard to administrative appeals say you know if this is an administrative appeal then we're not allowed to we're we can't allow denovo evidence okay so you're not allowed to look at evidence that was not provided to the code enforcement officer when they were making the decision again this is something a little different because you didn't make a decision but I think that it also by you asking for the clarification it also um addresses that concern so uh we have quite a number of things here we have a application package from the hagars that's quite comprehensive and it includes um just very briefly here their application it includes a letter from the

includes letters from to ifnw and from I or correspondents I'll just put it at that correspondence to ifnw and from ifw to ifnw and from ifnw it also includes correspondence to uh beginning with habitat program and from beginning with habitat program um and correspondence I believe with George tabar your information the town planner or information from

note oh also a report from laella which I believe assessment of the 292 runaround Pond Road so we have uh quite a comprehensive record to the town officials for uh putting such a comprehensive packet together okay so now on to the next step

um I did ask uh Allan just to flesh out the um agenda a little bit so we've got some steps to follow to hopefully get through this tonight fairly uh efficiently um because we got a lot of people I I see a lot of uh a lot of neighbors here this evening that's wonderful we do have a public hearing portion of the meeting scheduled so after the the town officials give their statements and the applicants give their statement and we entertained questions from the board uh we'll open a public hearing and so anyone from the public who'd like to speak about this issue can come up and speak I ask that when you come up you state your name and then you can make your statement um okay but let's get started with our town official statements Alan would you like to start and then I'll allow you to hand it off to George sure so just as a note um notifications were done to the newspaper um three points around town the town office the

get and go and the elementary school um on the town website the town Facebook page um and abutter notifications were sent to uh the abuts uh one of the abuts is the state of Maine they have no mailing address nothing was sent to them um but

the three other abuts were notified uh in due in due administrative appeal although it's been discussed it's a little bit um different than administrative appeal uh but the Hagar are seeking relief from all ordinance restrictions related to Resource protection and they've provided the information in these two packets um which the board has gotten um I am less

familiar with the town ordinance and the uh restrictions and the details about resource protection so I have asked George to come to elaborate on those specifics uh and he's done that um uh before you get there uh could you pre please request make your request yes I would like to uh have a boundary determination um by the board of appeals um related to this appeal thank you

yeah yeah anything else or does that sound good I think that's good good all right George could you come up and give us a brief history the board my name is George targe and I am the town planner for Durham and uh you have a request for a boundary interpretation submitted to you uh for hearing tonight um I do believe that under the land use ordinance and the relevant sections uh are section two

subsection 3 2.3.8 point6 which says where the physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map or in circumstances where items covered by the paragraphs dealing with boundary interpretation are not clear uh the board of appeals shall interpret the district boundaries now every other community that I work before has this uh authority to interpret the the map boundaries delegated to the planning board because the planning board prepares the zoning map and presents it to the legislative body in your case the town uh meeting but uh in Durham's ordinance uh it's it's okay to do this but that Authority has been delegated to the board of appeals so uh this is a very typical provision because when zoning maps are adopted they're done on a t townwide basis based on the best available uh data which is usually at a regional or a townwide level and so

determining the precise boundaries uh in the field so for example a flood plane boundary um it is a general and fairly accurate description of where the boundary lies but on any individual piece of property you really need a surveyer to go out there and determine where the actual flood boundary is to establish the appropriate set backs or uh District boundary and uh so in a m on

a on a townwide map scale the accuracy might be within one one or 100 feet uh and if somebody's doing a setback they need within a foot or less accuracy so this is a very typical process as I said that's done in most towns uh through a planning Board review and the typical process is for uh a property owner who believes that the air map is an error to to get qualified professionals to bring in objective field tested data to show where the uh the boundary is based on the language of the ordinance and and the map so uh the other empowering provision is in article 17 which uh basically uh

refers to that provision and so article uh 17.3 pointd says District boundary line interpretation and interpretation of Zone boundaries may be made as part of an appeal hearing or made at the request of the board of selectman planning board or code enforcement officer and I understand and I think it's fine that you tried to deal with the parent conflict of what the provisions are for administrative appeals but in any case I fully believe that the this board has the authority to Grant uh the relief that's being requested by the applicants so I have reviewed the record and I would just U uh conclude by uh suggesting that I think the most important documents in the submissions are the letter from uh inland fisheries and wildlife yeah if we could go through those slowly yeah uh so in the letter from the main uh Department of inland fisheries and wildlife beginning with habitat program dated January

29th 2024 y thank you okay so this is a uh a letter written to Mr Hagar based on the uh inland fisheries and wildlife review of the beginning with habitat Maps which serve as the basis partly for the basis of the resource Protection District and I would point you to uh the second page of that letter two key paragraphs and the first one is the uh third paragraph down the First full paragraph on that begins in early 2023 the undeveloped habitat block was updated with better information on existing development using updated land cover dat data this undeveloped habitat habitat block now excludes developed portions of your property and more accurately represent setbacks from development with these areas excluded from the undeveloped habitat block this portion of your property has a co-occurrence value of less than six yes beginning with habitat is in the process of reviewing and updating the co-occurrence map for the town of Durham

to reflect these changes and then the following paragraph says in attachment B which is the last I think it's the last page of this handout uh you will find updated Maps reflecting this correction to the undeveloped habitat Block in this map a 250 ft setback has been applied to previously developed portions of your property uh following the undeveloped habitat block mapping formula a more accurate map could also be produced from a survey or other site plan where which measures the horizontal distance of 250 ft from the existing development so uh there are actually two options for the board to consider in terms of a potential interpretation of the map boundary based on this letter the first would be to uh look at the developed portions of the property as being that clearly is not part should not be part of the resource Protection District because it's a developed portion of the property the second would

be to follow the recommendation of Inland Fishers and Wildlife to put a 250 fot development B offer around the development of the property that is their methodology that went into their preparation of the maps and then the other piece of uh relevant information most relevant information is the LaBella uh natural resources assessment right here dated uh January 23rd

they looked at a lot of different environmental issues but I think the key one the key uh data that's provided in this report is found on page you see uh MD ifw in in fishies and Wildlife beginning with habitat mapping currently includes the study area and the study area in this report is the Hagar property uh it includes it in a rare threatened or endangered Wildlife State listed H animal habitats due to the citing of the Blanding turtle documented on May 13 2000 this animal was located uh on Chesley Hill Road just east of Davis Road and was observed close to a highly vegetated stream surrounded by agricultural Fields along a dirt road this location is approximately uh 65 miles from the study area and then the very last paragraph of that same page it says all although the study area is encompassed within the rare threatened and endangered Wildlife State listed animal habitats layer the data collected

during this assessment is not consistent with the Blanding turtles habitat so basically you have a wildlife biologist giving uh testimony giving research data that says the land within their property is not Blanding turtle habitat and if you connect that back with the in Fisheries of wildlife data they said that three of the six points were based on the Blanding turtle uh habitat value study area was it the whole property just their property the whole property yes okay y okay and and they found no uh habitat on their property that they thought was consistent with Landing Turtle absolutely that's what they that's what they found and they describe all of that in their report and so uh then on page eight they make a recommendation of where a uh more accurate boundary could be place so at the bottom of page eight it says uh the very last paragraph says LaBella that's the consultant the environmental

consultant understands that your plans for Future Property improvements would be within the already developed portion of the study area which is approximately 100 ft from the nearest Wetland assuming you maintain a buffer of at least 75 ft you would not need to file any mdde permits and then finally in their report well is this Wetland uh a wetland on their property yes okay yeah that they mapped and so the very last uh page of their handout is uh figure

with buffer figure five okay y okay is everybody there okay yeah so they are suggesting that a an accurate uh boundary of the resource Protection District B based on uh their data would be the black line which is 250 ft from the the Wetland water uh Watershed resources depicted on the towns and state maps so there are three different potential more accurate boundaries that the board could consider the first being just the developed area of the of the parcel the second being the inland fisheries and wildlife recommended buffer of 250 ft from that developed area or based on the wildlife biologist assessment that none of their property or just a very Fringe Fringe of it even begins to qualify for the criteria criteria of the ordinance for resource protection the black line referring to George it's just on the very right that just kind of Curves in just touches the edge of the proper up front part yeah

and that would be a 250t buffer from the protected resources now here's my question yep so um that new line that they're drawing does that only affect the applicant or the appellant's property or does that also affect other property would not affect any other property as we've discussed on past applications the board of appeals only has Authority yes okay y y y thank you to deal with the property in in appeal okay so these properties that are I'm looking at figure five oh I see all right okay thank you yep George what so

first paragraphs you referenced on page two yeah uh does doesn't that mean the developed portion how do they would come out automatically well it comes out automatically from the beginning with habitat data but the zoning map can only be changed at town meeting oh what's the plan so here's the challenge M right so you know you have data that's not static right it's changing MH and uh or it's not controlled by us right so is there a plan has this been discussed how updates to the zoning ordinance yes and I actually presented to the board of uh the planning board and the Conservation Commission and I believe Mr Hagar included some of that documentation in his appeal uh materials where I had presented uh doing the option A which is to carve out all of the clearly developed areas based on aial photography uh from the resource Protection District uh and the planning board the board the Conservation

Commission suggested that they were comfortable with that but members of the planning board uh were not comfortable with it on the basis of they thought it should be much more accurate than just aerial photography review I guess my question is y um so ifnw is saying that for example this large undeveloped habitat blocks layer that uh large developed habitat blocks of 1,200 Acres or larger MH that they've updated that later correct okay so um that may mean that there are other properties now that uh have changed correct you know that the boundary has changed in other places so um at town meeting or my understanding of the ordinance is that it's this six plus you know if you're over if you hit six plus if you hit that co-occurrence threshold of six plus then you fall into this resource protection Zone correct or that's one of the criteria yes um so are you at some point at what point will you

say oh we need to update the ordinance and take it to town un well there will be after this current upcoming town meeting there will be a a meeting of the leaders of all of the boards and commissions dealing with land use the board of appeals will be invited the historic district commission the Conservation Commission and the planning board and at that meeting they will discuss needed changes in the ordinance and this will be one of the things I will be presenting to them is the need to update the zoning map based on the latest beginning with habitat data ah okay very good thank you that's very helpful y but in the meantime this property owner and any other property owner has the under the ordinance the the right to appeal to the board or request an interpretation and that gives them immediate relief rather than having to wait for another year or process yeah

that based on I assume lebel is certified somehow in what they do that based on their boots on the ground Eyes On The Ground evaluation that these this land does not really um hit the Habit the what do they call themselves beginning with that beginning with habitat criteria and beginning with habitat itself has has uh stated the same at least part of it yeah yeah well you guys are talking about two different things here I think he's talking about the whole property yes you're talking about correct has beginning a habitat commented on the labell uh the LaBella work they did not reference it in their okay yeah thanks so we could we could just uh I'm not sure what the right language is but Grant the appeal based on labella's you could use either of these documents or both of them to select any of those boundaries that you feel is the most appropriate right yeah yes Terry if if we Grant the

appeal and this comes before town meeting in a year and the planning board has changed us again will it be right back here again the planning board can't change it know to change as a town meeting well yes at any point in the future town meeting any the legislative body can change the zoning map just like they did before so there's nothing to prevent the ordinance or the map from being changed in One Direction or the other in the future I would anticipate based on the need to have whatever you do supportable by scientific evidence that if anything if any change is made it's going to go in this direction yeah yeah okay very good that's very helpful and before we get too far into discussion and questions I think we ought to hear from the

just State for the record um I believe that turtle was cited I mean I've only owned the property for 6 years but I believe the turtle was cited there on our property line we're on Chesley Hill Ro and so we're we're neighbors right in front of your house right at the corner of your backlog and Michael friendley on the Conservation Commission okay yes exactly that's where it was I don't believe there's a conflict there because in terms of a conflict of interest um because uh that's the only habit that's the I'm I'm only three points I'm not in resource protection so I don't believe I have a peun pecuniary interest if anyone else on the board feels that you know otherwise but it's probably worth just disclosing for the record thanks well uh thank you for coming tonight and uh you know I'm sorry that you've been dealing with all this um uh but we're happy to have you here and to help you try to get it sorted out

thank you for having us uh this may be evidence that is not admissible but I brought larger Maps if you have any question about the smaller maps that are usually all you have to look at um but it may be not Sandra Hager 292 run around Pond Road we lived in Durham for 40 years our daughter and family live on a portion of our land at 290 on Pawn road we are coming before the board of appeals to request relief from the 2023 land use ordinance it has been said by main inland fisheries and wildlife during board members Town planner that the accuracy of resource protection boundaries and habitat mapping may not be totally accurate and is considered subjective and measured from 30,000 ft Town officials have made it clear that resource protection boundaries could not be challenged without data provided by a qualified state or private biologist we have provided a natural resource assessment with Wetland and

stream delineation the survey describes our property as being capable of providing wildlife habitat but would not support IND dangered species such as the Blanding sttle for reasons discussed further in the 35 $0000 report furthermore the existence of a blandings turtle population is considered unlikely by this study as well as by the state's owned biologists only one has been seen in the year 2000 almost 24 years

ago we have offered further data and supporting statements for Relief by the beginning with habitat team of main Inland Fisheries and well it is our contention that there are omissions errors inconsistencies and conflicts of interest in the planning and implementation of this ordinance the most outstanding inconsistency was the implementation of resource protection warrant itself causing confusion from the beginning in the March 15 2022 public hearing while interpreting a two-tiered 2-year warrant the the select board chair said and I quote obviously it's a much bigger conversation when you're talking about putting property into resource protection versus taking property out unquote on March 1st 2023 a final warrant drafted as a two-tiered vote then sent out in letters to Residents 320 of 480

properties were slated to be taken out of redefined flood zones 30 properties to be placed into resource protection at the last minute the warrant changed it became one vote to accomplish both warrant articles by the rationale that the first was too confusing the result being the lifting of restriction for the many residents far outweighed the few various Town officials have stated throughout the process that residents who feel their property has been de devalued by this ordinance could go to the tax assessor and ask for an abatement on their taxes yet it is our experience and others that this is a hard know since beginning since the beginning of resource protection Town officials have been using mapping information for main inland fisheries and wildlife GIS and greater Portland Council of governments who provide the data for the Durham parcel and map with the butters all offering inaccurate data in reference to

our property on March 27th 2023 the town planner acknowledged he did not know where the physical location of our residents was being confused with our daughters on December 12th 2023 the GIS mapping was corrected and after many attempts and many deflections on January 29th 2024 the coordinator of beginning with habitat team at Main inland fisheries and wildlife Justin Sloan wrote us a letter he provides proof due to a mapping error our property does not abut an undeveloped habitat block of over 1200 Acres if it were for this era alone we would not be here this evening even though the town chooses to accept contradictory evidence of the existence of a blandings turtle population this correction alone would change our score below six he went on to say due to a plus or minus 5% error margin in the national land cover data we were mistakenly not recognized as a developed area he also gave a clear

definition of developed areas with setbacks a long sought explanation never clearly given by the town the town asked us to believe that our home developed area and business were invisible to them on the undeveloped habitat block map within the many imp imperceptible shades of green it is implausible to believe that since 2018 the town did not know there was a business and residence located at 292 Runar around Pond Road

in the past year we have been consumed by attempting to learn about the town's methods trying to get answers and receiving mostly deflections we have watched most of the planning board meetings regarding resource protections as they consistently Kick the Can down the road and finally kick it out of the park at least until town meeting 2025 the thought of spending another second year at this is Unthinkable for us We believe We are the most affected residents and business in the town of Durham to suffer a monetary loss from to

our real estate devaluation and substantial direct cost defending ourselves against the ordinance we feel our rights and Liberties have been denied according to the ordinance section 2.3 8.6 it is with the appeals within the appeals board authority to make zoning District boundary determinations considering the data we have provided to this body we respectfully request that the resource protection boundaries on our land be returned to their historic location pre April 1st 2023 as a fallback position for now we would consider recognizing our developed area without restrict without restrictions as described in the detailed letter by Justin sl's letter in a phone conversation today with Justin he informed us that a new co-occurrence map is being drafted for the town of Durham coming out in late April of this year early excuse me early April of this year he indicated that there will be changes

in the state's position on The Landings turtle in Durham and at runaround last the whole thing pce no just the last sentence regarding the Blanding the BL TR find it U on a phone conversation today with Justin he informed us of a new co-occurrence map being drafted for the town of Durham coming out early April of this year okay he indicated that there will be changes in the state's position on the Blanding turtle in Durham and at runaround vond perfect thank you Mr haer can you give me a copy of that I can make one when I get to a copy of or email it to me sure absolutely you just have to give me an

you um thank you uh Mr Hagar and is there anything else you you folks would like to add you want to give this yes I I think that um this the first page uh as I mentioned you provided a pretty comprehensive packet I know I took a few hours uh today and and read through it all and tried to get a uh reasonable understanding of what's going on and um was very helpful to hear from our town planner Mr tar yes well I would simply say if you read that I I would hope you would understand that uh it is our hopes to make some changes with our living situation and that having to wait to the town meeting of 2025 really puts a big wrench in our gears to move on U it's it's a situation we've been trying to rectify for a long time and uh it's time for us to do that okay very good thank you thank you uh uh do we have other do we have other questions for the for the

sure as we move forward that additional questions will come up thank you okay um so now I'd like as we've got the statement of the applicant um this would be a good moment for us to just to have some general questions and disc discussion from the board members if you have them of what we've heard so far before we open the public hearing and we hear from the public I have a

m what would we be eliminating that was voted in as the label LaBella last page on the LaBella report figure five figure five so figure five everything the only thing that would be included in the buffer would be the small Fringe cir black circles around the Hagar's property one to the South East a corner on the North East and the

corner on the uh Northwest yes now my question is is where does this line go if we Grant the appeal for him where does this line go can't cut it off right there can you it stays right that's the buffer that is that is considered the buffer area for these areas so that's those would remain everything else here would not be in resource protection is that let you see that Paul yes y so what the black line is that's resource this is resource protection it it would be due to a buffer due to the due to the buffers around these areas yeah help me alen what's the yellow line in this the yellow line George I'm

not 100 foot n yeah okay yeah 100 foot got it thanks yeah that is it all right yep 100 foot right there 100 foot all right flug plane no uh National Wetlands inventory n we just moving the buffer that's all they were asking us to move the buffer no no they're not no actually they're not okay so basically at this point at this uh time uh Terry almost this whole property is in resource protection not just the buffer but you know resource protection if it has anything to do with this map that I just looked at let's look at right here yes is that the today is I can't see what he's looking at that's under resource Pro that is the resource prote more than that and that is the majority of it yes yeah so the majority of it is in resource protection majority and including the business yeah now and and Terry the reason that it's in resource protection is because it met the threshold for co-occurrence

according to the data okay according to this if W data so it scored three points because it was um supposed to be at least part of this 1200 acre undeveloped tract and it scored three points because of this Blanding um Turtle sighting now what ifw did with this blandings Turtle sighting is they said okay well somebody saw a turtle here uh 25 years ago all right and we're going to plop down a big circle around that sighting and they they happen to be in that Circle in that big buffer around that Turtle sighting which is I don't know how many feet or you know it's like maybe it's 3/4 of a mile I don't know mile and a half

okay so they wanted to protect that area around where the turtle was seen so that's why almost all the property is currently in resource protection now on the face of it there's there is kind of an obvious conflict how can you have a business a large you know a significant business with a large developed area in a 1200 acre undeveloped tract it doesn't really work so you know even right from the beginning there there was right from the beginning there seems to be an issue here that there was an issue with the data um so um to fix

it three scenarios are being proposed okay one scenario is to just take out the business out of the resource protection area okay but since all of this occurred ifnw has come back and they've said you know what we've looked at your case and you're right our map our uh 1200

acre uh uh our layer which is this 1200 acre tract of undeveloped land is wrong that's my understanding and we should have had taken out your business you know at some point we should have taken that out and so they did that of that they fixed the data right they fixed because you have a developed area it's a developed area but it really has nothing to do with the uninhabited land blocks that's a different well that's one of the uh metrics that contributes

to your contributed to your score of six correct exactly so um ifnw is basically saying um yeah you know we have new data and so our old data wasn't accurate and under the current data uh this developed area wouldn't be included and we would also include a 250t buffer around the developed area so that would give them more property outside of resource protection than just taking out the business but not all of their property but not all of their property and then the third option is to take all of their property out and that is uh at least my understanding that's what the report here from leella suggests is that because they um they weren't able to find evidence of habitat of the of The Landings turtle on their property that really their property as a whole shouldn't be in resource protection if if we take their his property out of resource protection does a buffer

change it's not the buffer is not really the issue it's really what's in resource protection and what's out so you know that that the buffer map is a little confusing you know what we're talking about here is a town zoning map and it doesn't include the buffers it's either you're in resource protection or you're out is that correct Allan and George yes yeah Mr chairman I do have some diagrams that I can put yes thank you George thank you come on

if you want or you can look at those either way thank that's the same thing he's putting up hand out give you the gis cover pits for this so you can refer those so basically I've prepared five diagrams which are on these handouts uh so this is the property this is the developed portion of the property and this is the Zone from the zoning map so that's current this is the current this is the current entirety of the resource Protection District includes the state mandatory shorel zoning around this portion of the runaround Brook uh and then other resource protection components are are explained on this map

uh so and actually I think I might have put this out of sequence uh this this part right here of their property in its entirety is with exception of that little corner is based on the the beginning with habitat 6 Plus so if you pull off the beginning with habitat 6 Plus what's left is our resource protection based on 10 acre plus wetlands in this area the flood plane along the brook and a stream buffer on this part that's not part of the stage Shoreland zoning so I think this this G analysis clearly indicates the only reason that this property is within the resource Protection District is because of the BL and turtle habitat so the two options for altering this this is the beginning with habitat recommendation which is to put a 20 50t buffer development buffer

around the developed portion of the property uh and the alternative of just doing the develop portion of the property is Illustrated down here in map five of my presentation and the biologist has recommended uh going Beyond either of these two and pulling it all the way back almost to the property line and leaving a 250 ft buffer around these resources okay question about that yeah okay so the biologist is recommending that but when I look at their map I don't see so look to the other side to your side of their property that's sliver of green I don't see that green for example on their map they're they seem to be going beyond the boundary of the property yeah right here this all this yeah see I think on their map what I was seeing on their map is they're proposing that that uh boundary buffer around these on the side at all right okay yeah yeah so what this is um that

would change the zoning on the Southern Property no no uh because again you can only change the zoning on their property which is subject to this appeal okay so basically it would follow their property line and then this property line with the buffer along the edge of it if you went with the wildlife biologist recommendation but this little piece of res protection would stay correct so the buffer would go to their property just about a little bit over if you look at his bi biologist diagram black L maybe

we could it's not really a buffer right I mean it is a resource protection boundary you could modify the boundary to be that yeah right okay thank you so in reality what is that 250 ft buffer D um so it'll it basically allows um in this case it

would allow them to develop their property it provides Property Owners some relief because the you know the resource protection requirements are pretty stringent so I think in this case the buffer is it's not really for well you know it probably provides some buffer for you know animals and that kind of thing too but it provides um relief to the property owners who have a business that's near resource protection that's my interpretation of it so remember we can at this appeal we can only deal with this property so the only thing that they would that would be encumbered by resource protection are these little teeny parts of their of their parcel only the parts of the buffer would be resource protection that's scenario number three most of that property would be out of resource protection if this is the opportunity you chose I can't quite see what they're looking at here it's the LaBella LaBella that's number three

that's the third that's the third one so the laella option again three different options one is just to take the business out okay two is at least this is what's being presented to us two is to take the business out in addition to this 250t buffer okay um which is what's being recommended by inland fisheries and wildlife in terms of their data and and that's how they've changed their data this reflects how they've changed their data and their decision and then the third which we don't really see here I believe is to take the whole thing out well I guess it's that one yeah so if we want to take the whole thing out somebody what language would

the relief and indicate that based on the data of the um lella natural resource assessment that the only portions of this property that should be included in the resource Protection District based on the wildlife habitat qualities listed in the ordinance would be maintaining a 250t offer from the wet

lands this is from the language of their report associated with this stream and flood plane system and that's that black line so what we would do is adjust the zoning map to pull that line from their property to that black line along this property there are two black L before we go down that road uh we're here tonight to have a public hearing and we need to hear from the public does that answer your question yes I think so okay so I'd like to take this opportunity uh unless anyone is opposed any board members are opposed to open the public hearing and to hear from the public uh what time is it uh it is

7:32 so at 7:32 I'm opening the public hearing we'd love to hear from Neighbors and from the public in general what your thoughts are thank you if you could tell us your name and where you live that'd be helpful uh John Benedict I'm a run run around Pond Road okay my property is also affected by this resource protection and um I'd just like to share what I've learned about the bling Turtles uh the currence in the area and I've been in Communications with Derek Yorks who's the turtle and reptile um specialist that works for uh Inland fishery and Wildlife he's in Bangor and uh he actually recently visited my property to assess whether there's Landing turtle habitat and uh we found none um they apparently are very finicky and uh have special needs uh for Habitat the main thing that I want to share is that um I was curious as to why their department has never conducted any research in or verification of the

turtle since that one sighting and uh his answer was um a quote typically don't consider just one occurrence sufficient to Warrant any research but would possibly investigate after two and definitely after three quote so yet they apparently consider that sufficient enough evidence that one sighting sufficient enough evidence to declare the whole area bling turtle habitat and put it on their maps and I find that to be a double standard in their policies and totally irresponsible um especially considering how the maps are used by municipalities uh and relied upon to be

on that to them and in this instance the turtle being in the in the co-occurrence map is not at all based on Research or science um and so because of that and reminding you of uh what Derek Yorks um said from the uh foaa request that um my neighbor made to the Inland fishery and Wildlife um was uh quote we have not done any trapping surveys in Durham but after 23 years without any additional reports uh I'm not incredibly optimistic about the possibility of an outlying population here and the

reasons I think the hagers should be relieved of the burden that the town has placed upon them that has totally disrupted their lives for the last almost a that without my help um and I also like to say uh yesterday I talked to Justin sh Chan that um well he was Works further beginning with habitat and he was the one that clarified their maps with the for the developed area um and he told me that

well you've discussed this already that they current their department is currently working on a new co-occurrence map for Durham and that will be available soon and I'm very optimistic there will be no Blanding turtle habitat on it um that's what I have to say talk to Bang from Derek Yorks Yorks

how do you spell it you know um y r k s he is the turtle guy in the state um he's in thanks who would like to just Express opinion about this uh appe yeah come on on Pawn Road um I I can't say I really have a dog in this fight but I I think that um when I first uh was researching this last year I came to the same conclusion I spent a lot less money than you did to figure it out though um and I think that their evidence they've provided has been pretty clear um so so that's my opinion thank you thank you p p u

up I'm Linda Callen back I also have property on run around con Road and what they said yes I mean the this whole circle that's been Circle the circle the infamous Turtle Circle um if this whole property of theirs was put into resource protection based on a false premise that there's rampaging BL blending Turtles all over the place they should be given the relief for sure yeah you know it's

interesting uh because my understanding of the beginning with habitat program is that um if you go on the website you look at this information it says that it's advisory you know that this is primary intent is advisory and I think where you know kind of the rubber is meeting the road here is when it's being applied to ordinance in some cases maybe the data you know doesn't really fully support that y okay I'm sorry I didn't get your name Linda colinb k a l l n b a

c Ray Bowden I live right next to the haers little strip is my property okay I have just one concern if you decide to give them this this big buffer I mean look at that compared to this is all resource protection for me if you decide to go this route I think I'm getting screwed uhhuh so and can you say a little more in what in what way well I I C I beat my house with wood I cut a lot of firewood oh okay on my property and and I'm I'm in I cut mainly right about in this area okay and I understand with this resource protection I could be limited to how many trees I can cut uhhuh is I I couldn't go to meeting the town meeting last year because I was sick and so is that true that I couldn't speak to that you would have to speak with Allan or George with regard to limitations on forestry practice is in the resource protection area and we'd have to look into the ordinance and talk to the forest service

okay yeah I got you anyway I I'm I so you're saying it could have some negative consequences uh which one yeah this one makes sense to me okay so which this is the one from LaBella this is number three LaBella okay and it's basically to put my two cents worth okay thank you you yeah

runaround Pond Road um couple of questions on options one and two you had made reference to the business you know taking the business out of protection did you mean the developed area yes okay the developed area Devil's in the details you know writing something make sure exactly the develop area um I I like what this gentleman said before um the most comprehensive data would be the the boots to ground data which would be option three uhhuh um and that's what I'm asking recommending you do and I think as far as Mr Bowen uh concerns I think this appeal process would benefit him as well uhhuh right that's how we're doing it here so yeah thank you very good thank you thank okay excellent thank you all yes Alan if you could read the letter from Lois chessley I yep I have a letter from Lois Kilby Chesley who couldn't make this meeting uh 31 run around Pond Road I'll try to read clearly tell me if I'm

mumbling uh regarding public hearing uh Hagar appeal tax map 862 I'm in support of a change to the character characterization of map 8 lot 62 a home and Business owned by Howard and Sandra Hager on runaround Pond Road in Durham there are many factors that support the change however I'll focus on three p primary reasons one in response to a uh foaa uh request I made I received the following from Becky ORF in the commissioner's office at the mdifw in September 2023 in summary bi

biologist Derek Yorks stated the following an adult Landing turtle was found crossing the road back in May 2000 2000 and reported to the department by a um Stant Tech employee with one photo it's a good solid photo record that has puzzled us for years given the location just far enough outside of what we generally consider to be this species range in Maine but not so far outside that is totally implausible that it could be part of a natural po population in Durham we have not done any proactive trapping surveys for this species in Durham but after 23 years we without any additional reports I am not incredibly optimistic that the possibility of an outlying population here this information disputes the position taken by the town of Durham that the area around runaround Pond and the adjacent streams in veral pools are Habitat to a sustainable Landing interal population or even one number two the

town Maps were described to me by the town manager onor about December 7th 2023 in a verbal conversation as a 30,000 foot view of the area it's hard to imagine an important decision such as the placement of a property into resource protection based on an approximation it's my understanding the Hagar has hired a specialist and have provided the town with a report and natural resources assessment including Wetland and Stream delineation in addition to M MDW provided Pro proof that due to the

mapping to a mapping error the hager's property does not abot an undeveloped habitat block of over 12, uh 12200 Acres the information used by the town planner was designed um when designing the maps used by the town were not and are not accurate number three the town has ordinances described to a committee I sit on by the town manager in November 2023 as the town's laws when at an August 2023 select board meeting I referenced the failure of the town to follow its own ordinances I was told by a select board member ordinance can be changed when a town ordinance is not appropriate not followed followed only occasionally and randomly or it is based on inaccurate information or misrepresentation the town is obligated to find a remedy in the Hagar's case the remedy is to change their property designation to fit reality based on accurate evidence that has been provided by Professionals in the field having done due diligence

in support of their claim to a change in their property restrictions as applied by the town of Durham I wholeheartedly support the Hagar in their effort Lois Kilby com yes why don't you come up Mr haer come right on up to the microphone I just simply want to say that the time and money that we've invested uh my thoughts have been all the time on than many other people in this town that are placed in similar situations that have their residents placed in resource protection and held to the strict uh ordinance requirements if they have a small home like us and want to add the 30% that you can allow uh it it's not a great it's not a great Advantage uh so I'm just I'm saying I hope that my efforts will help other people including my neighbors uh to find some relief from

you okay um do we have any other statements from either George or from Allen okay close the I'm sorry close the oh thank you yes uh then we will go ahead and close the public hearing public hearing is closed at 7:45 and um thank you all for participating and offering your comments so and I think we should have a little discussion before we move to motion just a little bit at least um Terry would you like to sh I'm going to go around would you like to share your thoughts well I'm kind of looking this this figure five I don't know if that's in the voting here or not but kind to looked at the other maps that uh the the town planner gave us on resource protection or what what was put into resource

protection yep so that's that's option two right can't quite see see it isn't that option too that's the idea of just taking the bus here is uh just a picture of the map I don't know what option two be so if we could just go over the options again concisely option one is just taking oh sorry that would have been option one option one is just taking the business out option two is taking the business out with the 250 book offer option three is taking out the whole property except for a few areas is that accurate George thank you I I'm looking at option three which is taking out the whole property basically well if if if that resource protection was put in because of the the turtle the turtle

okay and they ain't found one yet well they found one but it was 25 years ago well whatever yeah okay and it was over at my house I have an issue with that came out your I have an issue with that yeah you know there's a whole herd of them out there and whatever laying eggs every day and whatever you might convin me of something different there is a picture in there of the guy withholding the turtle that's I saw that okay you did yeah yeah one turtle one Turtle okay right nobody knows where the hell he come from that's right y okay so you know I I I guess if

we're going to go with an option here right now it would be my feeling on number three now somebody can convince me of something you that's very helpful okay okay I buffers and the buffers would remain is this the same as number three no no it's a little different it's a little different yeah number three was that was on this one this is number three right here figure five well that's where oh you got it okay so if your wording were to be to take this scientist's suggestion then that those pieces would remain the buffers would remain which don't necessar those are brand new buffers these are these are different buffers not to do they buffer these areas right I I I say figure five you say take

it out or five yeah got it okay very good all right Neil uh I'm I'm in support of your first suggestion um so under the powers and duties of administrative appeals it says the board of appeals May reverse the action being appealed only upon finding that said action was clearly contrary to the applicable provisions of the of the ordinance or that the record of evidence compels a different conclusion to me the record evidence compels a different conclusion MH okay yeah the the plus three bling Turtle thing is it's not real uhuh shouldn't have been there in the first place okay

other the laps okay I um I also agree I I think uh you know the fact that Inland Fisheries didn't deem it important enough to come and investigate further tells me that they didn't believe it was necessarily true and they were just maybe throwing some sort of uh blanket thing out there I mean it's nice to put things in resource protection because we all you know I mean it's nice to to to keep things you know uh the way they are but um when you've got a property that number one already is developed you know there's already development there so you know and the fact that you know one turtle by some guy who doesn't even live in town holding it in the year 2000 or whatever it was uh that doesn't work for

think it's number three that that I agree with the most okay very good all right I'll go next so um well you know I think there's some very compelling evidence that was provided and um also some um compelling comments from Neighbors and from other durm residents um I would have liked to have listened to one of the wildlife biologists we have here in town to hear from them with regard to is you know is this is this layer defensible or not in their opinion um but we don't have anyone here

so I would tend to agree um with number three based on the evidence and the fact that um they have conducted I mean for me number two is clear it's a no-brainer because the ordinance is based on the BW data and they've changed their data okay so on that level number two is a given um number three um you know

initially I was a little hesitant because it one it kind of opens up a can of worms you know are we going to all these different all these different criteria are we going to be uh you know dissecting them uh as the appeals board is this going to open up a whole new level of appeals um but on the other hand um the evidence is

very really is compelling and I don't believe hopefully this data layer is more of an outlier in terms of its quality and hopefully the others aren't aren't like this um so I would tend to agree I would tend to agree with number three you know going going the whole way and I you know the only other thing that I'll mention is um it was interesting what we heard regard from from both the applicant and the neighbor with regard to their conversation with ifnw and how they were going to be revising their co-occurrence habitat their co-occurrence maps for Durham and whether it might make sense to wait um as so that this can be addressed townwide um but on the other hand I see here that the applicant has gone to consider considerable expense hiring this consultant and doing this work and um the work seems to have brought forth seems to have some clear conclusions and so I think we should probably you know

honor that work the conclusion so I'm I'm in support of number three sure when you do decide what what data you're going to use for that um I've heard a couple people say the the whole thing and they don't even like the buffers but um if you're not going to include the buffers as this scientist has said should remain why is why is it you're going to remove the buffers yeah we're not I don't think anyone was planning on removing the buffer because I mean we would need to have a basis for the these buffers right here these are 200 foot buffers from these areas that's not number three that's not my so number three trying to clarify yeah yeah yeah yeah thank you yeah I see yeah so in my opinion it would be the um number F I guess it's exhibit five from the from the uh from these they did identify these wetlands right in the report yes yeah so you can't I I just think you can't throw out those Wetland

exactly right right so do we need to go number five whatever you're going to say based on the information provided by pertains to this property yes in order to exclude I don't know exactly know how they handled some of these other properties right I have some questions here or you know I've already tried to approach them but I'm I'm not hearing the answer that resonates with me so I would say only as pertains to this property and and that that's that should be loud and clear we can only your Authority is only to address this appeal right exactly so so I'm I'm arguing or saying that this should never have been in the habitat beginning with habitat

criteria so I don't want any boundaries on there I thought that's what we were talking what are these other boundaries for what George what are the what are the boundaries here for these you're going with option three which it sounds like you'd like to formulate a final position on that is that correct right which is to remove it from almost the entirety of the property or the or the entirety of the property based on LaBella yes okay so based on LaBella the

wildlife biologist who has gone out and looked at the habitat in detail on the ground then you would uh basically the motion would be to Grant the relief requested by the property owner for interpretation of the zoning map per section

A6 which says where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map if you could please repeat the citation of not just the whole language I'll just give you the citation what is it it's a it's 2.3 a subsection 6 okay and I'll just

read it it'll be in the record it's in the ordinance where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map or for in circumstances where the items covered are not are not clear the board of appeals shall interpret the district boundaries and further indicated by section 17.3 pointd which gives the board of appeals authority to interpret the boundaries y the board thanks the board determines that the re the actual boundary of the resource Protection District on this property uh is is according to okay the

labella's natural resource assessment report dated January 23rd District would be relocated to reflect a 250 ft buffer from the edge of the national Wetland inventory wetland associated with Chandler book as Illustrated in figure five of that report yeah okay good that's

this so we'll get it word for word yeah and you can always amend that obviously when someone has to make it and then you can amend it to be entirely off the property you could amend it that way entirely off property yeah which is

what I'm saying that's no but we have another saying is based on there's some other buffers there that aren't Turtle related based on the report and and uh figure five of that report shows a maintaining a 250 buffer foot buffer from the from Chandler Brook from Chandler Brook yeah that St yeah

Y and that's still number three that's still number three which could be a motion based on what he said yes wants to make it I can I can make it you can make it anybody can make anyone would like to make it I move I move we Grant the request uh based on George's statement and reiteration of the uh land use ordinance uh he just stated the draft motion of the Town Planner yeah uh based on the draft motion of the Town planner I'm okay with that I think that's clear enough are we used number five and if you could accept a a a friendly Amendment and in consider I'm not making any motion this is this is your motion I made a motion thank you if you could uh consider a friendly Amendment and in consideration to the um to the revisions

made to the beginning with habitat large undeveloped tracks data I would throw that in there because that that's relevant too really in my mind they like George pointed out that amendment that Amendment language would be to include as support of that motion

the um letter dated January 29th 2024 from beginning with habitat Department of inland fisheries and wildlife indicating that the undeveloped habitat block data was updated with better information on existing development using updated land data land cover data and that their property uh their developed portion of their property is not included and the the uh in the fisheries and wildlife recommends a 250 foot development buffer but it or you could just probably just stop at the data is not accurate yep exactly yeah so be the 2020 in that this report says the 2023 undeveloped habitat block data was updated with better information on existing development using updated Lane cover okay so I just want to be clear here because I'm going to have to produce a decision within five days is that right seven seven days okay seven days um and so I'm probably unless unless you want to do it unless you want

to go back this is a fairly complicated unless you want to go back and do it and send it to me okay yeah all right and I think those are seven working days seven working days you have to give give a decision I might email George yes but yeah okay I've I've got a question yes

just to clarify for me this LaBella map showing the buffers represents map one not exactly but close close to it yeah it would so basically you're saying we're going we're saying we're going to relieve 90% of their 90% of it with these buffers intact that's correct yeah you you agree with that well the only thing that I know that on the number five it actually shows them buffers right which wouldn't change anyway right if I'm correct correct that's right they wouldn't change anyway yeah and they would be in there automatically if we want with what five or three

there number five on the Bell we're talking about removing the beginning with habitat restrictions right yes beginning with habitat six plus exactly the six plus which takes which takes it back to the original resource protected designation which is number three we're not changing that um that short zoning

CH Brer the stuff that was in resource protection before is still in resource protection that go number three yeah most this Bas doesn't show everything but yes now do then buffers will they be included at later date what buckers are you talking about you're saying 250 they're included we're not changing

those we not he's saying the map show do you mean buffer from the river or the buffer around the develop property the buffers that AR five five yeah okay well those are from the river that's see those these buffers here this is notice how this buffer travels along Chandler Brook oh except for right here I see it comes out there's sometime there's a wetland or something here that's that's what I'm talking but it doesn't show it on three no does not show does not show on what I presented yeah yeah he didn't show it but we're we're keeping

going to be keeping that buff that's on fire yes on this yes well I think you know what George did is he pned the motion to the lella report and the lella so what we're doing is we're doing this as it pertains to this property that correct that is correct okay this will yeah we're doing that too that's that will that will stay on the property that within that black line on that property will stay in resource protection all right that that's the question I'm asking yeah that's a good question that was so are we voting on five that's what's in the biologist report that's what's in the biologist that wasn't there before so are we voting on five or three that's correct it was not in resource protection before the map was adopted so amended if if we're finding

what I would said compels a different conclusions I'm saying The Bling Turtle evidence was wrong the whole thing should not have been in uh the habitat protection this isn't that's the map that was in existence before the resource Protection District was was amended to see whether or not any of that area was included in resource protection small Wetland buffer that's right but Wetland buffers are one of the criteria of the new ordinance right exactly so it's a different criteria than the ordinance that's interesting to me is it those Maps up there a lot of those scenarios show this piece up here outside of any buffer but this one shows it in a wetland buffer it's kind of I think that maybe yeah maybe some uh yeah I don't know don't know the answer for that question what's the question well my question was is that on this map from lella from lella it shows went from M

here refence that's from these Wetlands on the other side of the road so what this biologist is saying if you're going to have resource protection based on Wetlands these would be the buffers around those RS yeah B based on Main law based on the

environmental resources that are out there and Main and that person that gave that report which is where you can hold your evidence and the the evidence is there you can't remove those buffers right because the evidence is there they that that biologist has said these buffers should remain but the rest of it can be out of resource protection before we go any further I'd like to ask the PS

um and certainly feel free to come up Howard and say whether you have any questions about this how we're moving forward here I really didn't know that you would use this map as a correction of the resource protection boundaries and Wetland zones

Wetland resource zones um it's it's acceptable to me to see that you're using the 250 ft boundary to Wetlands uh even though it's not following just Chandler Brook it's following a state an Old State designated Wetland just below my property which is there um the Wetland on the on the

upper side that that is closer to runaround Pond and my daughter's house um was not a part of the original uh resource protection Wetland boundaries and so I don't it's kind of uh yeah a negative connotation to think that I'm getting myself out of resource protection and putting my my daughter in to some she's got to apply I mean it's we can only oh so is there there's a house there putting her house in that area is not currently in resource protection and not proposed to be in resource protection okay okay so somehow we need to clarify that in our motion I no I don't think you need okay use figure three on this it said in the motion and in the report 250 ft from Chandler Brook uh Associated okay okay okay yeah so that

technically what he just said would follow Chandler Brook not this little spur that comes off from the Chandler Brook area it's the wetlands associated with chamber of Brook and that L spur is wetland okay not the Ws across the road not the W across the road okay okay see it wasn't phrased that way to begin if there's any you know this at some point we're going to make a decision here tonight and this is going to be Penn's going to be put to paper if there is um if there are issues um you

know at this point don't hire a consultant just come back okay okay if that if if what comes out of this isn't what as expected and discussed you're welcome to come back come back and see how y so we get and I'm calling Alan right you didn't hear what he said thanks Paul thank you can we call a question okay yes we have a motion would you please remake your motion and your motion regarding George's

no hold on I moveed that we accept Georgia's proposal for relief for the head yards the the motion drafted by the town planner I move I move we accept the motion drafted by the town plan for Relief thank you do we have a second I'll second it very good okay discussion

yeah we're referring to figure five right yeah maybe I could just restate the motion before you vote just to make it clear sounds absolutely yep so again you would be granting the requested relief based on section 2.3.8 point6 of the Durham land use ordinance which states that where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map or in circumstances where the boundaries are not ear the board of appeals shall interpret the district boundaries and further as indicated in section 17.3 pointd and that the board determines that the accurate boundary of the resource Protection District on the property should be located as stated in the

of LaBella environmental Consultants that's January 23rd I believe January you're right January 23rd the natural resource assessment of laella environmental consultants and that the resource Protection District boundary would be located 250 ft from the edge of the national Wetland inventory Wetlands associated with Chandler Brook as Illustrated in attached figure five of that report very good um and and to include the ifw

letter yeah yes yep dated 129 y 129 all right very good so we have a motion we have a second is there any further raise your [Music] hands very good so to Adam it is a 4 Z vote I think we're done here and um you can expect a decision from us within uh seven business

days sounds okay very good motion do we have a motion to adjourn second all right all those in favor okay date yeah I'd love to have some access to some of