TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ February 5, 2025

oh don't think is are the is the mic's on can't see if there's lights on there is there yeah can you hear me he I cannot it still says this sometimes it takes a few seconds yeah may be warming up there's a delay I it you hear me excellent thank you thank you George okay welcome to the uh regular meeting of the Durham planning board uh for Wednesday February 5th 2025 the first thing is a role a determination of Quorum we have four members with us Mr dur is is excused he had to work this evening so we have a quorum next step is the Pledge of

flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for many folks come to the public info meeting we have a full and sufficient schedule so we're going to move fairly quickly this evening uh amendments to the agenda do we have

acceptance of the meeting's minutes and I know George I guess they weren't ready but I thought I I have minutes in my there were two meetings we had the 15th and the 15th are not ready yet okay so we need to do January 8th then yep okay uh does anybody have any comments on the January 8th minutes seeing none do I have a motion to approve I move that we present that that we accept the minutes of January 8th as presented a second no second we've been moved and seconded any further comment discussion please raise your hand if you approve unanimous uh information informational exchange on the non-agenda items uh Mr thear um you should be getting the CEO reports uh of building activity and uh

he put out the in January the uh results of all last year and then uh he I think he's just sent out the uh Gent month of January itself so you should be getting those on a monthly basis yeah thank you um we did uh conduct a community event on the community faciliity study on January 21st we had about 20 PE 24 people show up over at the Eureka Center and had uh a good small group discussion and had people submit their concepts of what they have for a vision for the future of these facilities in these town properties uh so the greater Portland Council of governments is processing that input along with a survey that was done I think it got over 300 uh survey responses and so they'll be presenting a report to the select board probably in mid April after the town meeting and then uh my last uh bit of information is I will be on vacation for the next two weeks we won't spend time talking about that because you're going someplace warm

uh so thank you and enjoy your vacation uh any other T of official or excuse me we're in yeah Town officials seeing none residents will take public uh comment on generally things that not on the agenda we have two public info meetings uh this evening

seeing none there any nonresidents that want to speak seeing none there is no continuing business new business request for Amendment of the dear Creek Subdivision map lot 7 lot map 7 lot 32A uh there will not be public comment uh and there are two I would

call them administrative kinds of things and Mr targe if you would uh just lay out what we're looking at this evening sure the uh decate Crossing subdivision was approved with a conditional agreement and under the ordinance if they the developer wants to avoid having to put up a financial performance guarantee for all of the infrastructure of the project on Deer Creek Crossing I think the estimate was about 600,000 to build the road the stream Crossing and all the rest of the infrastructure so uh the planning board approved it as with a conditional agreement which means that the developer cannot sell any Lots or get any building permits until all the uh improvements are completed unless they come back with a performance guarantee for whatever remaining improvements are there so they're about 95% done with all of the infrastructure and the town engineer has uh reviewed it and and uh has indicated that it does

meet the subdivision plans and requirements of the town so they are coming in uh requesting to have the note on the subdivision plan that restricts lot sales and building permits removed then they can record that uh amended plan and start uh building houses in the subdivision uh the other issue uh is one that is uh correcting uh and uh oversight of the applicants engineer who uh back when the subdivision was approved the we were discussing having a fire Pond or Sprinklers and through an oversight a note was left on one of the plans that said uh all the houses had to be protected by sprinklers when the intent was to put in a full capacity fire Pond which has been done and the fire chief has uh done a pump test on that and it meets the specifications of the approved plans so they're looking for two amendments one to the subdivision plan to remove that uh note of restriction they will be posting a new performance

guarantee of 71,500 which is uh goral Palmer's estimate for the remaining uh improvements which is Paving I think there's a utility pole that has to be moved and patching that but pretty much the infrastructure is just about done so they will post a performance guarantee in a cash form and the town manager will enter into an escrow agreement with the developer for the terms of that cash deposit okay and the fire chief has gone out and checked the dry hydrant and P test and it's good to go okay so um any questions not sure the applicant is here I'm not sure we need them is what we're doing clear enough this is just for phase one right yes okay and um there is

only one phase on this project buoy Hill has two phases this is Deer Creek Crossing down here on Hollowell Road gotcha okay there's no homes got you I did include a draft notice of decision with findings in the in the packet that's what I am looking at yep uh any other comments or

questions if so the I will make a motion reading from what George has provided here based upon above findings and conclusions which he provided the dur planning board hereby approves the following amendments to the deer cre Deer Creek Crossing subdivision plan number one is removal of note 21 the restriction on lot sales and issuance of building permits is lifted contingent upon receipt of the $71,500 cash deposit as a performance G guarantee and so they have to pay that before they can draw a permit and note number removal of Note 7 the requirement for residential sprinkler systems in individual homes is removed B based upon the adequate capacity of the constructive fire pond so that is my motion second I'll second that moved and second and any further discussion seeing none please raise a hand if you approve 4 z uh that is finished thank you all very much sign I'll get it after the meeting

planner were okay you want to you can bring it to the town hall and they pick it up because they got to bring in the check before they can get it okay I'll bring it tomorrow to the town hall so be looking for it thank you okay next on the agenda is we're going to start uh public comments so a few notes before

we get into that so this process is a little different than we've done in the past we're we are uh working on four total land use article changes resource protection uh battery energy storage systems and then uh contract zoning

uh and then uh the redesignation of the historic district commission or commission which articles five and whatever so uh the first one up is uh contract zoning it's different in that generally we start we being the planning board start the process so like battery Energy System we started working on that last summer developed the standards we've had a public hearing on that public information meeting on that I think back in January or December or maybe even before that quite a while ago and there were changes that we made those changes have been Incorporated and later this evening we'll vote to uh forward that on to the select board uh the same is true of battery Energy Systems the process we're in as we've uh had a public we've developed I mean um not the other one uh resource protection we worked with very well and thank you to the conservation uh committee and developed some changes to uh resource protection that has gone

through the same scrutiny of a codevelopment a public information meeting changes were made based upon that public information meeting the next step is to uh send it to the select board the select we send it to the select board they will then decide if they want to make any changes to it they will then decide the the verbiage that goes on the warrant for the town meeting and if send it back to us for a formal public hearing so those public hearings are tentatively scheduled for March 12th uh unfortunately we can't do it at our regular meeting because there's a no later no earlier than 30 days before no later than seven days before and our March meeting is unfortunately outside that windy so we'll have a special uh meeting uh for public hearings on on all four of these if that's what the select board decides to do so um tonight we'll take public comments on resource excuse me contract zoning and

um the historic changes to the historic district commission um and so we will begin that kind of the rules for this are there's not a lot of you out there um but well I'll ask you if you want to speak on on these we'll do uh contract zoning first and then we will do um historic so please raise your hand that you want to speak come to the microphone uh state your name address uh at least the street that you live on and City town and so

we're going to limit you to 3 minutes and I'll clock my little thing there and you'll address all your questions comments to me and then I will decide who will will take them on as an answering and then uh when we're finished with that uh we'll close the public information meeting first for contract zoning and then for uh uh the historic and then the planning board will meet and we've got to we're going to cover all four of the uh land use articles that I just mentioned so the contract zoning is been up on the comp on the website for a couple of weeks now um I have a process question sure um so we're going to hear comments on contract zoning and comments on the historic preservation what about best standards we did we did that did that already two months ago here a month ago yeah so tonight comments for that aren't we're not planning to take those and that we have had a few by email so but yes thank

you for and the same with resource protection um so do I have oh so the rues so please address them to me please be nice please hold them in three minutes so be concise um if you make a comment we may not respond to that at this point if you ask a question and we can answer it we will try to do that um intent of this meeting is for these two public information meetings is for the select board couple of members who are here to listen what the public has to say and then they will take the next step and and decide if they want to make changes to the uh uh proposed articles and uh send them back to us for a public hearing and I will will say that having watched both of these on uh the television now three times with with the contract zoning twice with whatever there's a lot of thought and work that went into it uh developed with the help of the Town staff and the town attorney so uh these are you well thought out and

I'm sure they will be looking uh for your comments if we need to make it better so contract zoning are there oh and contract zoning will also include uh the trigger for when do TR contract zoning apply so right now it's intended for uh battery energy storage systems and large solar Farms the cut off uh for battery en Energy Systems is one MHz so if it's greater than that it starts with contract zoning if it's less than that uh it doesn't and then also on um solar

Farms it's 10 acres I believe and John just to clarify it's one megawatt one Mega what did I say megahertz yeah yeah as I told you long ago I failed electrical engineering uh so one megawatt of uh energy and I probably somewhat remiss George you want to just give us a very quick summary of of uh contract zoning yes and I'll just read the notes that are attached to the draft amendments that are posted uh the town attorney has determined that large scale battery energy storage systems connected to the power line grid would meet the definition of essential services and thereby qualify as a permitted use not subject to planning board conditional use criteria for Public Safety noise and scale of project CR uh those criteria such high voltage energy storage systems pose safety and environmental risks not currently addressed in the landan use ordinance in addition to enacting needed performance standards to ensure that

such facilities are designed and constructed with adequate safety and other performance standards the town attorney has recommended requiring contract Zoning for large best and solar energy systems actually the discussion of putting best uh solar energy systems came through planning board discussions and was added to that so um such facilities would be only allowed as a special contract zoning District approved at town meeting this added mechanism will allow Town voters to uh decide acceptable locations for such facilities and are convinced that any proposed project benefits the town and has limited impacts in keeping with Durham's rural character and limited P public services and then in terms of the trigger part of it um when the Conservation Commission and planning board enacted standards for solar energy systems in 2024 they recognize that the town needs to consider the location of large solar

Farms as well as safety concerns and potenti potential visual impacts rather than doing a townwide study of suitable and unsuitable locations contract zoning provides a more efficient and suitable mechanism to control the location of very large solar Farms so one of the issues that has been uh discussed and we've come up with a preliminary conclusion of a size limit for solar Farms um but that is still being discussed and you're getting input from the Conservation Commission on what the side the upper limit of or lower limit of what requiring U contract zone for a solar farm should be so that's where we are that seems to be the one unresolved issue as far as the contract zoning is concerned and if I could build on that a little bit to say George thank you for that a little bit of what happens with contract zoning is uh let's if it passes that's number one uh and first off it will be approved at the town meeting

meting like all land use article changes but if it passes the town the process would be that if someone wanted to come in and do a battery energy storage system greater than one Mega one megawatt uh system and the reason we picked that number uh was that there are battery storage systems that are tied people's home solar or smaller uses not big uh big industrial commercial uses so if they wanted to do that they would come in and the processes they would go to the town Manager work with the town manager and the staff say you know preliminarily we'd like to do battery a best system somewhere and we're going to exceed your one megawatt uh minimum here's where we'd like to do it and the that would then be a discussion between the town manager the staff and the applicant uh and then they would um say here's what you know we need you to do here's our best standards if they get approved uh and so

so on and so forth it is a negotiation process so it is uh it what it does allow as George says if somebody wants we have very wide I guess for lack of a better term zoning areas so much of the town is residential Agricultural and so there's no if they were to come in today we have very little as much as we talked about with solo last year very little town standards to apply to that the advantage of U contract zoning is uh the town can

negotiate not only what they want them to do there show them the standards they have to meet but the things that are that we might need for instance if it's a dirt road the town could ask them to pave the dirt road if it's and please correct me if I'm wrong and is you can't ask them for cash up front either personally or for the town but you can uh negotiate with them with these are the things we need examples have been in the select board meeting a special fire truck uh to reach a taller building or a Tower taller uh paper mill you could say

hey the we're concerned about this so we would need some fire equipment um that we do not have as the town right now and the expectation is they would do that if they say no to all this they walk away uh once the the bones of the agreement have been dis discussed it then goes before a joint committee of the select board and the planning board and that's joint so there's 8 to 10 people 10 if if everybody shows up 8 to 10 people who will discuss it uh there is a presentation by the landowner there's a public hearing a true public hearing where the public gets the input then when that's all done and the questions are asked the planning board uh is totally advisory on this one planning board will review it is it does it meet the comprehensive plan uh yes or no make a recommendation to the select board who then looks at the deal of the negotiations and and says yes we are interested in this or no we are not

interested in this uh but the final decision they then forward it on to the town meeting and so the final vote the final decision is on the floor of the town meeting so it's not negotiated in uh in any of the public meetings it does provide the opportunity to apply uh like stricter standards or whatever someone comes in today and wants to do a solar farm they said we're going to do it on this 40 acres we don't really have a mechanism as a planning board to say hey we really don't want it right next to the school we'd rather have it there so that's not part of the the ability we have and there's other things we can't really do as a planning board uh this is part of this negotiation they can say we don't if we don't wanted on that part that's close to Resource protection that's whatever it may be so George and then after it's approved with the town meeting the negotiation it comes back to the planning board and we would do a

sight plan review similar to the what we do with others and if best gets standards get approved we would apply those is that am I pretty close to Accurate everybody got that yeah and those of you who watched hours of of video I'm sorry sorry they probably did a the attorney and the select board did a much better job so having said all of that does anybody want to speak on resource protection excuse me contract own my head clears every now and again I get it right name and address please Jess Costa Brianna Drive um so I'm concerned that these two types of development um best and solar projects

um seem to be tied together under contract zoning and I think it inaccurately links solar to the safety concerns um associated with best um and I'm just curious why our town wouldn't consider other types of large development like storage facilities and gravel pits under contract zoning um it just seems to be uh

targeting uh solar in particular [Music] and um I just you know you don't need v um for a solar project and vice versa they're separate types of development um so I guess I would rather see um a mitigation fee structure be developed in the town for all types of development including solar and best and subdivisions and gravel pits um and this be based on something like the system that topsum has where they've mapped and ranked habitats by value um and so locations that have um

higher value habitat would have a higher mitigation fee for developers um and yeah I just wanted to mention that the Durham Conservation Commission this past year started a solar suitability mapping process to help guide um suitable Loc lotion for solar and um I just think that that's something that could be built upon in the future if we were going to look into another system um Beyond contract zoning

something like a mitigation fee structure so and I also had one question um did we settle on um 10 acres as the cut off or that's still up in the air for that's part of tonight's discussion okay and actually can I clear the air out can I say something on that last part okay just because I um like my name is mentioned in some of this materials I had um so I work in solar and I had

recommended 10 acres as a minimum size and I know the Conservation Commission you are recommending 20 acres I agree with you I think 20 acres is better than 10 so I just wanted to we'll get to yeah we'll get that we'll get further into that agree with that so you've cleared your name thank

much um I think there were a couple um I guess George you could take on we're going to try to avoid policy decision but I think the reason why solar was added to this and and I know you all have been working hard and I appreciate that on mitigation fees and other things but if you remember if somebody comes in with a big big solar project right now they and you say well wow there's 5,000 Acres they want to do in Holton main up in potato country but there's also 600 acres that got turned down in green so right now we don't really have a good me mechanism with in our ordinances to say no to a 600 acre

um solar thing and I think it's fair to say that haven't listened to the TV shows that the other issues you discussed about gravel pits and other things maybe something in the future I mean this you know this baby steps I guess or First Step whatever it may be they you they could come in and say we don't like gravel pits uh what your gravel pit rules say I'm developing a gravel pit we don't like those rules we'd rather work through your U contract zoning and that's possible under this the difference is that if they want to do more than 10 acres of solar or if that's what we approve over whatever acreage we approve and more than one megawatt of B they must do contracts on

me so it does that that's attempt at at an answer may not may not agree with it you have no further questions from me okay Michael um um I just picked him because he never he always comes through what a reputation um Michael run around Pond Road um I see the benefits of contract zoning but I I agree with Jess that there might be other ways particularly with solar to address mitigation fees and sighting without putting this the problem with contract zoning is I see it and I think I'm not sure if I I think I speak for the the Conservation Commission is it puts a big obstacle into put building solar and we don't put that we don't put that obstacle in for anything else and I think there's some real needs for soul it'll it'll improve our tax base I don't think we've talked about that much but there's a there's a several Hundred Acre installation going in in Farmington and they estimate over the lifetime that

there'll be $17 million of state and local tax benefits which I think our town could really benefit from um we need to convert to Green energy so I don't think it's a great idea to put a lot of obstacles in for solar particularly because it doesn't have risks Associated that best does there's no fire risk there's no um um there's no degradation of the land it's not permanent after 25 years they can be removed and the land can be reused unlike other processes that we use such as as just commented on large

um developments or gravel pits that land has forever been used and not available for other purposes and I guess the other thing I'd say is the reason we pick 20 acres is that that's typically the smallest size of uh commercial uh solar

installations when you get less than 20 acres it's usually a community solar project and I'm not sure if we want to put a big roadblock in front of community solar um uh I think um so my threshold would be to pick 20 acres at as a minimum so thank you George did provide a webinar for us that also mentioned that 20 acres so it's not just I mean I think there are other people that feel like 20 acres is a reasonable minimum starting point okay thank you anyone else on contract zoning there's only one other person so you don't have to I mean this is voluntary um I did submit uh an email and then I watched the video uh Russ Kohl's um new block um I would request that uh the town do a better job of providing information about exactly what contract zoning is uh why we want it uh and why we would use this as opposed to things like conditional use and that sort of thing so the video is fine except that I can

barely hear the attorney because nobody asked her to move her microphone closer so uh and it forces me to watch you know an hour of something to really find out about 10 minutes of information that I don't really have time for that but I took the time so I I think that um the informational part of this given out to the citizens hasn't been that great I know there's been an effort I appreciate that but if this is going to go for a vote to the town meeting with the information that's been provided so far I would vote help just because of a lack of good communication or great communication I guess I can say that's it okay thank you

okay there's only other two people who haven't spoken uh I thank you so seeing no other public information or public comments I will close that portion of it and uh just as a not we are not going to as it normally we would vote to make changes what we're going to do this evening is just give the the select board our comments on U the two the in this case contract zoning so any con comments on

contract zoning juliad are you raising your hand um well the so we have received some comments I think most of them were just verbally mentioned um I don't know if we want to try and mention all of the ones that we heard um you talking about on emails yeah email and or how we do that or we'll just talk about those me I think we can talk about them the only one that I know of was Mr KS I did get an email that I think we forwarded around were there any others that you had a lot on best right

yeah not a not a lot on contracts asked me some questions that I answered and I think she she was satisfied with those okay maybe there was one maybe it was your email um asking about and I do think this relates is um like Town Council you know or maybe it was your email that asked that um you know have we been considering that or can we even consider going towards a Town Council form of government um maybe we could answer that I think that's not part of the discussion this I think I do remember chess that that was in there so that is a good question that's not part of what we're doing here this evening no it's just like the idea of you know contract zoning going in front of Select board and then going in front of the entire town right versus the town government so I do think it's related but yeah it's not the but there was that piece but yeah I guess every we're good also some of the things that I said my

email I think I have found or not don't apply in main law they may apply in other states but okay please don't make comment because can't hear you because the microphone's not closed um so I don't I saw Jess comment it is easier to

if there is a it takes a step out but we are a town meeting uh form of government and that's not part of tonight's discussion that 10 years 20 years from now we will we will or may be a a different form of government in my opinion we're still struggling that we're we have a town manager now so to sort that out so one step at a time but I but go ahead I'm sorry anything else um there was another question about what other towns are proposing contract Zoning for solar nearby um not sure if the attorney answered that in any of her discussions I don't think so uh she pointed out that it's being used in a in a number of different communities for larger projects right um I did a quick scan today and what I found was there aren't really any other towns that are specifically using contract zoning with reference to solar energy systems most are taking the root of putting a size limit on them got it and then nothing above that is is

all allow yeah okay okay that's what green is looking at in response to the 600 acre proposal just a cap of okay okay a certain amount of Acres so yeah that was those were the two that I had written down that I hadn't I didn't hear today okay any any other questions Brian um if it's voted down in a town

meeting is there an appeals process no if the project is voted down in the town meeting me yeah uh what I think I heard the attorney say was no because that is a legislative action not a you know we the select board are are not

legislative so yes our decisions can be appealed to the appeals board but if it's a town vote uh then it cannot be I mean you can always Sue but you sue for anything but uh no there is no appeal process beyond that right PR the

the contract zoning the process of involving the planning board and the select board not just one entity but putting two entities together and hashing all those differences out and then presenting it to the town's people and then the town's people have an input on this where many times with some specific things some people may have object to some of the approvals or the disapprovals that the planning board goes through but in this case the town's people have that opportunity to make their concerns voiced and they're included in the v the the vote of accepting or not accepting

things is that this process one uh gives a greater layer of protection to the town in that the process is long and I I don't argue depending upon when they file and how how hard it is and so on and so forth but it does go through several layers of scrutiny and it is a very transparent process they they go to the town manager the town staff they give them this is what the town is looking for um they there may be push back from the the applicant but all of that then comes to this joint meeting of 8 10 uh people who are going to hear it there will be a opportunity for uh public input to that so that would be taken in the planning board would then uh discuss does it meet the comprehensive plan yes or no recommend yes no uh the select board then looks at other factors uh besides that but they do it in an open meeting and so There's an opportunity then to have that discussion which I think by the time and

then they make a recommendation one way or another so it's gone through a hell of a lot more scrutiny than just coming up at a town meeting uh there's no doubt that by the time it gets there it you know nobody's we're not going to make a recommendation or the select board is not going to make a recommendation for um I don't know trying to think of a clean term for half ass but a uh a something that's not well thought out and been done now it could still go there the town could still because of tax advantages or whatever uh overrule it and send it on to the uh planning board uh as a as a positive thing um and

it's important to say that at that point the the applicants still has to meet all the requirements of the uh the town standard for the site plan so all those that we approved last year if unless it's changed by the town vote I mean if the town votes to M change a standard uh dimensional standard then planning board has to follow that whether they make it bigger or lesser whatever so it's gone through a heck of a process to be looked at and and it is probably slower um Goram has a Town Council they dis approved an expansion of a quy today so it was a much faster process I don't think I think they had the ability to not even send it to the planning board they just voted no uh as the very beginning of the process um so we're

we're kind of living with the the process we've got and I'm a big believer that we're going to get a much better product are of things that are difficult battery energy stores large solar um and then down the road if if the town elects mineral extraction large storage things rocket launchers whatever it may be um yeah we can do other we can

add things to that so just a comment about process um and maybe this falls under the um rocket launcher but why would it why would this go to an executive session through the um select and I and I've done economic development in several jurisdictions and when you're meeting with perspective developers of very large projects um there's a lot of confidentiality issues that they dealing with in terms of investors and competitors and those sorts of things so what that does is it gives the opportunity for the um select board to meet an executive session to negotiate basically without having that done in in an open meeting which most developers are going to be uncomfortable with so but whatever comes out of any executive session has to be announced after the executive session if decisions are discussed uh they can't really make any decisions in executive session all they can do is is discuss parameters for

decision making and then when they come out of exe so then they can talk freely the applicant the developer can talk freely about their situation uh without concerns for that information being broadcast and then when they come out any decisions made by the select board uh or a planning board you go into executive sessions to consult with your attorney at times under main law so that's the purpose of an executive session not to make decisions but to have confidential uh discussions of sensitive matters before public decision making is made but was the question not why isn't it or why doesn't this so have it in there was that your question no it's in there like they have the opportunity to to talk to the applicant about within ex session but I'm just wondering why would you actually have that um and but you've just said that whatever comes out of that is public yeah any decisions that come out thank you

okay any anything else about the structure there we do have to have a and and everything that we've been talking about they have heard or watched on television so we're not going to take a vote on it we're just giving them our opinion on the on the overall thing the thing that we have not talked about that has been brought up a couple of times is the uh megawatts and the U acre for

solar so um comments from planning board board members I guess take solar think the reason solar is included is not because we don't like solar uh it is because we we are we need to have the ability in my opinion the ability for the town to say that's too big 600 acres in Durham is too big 5,000

acres in Durham is way too big so right now we don't really have that that capability but if the town says Hey as as Mr friendley said that's a lot of taxes we don't want to pass up on it that that my opinion may not be what the town Town votes on but that's the reason I think solar's in there I look at 20 acres that's the size of my property so 20 acres is actually about of is about 40 acres because as I recall the 20 acres are the the we're talking about the size of the panels so 20 acres combined of of black or silver or whatever color the panels that's about 40 acres that's taken up by so actually sorry John you I think we do need to yeah let's let's um step back here when we say Acres 20 acres 10 acres whatever it is we are talking about the entire project area we are not talking about the glass the panels the GL be just the pan glass would be half of that and I don't know really why we uh I think we

started at talking about that but honestly um it was a question I had was when we get into the table of land uses will we be you know saying um megawatts Acres square feet how are we how are we doing this because I think we need to well I think right now our language the one the draft we've gotten is acres for solar and megawatts for for

battery okay so we're talking Acres so I would recommend that we continue saying the entire project area because that is the that's the impact if we're worried really about the visual thing it's not just the panels right you're you're talking the fence the road in all of that right counts yeah can I uh just remind everybody we had the same discussion when we were discussing solar energy systems a year ago and where we came out was we started looking at the angle and the spacing between uh it it varies and it's hard to pin that down so where we came out so that we would have a measurable clearly measurable metric was to measure the area of the solar panels themselves and we came out with a threshold of 20,000 square feet of panels uh there's no debating you know how much that is it's measurable so then what happens is you set your threshold for that uh based on the typical parameters of how much spacing there is

how much distance there is between fencing vegetation and so you end up and just as a rule of thumb based on the research that I did it usually is about 40% of the total project area that translates into so the threshold that's currently in the ordinance is 175,000 Square ft of panels not acres

and then that translates into about just under 10 acres of development area so if if you go to 20 acres I did that analysis and it came out to be 400,000 uh square feet which is about I think 4 Acres of panels and then that creates a 20 acre u a 20 acre field

basically I think that anyway the 4 400,000 was the was the translation from uh a 10 acre project to a 20 acre project yeah I've got the solar ordinance pulled up you're right um so we do talk about the square feet in the Solar ordinance so I suppose we you know I think we we should do apples to apples right so so I guess the square feet I guess yeah so if you want to change from 10 acres to 20 acres currently the draft that's in your book in the that's been published is 175,000 Square ft of panels if you want to increase that then the next number to be discussed I think would be 400,000 square fet of panels okay but I I think really when we we first should focus on the size of the project right it's really hard for for anybody to think about what square feet of panels are when really they're not side by side you know what I mean so maybe conceptually you can talk about a 20 acre project or

a 10 acre project but the way you codify it then gets translated into square footage of the panels okay so yeah I mean when we say large solar we talked about you know why best and large solar are brought into contract zoning it's because mainly of sighting in town and safety concerns so what is large solar to us you know someone mentioned 600 megawatt 600 acres both of those are huge right what about a 100 is that huge depends on where you live yeah and you know in in the midwest it's kind I mean here sorry here right here in Durham here in Durham what do they tend to be smaller Doland an example is the project at the Brunswick naap air base and that one is 1.5 megaw and so that's about 10 acres or 15 Acres right so you

say5 yeah it's five to six acres per M yeah that's so what I should have started this with is uh one of the things on both B and solar is we have have two competing desires one is one is the green energy and solar the other is the ryal character so how big of a solar project how big of a best project do you go and lose some of that rural character well I think the ordinance for silver has you know some precautions to prevent you know that you have to have shielding you you have to have a a professional landscape person come in and and talk about what you know mitigation so some of that is in the ordinance um and I think you can site large silver where no one will see it too right but we have to have a mechanism to do that I understand contract Zing really helps with sighting and it helps with mitigation those are the real strengths I recognize I mean we have a Vegeta buffer propos of 50 fet

right now for solar in our ordinance that's huge so that is a protection for but again what we're for this conversation yeah what we're missing is where where does it go and how you know how big what because I think you could the way it exists today we could have somebody come in and ask for 600 acres we're fairly restricted on whether we could approve disapprove that and pass a smell test legally if they really wanted to to to take us to court that's my concern so I understand mitigation fees but I guess what I'm saying is at the end of the day it's not what John wants is what the Town once and so if we'll make a recommendation to go to the select Board and they'll they'll pick a number they'll do whatever they they're going to do and send that to the town so I

appreciate your comments and I any anybody we really to me 20 acres of panels alone is way too much um because I think of if what I'm hearing is 10 acres of the panels it translates to about 20 acres of space taken up and that's my property and I think that well I might make a lot of money if I sold that off to solar do I want all my neighbors driving by and seeing 4 20 acres of solar panel going back up and there but what if you don't see it well I think that's where contract zoning comes in is they they help to determine that and I granted at this point in time that is a slower process we're talking about big projects and I would think I don't think it's necessarily our job to make the project go faster for a developer we don't want to provide unnecessary burdens but burdens of protecting you know Durham and the rural character I don't think is is an unnecessary burden and it's different I

you're right Naval Air Station may have something battery Opera storage systems that I've seen are at the Rumford Dam the Rumford right next to their gas plant in an industrial park gorm is in an industrial park the world's largest whatever is going to be battery storage is on an Old Paper Mill durum doesn't have that is it really any different than driving down the road and seeing a 50 acre field that's converted into a subdivision I mean is that any different in terms of an ice work I mean we don't we're treating him so or you know our our gravel bit that you you know there is no mitigation for there is no there is no buffer right there's nothing well I would add that yeah exact I mean for for development um Lots we don't have buffer requirements we have some we do have some but we don't in for solar we have a 50 foot landscape strip around the entire thing unless it has an equivalent existing natural buffer well

we may agree to disagree but I I think that solar is not as pretty as a subdivision but you wouldn't be seeing it that's what we're saying right like is like you would be seeing you would see I I guarantee you you well it depends where you are but any who again that's the advantage contract zoning is you can force the placement so that you don't see it go ahead I'm sorry one more thing I'd like to add is that I think you mentioned Community solar the idea when we developed our solar ordinance was not to make it harder for folks that were trying to put in smaller systems to support the state's goals of renewable energy um the state's goals are five 4.99 megawatt projects and smaller are Community solar projects in our state so 4.99 megawatt is much you know maybe even 30 to 40 acres right so I just wanted to you know say that that we are talking about 10 to 20 acres right now I would say State goals I'll go back to

State goals at naval air station next to the Rumer Dam that's different than the RO but that's my that's my opinion so yeah the select board is tired of hearing my opinion is anybody I would suggest we stay at 10 and then one megawatts for and having looked at best up close and personal yeah they're much but uglier and you can hear them from a distance so I think contract zoning on that one is is a definite need to be I mean Georgie distributed that webinar on solar sighting and they picked 20 acres that from do you know that webinar is that one of those Massachusetts put together by the solar lover I know this was a you're getting my Prejudice there Iowa it was the the gentleman was from Iowa and it was through the international city manager Association okay I probably didn't look at that one close they pick 20 acres as because that's kind of the you don't see uh you don't see um commercial size solar Farms

that are much smaller than that and it doesn't interfere with Community silver which tend to be smaller and we may be saying the same thing if he's talking 20 acres of developed property yeah I'm talking about 20 acres of developed property and we're talking if we stick with Apples to Apples we're talking about 10 acres of is that what you're saying when you say 10 that's what I thought we were going to if we going to compare apples to apples we're seeing the same exact thing then if you're talking about 10 acres of solar panels and I'm talking about 20 acres of development we're in agreement is that what we're talking about George is that like the 20 acres would include your road it would include your your fence it would include your poles going in or underground whatever so yeah we're look at that so when I sell my property the Solar Development everybody all my neighbors get poed at me I let's go see Julia Julia working me

just I do not no I mean that what others thoughts you've heard mine other thoughts on size of solar and and best and the attempt with best was to allow small installations um they would still have to have the same safety and um other

good with 10 acres of panel uh size and one megawatt of I agree with 10 acres overall so five acres of panels so like 10 acres total is your project area right yeah that's the current draft of 175,000 Square ft of panels right yeah 400,000 would be the equivalent of the 20 acre project size so the 10 acres that's on the draft uh table of use is 10 acres of land

correct okay approximately nine point something so we've got okay we got you have a preference I I you know we keep bouncing this back and forth we're going between contact zoning we're talking about solo we're talking about well contract zoning is the table of use is tied to contract zoning right and we already have the definitions in here for roof mounted medium scale lar scale and large scale greater I mean it's already identified as within that definition so I don't think that we should and it specifically says the square footage of a solar panel

and I don't think we should be bouncing that around anymore I don't think we need to add any additional information to that but we do need to come up with a size correct well we have it in here it's 175,000 Square ft okay so you're sticking with 175,000 square feet 5 FES of the panels correct okay so again we're not going to make a decision we're just making a recommend and then they and I prefer that the smaller the better in my opinion but I don't think we had any um uh disagreement with the battery size

right 1 megawatt hour I think was correct correct yeah okay so that one is good and then the you've heard a split decision on uh on U solar but I think it is important say it's not intended to stop solar or we're not picking on solar and that down the road you may very well find gravel pits and large warehouses and Rocket stations and you know if somebody want to do a rocket launching thing now you know we'd have to do the same thing we have to slam in a put in a moratorium and then go back and take a look at the you know changing our ordinances to match you know rocket launching as an example we have ask for I'm sorry just

for go I'm sorry oh speak to me and then I will sorry yes go ahead Mr friendley we we have no moratorium on some things that already exist like gravel PS we don't no I mean but we could go back and change the the ordinance to say gravel pits now covered if we wanted to down the road right now they could come in and file for a gravel pit contract zoning is not required so that's that's a future discussion I think that's for clarification on a public comment okay is that okay yeah please um did Jess is it did you ask about why are

we um just adhering solar and vs to contract zoning and why aren't we I totally appreciate that comment it should be a much more broader um thing that we look at it it yeah it it's it's going to come it's going to come sooner than we think and I think it should I think the literature should um Encompass a broader topic my understanding from the the attorney's presentation was that it could this could right now the way it would be written if it's approved is it's mandatory for solar and best if they exceed this the limits that are in there if somebody wanted to do rocket launching whatever we do that and I think that down the road part of the study you know might be a study of should we apply it to Gravel Pit should we apply it to you know whatever

correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the what the attorney was saying is that anything currently that does not have a permitted use like it's not outlined in the table of uses would fall under contract zon is that right no well let me let me try to clarify this okay so contract zoning if approved will make that mechanism available for many purposes it will be

mandatory for best project one megawatt hour or greater and if you stick with the number of 10 acres or more of a solar farm it'll be required for the those so let's just say most of the other uses like gravel pits that you're talking about are currently conditional uses and under the conditional use criteria if someone's proposing a 100 Acre the gorm size Gravel Pit you can do a conditional use review and talk about the scale and so if you were to deny a project being as being out of scale with a residential neighborhood area then theoretically that would be support Ed in court not as strong as the contract zoning approach but then let's just say that gorm developer uh wants to because you've made that determination they still want to do their project they could apply for a contract zone for the Gravel Pit under that same set of scenarios that we're doing for best they wouldn't be required

to but that is an option that is available for other large scale projects that don't fit the zoning so it will immediately have other applications it just won't be as urgent as best and large solar because those are coming right

the select board they've given them what we we have that we can move on to Historic uh commission District so just to clarify your recommending that they go with the one megawatt for B and 175,000 or you just just going to say no no position do we need to have a quorum because you have AUM I mean like I think I'm definitely for 20 but if it's a yeah I think we're not going to make a recommendation I would say that you know three or four leaning towards the smaller one and and Juliet has good reasons and others that they have heard have uh good reasons for going to 20 and we need to make clear that this panel size or land Acres or whatever it may be is that fair yeah yeah yeah okay is that answer George what you need yep uh okay moving on to the next uh item because we still have to we've covered a lot of the discussion we still have to have a discuss or a public comments on draft historic

preservation regulations actually I'm so sorry can I just say one thing back so I'm looking at the table of land uses I just want to make sure we get this right um we say uh the size you know also required for projects with solar panel surface area greater than and then we say whatever number we're going to say solar panel surface area so that is if I'm just thinking about it the surface area of a solar panel at any tilt yeah it's in the definition but any tilt is out yep okay because the surface area okay I just want to make sure that no matter how it's tilted whatever it would be okay okay great okay so now we are done with that and we're moving on to uh uh historic preservation

regulations public comment good job so are there any that same rules would apply we're we're going to select board is going to hear our comments uh after during and after this meeting so anybody have any public comments Mr Roy please step up and I sem I lost control of the last one I'll try not to this time Heather Roy Hollow um I'm making this comment at it's really hard to wear two hats right and I talked about this at our meeting as a selectboard member so now I'm here to talk about it as resident um I feel like the way that we protect and preserve our Ro character is through buffering and screening I beat that drum constantly um with I had pointed out that this draft ordinance um doesn't have any direct

language around buffering and screening um and when we talked about that at our meeting it was that um the general land use ordinance has buffering and screening requirements and I think we've talked about that this evening I think there are multiple places in town where we can see that that is just not working it's not enough it's not it's not doing its job where it sits in the land use ordinance without calling it out specifically so I think it's really important to do because the way that the O the old ordinance defined it was a vegetative buffer there were no height requirements um and no dimensional requirements around it specifically with regard to Historic um properties and so I feel like that's really missing for the way the ordinance reads right now um um there was one other thing I was going to say but I can't remember what it was now permitting oh I'm not going to I'm not going to I'm not going to go into that

okay I I don't know where I stand on that yet I need more education around that um but I'm hoping I'm obviously going to make sure that I I get that between now and then and really I think that's a lot about listening to public comment um around how people feel regarding that um but really I I the buffer I I think think it's so important and the example that I keep using is on Route 136 on the way to Auburn those multi-units that have been built right next to that historic church with absolutely no buffer in between whatsoever and it has just completely changed that all that look my voice is shaking because I care okay I was married in that church and my wife mentions that every time we drive by um that's so cool uh so anyway anybody else want to make comments on historic preservation uh policy and I guess once again I'm remiss we could probably explain what the heck it is George what the changes

are so forgive me no I make the Assumption everybody I'll just quickly read the summary that's on the website attached to these draft amendments the town attorney has determined that the current historic preservation standards and procedures are not consistent with federal and state guidelines and must be brought into alignment to be enforcable the select board has indicated that Durham's land use regulations for historic preservation should be streamlined to make the process easier and fairer to affected land owners the proposed amendments will focus historic preservation requirements on individual properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the national register of historic places the ordinance will require review of projects on these properties by the historic commission but will assign regulatory Authority for issuing the permits to the code officer and planning board both of which are

required to follow legal requirements for fact finding to ensure that all decision afford due process to applicants was there a decision made or um recommendation from the attorney about the Southwest Bend was that already discussed yes uh she has uh reviewed the Southwest Bend historic district that has 32 buildings within it of those 32 only three are either eligible or uh listed and that's less than 10% and in her uh opinion that does not qualify for federal design designation as a historic district and she's concerned that it's not defensible so is that part of this so that would be repealed as part of this

whole has not retained distinctive visible historic character which is another criteria they look at okay so the the big changes in my opinion is are um the is George mentioned the historic if if it's approved and we say that up front if it's approved um the historic district is we know Southwest Ben part of would disappear as a separate zoning District um the uh and the historic district

commission would move from having the ability to C certificant of U appropriateness but appropri to be an advis Miss so instead so basically but there the protections are still there instead of on instead of having a district and then requiring a certificate of appropriateness um the district would not exist the same houses would be protected U and then the houses outside the district would have the same protections uh in the new ordinance as the the other ones and I guess the other big one is that used to be a 1500 uh

foot radius um correct me if I'm wrong that that goes away so those in my mind are the the big changes no Prejudice intended that's just the the the major changes to that and there was lots of other discussion that evening so any other public comments Miss Roy sorry one more opportunity I just remembered one of the other things and that does still doesn't go into the other thing that I was going to talk about but I also so um I I I spoke to the attorney about this too and I don't know if this updated draft is different than the one that we saw but it doesn't outline if if it were to pass and the historic district commission becomes an Advisory board that makes recommendations to the planning board or to the code enforcement officer the way that the Conservation Commission does it doesn't outline the process as it was before our board if there's a disagreement and I that that has happen and so I feel like that also

should be clearly called out that if if there is a disagreement how are we handling that I think it's important to have that documented a disagreement between just to clarify disagreement between the historic whatever they are are going to be on sorry I forgot their name and the code enforcement or the planning board if they make recommendations to the planning board or they make recommendations to the code enforcement officer and those recommendations AR aren't in alignment like you just disregard them or the code enforcement officer disregards them what is the process that we're going to use to deal with that um situation the town attorney actually did address that okay and uh what she communicated was that under the draft ordinance uh there's a difference between Conservation Commission and historic commission if this goes forward and that is that the historic dist District Commission for the eight

current and any future listing determined to be eligible for listing properties The Advisory opinion of the historic commission is mandatory so they would have to send that Conservation Commission you can request that they can submit it but there's no formal process so under the formal process the historic commission when they look at a an application to alter one of these eight properties they will look at it under the terms of the ordinance which are fairly specific even though there is some subjectivity built into it but there are clear criteria that are supposed to be followed so they review those criteria against the project proposal and if in their opinion they are not following the Interior Department guidelines for renovations of this project or expansion of it then they would make that recommendation to the code officer if it's a building permit or the planning board if it's a site plan review or a subdivision and

then the the new as the planning board will consider their comments look at the ordinance and if you come to the conclusion that the uh that the U historic commission is misapplying misreading the standards you make your independent quasi judicial decision uh so you're you are certainly compelled to consider their opinion because they're the ones that focus on this and hopefully have some expertise on it and but if in the final analysis you feel that they're pushing it beyond what the intent is and it's not fair to the property owner because it is not required then you can make a decision if the uh property owner or if a uh grieved

party someone who's affected a nextdoor neighbor uh considers that you the planning board or the code officer is is uh not applying the standards they can appeal that your decision or the code officer decision to the board of appeals so that's the process okay is that different than what was before us our meeting do now no that's right in there it wasn't so it's the commission makes a

recommendation if either the codes or planning board do not agree with that recommendation they have the you're not bound by their not bound by it if somebody disagrees with that our decision or codes it appeals which is not different I think as with all decisions of the code officer and the planning board it's appealable to the board of appeals okay so any other public comments questions okay shutting that down how about the planning board do we have any well we we actually had a situation where there was a uh Housing Development which is just past the Bliss house that we did on the going towards Freeport that was on the left hand side of the road after the power lines and I believe

the house next to the entrance of that is a historic house I think it was the hunt house could be wrong but we we as a planning board struggled with and I I totally hear what Heather is saying about a buffer we as a planning board certainly struggled with a buffer between that entrance and that a joint that the property that is right next to that and I totally agree that there should be some handed in here for a buffer I we we talk C we we talk about the buildings and restoration of buildings but we don't talk buffers about buffers at all and whether we refer to our own ordinance and include it in this would

certainly be a my recommendation can I ask a question did the district um not recommend anything like that When developing this I'm sorry who who the district district commission yeah Mr chair please Joe Roy pink and Brook Road uh they haven't submitted any comments to us on any of this um and so I was really surprised that they weren't here tonight and they haven't submitted anything in our meeting after we receed public comments tonight we are inviting them to a a meeting with us and the attorney uh not at our next select board meeting but at our February 25th meeting um to make sure that we're getting feedback from them after we've heard from everyone uh they had submitted initial uh an initial draft of an ordinance and that was slightly different than what we what we have here that had the same some of the elements of that had the same legal concerns from the legal council and so We're looping back with them after we've

received all this public comment to to try to work together on February 25th so okay thank you any other planning board I I mean I will if if I may address Allen's comment which is the uh I was I think maybe either just coming on the board or still watching it on television from Indiana but there was I remember that discussion and I think what was applied in in Juliet or Allan can correct me was there is a buffer requirement in the um for subdivisions correct cor and I think that's what was applied and the question may be is that sufficient it was applied to the best of our knowledge of the time but that buffer does not consider it's a

buffer for an adjoining property but it doesn't take in consideration that that could be a historic site okay so you're recommending a uh beefed up buffer especially one next to next to a historic structure yes definitely okay any other up we don't have one period not in this no but the correct me if I'm wrong I think the whatever is in the existing ordinance would apply so for a subdivision or conditional use there are buffer requirements correct that would somebody like that in that case the subdivision came in and you apply the um

there should be subdivision there should be a subsection to that buffer when it is is uh has a historic site which is an adjoined property okay a beefed up correct conditional use or whatever whether we do it in our existing ordance versus putting it I think we should put it in this one because and I think the subdivision buffer I we don't have to get into this right now but I don't think that that is um like the entire

development right so we don't have to get okay um let me take a stab at this one as well so uh the wind gate was all messed up from a number of different angles it turns out that house was not eligible for listing after all uh but pretend it is okay for this for this conversation Let's Pretend let's pretend we want to put if those that's water over the D for a number of different issues uh but if this goes forward uh the planning board will be reviewing any project for site plan review or subdivision and one of the criteria that you have to decide on is that the proposed subdivision the proposed commercial non-residential project cannot have a undue reasonable or undue adverse impact on historic resources so if there are historic resources on the site or adjacent to the site that would be impacted by the development you can review based on recommendations from the main historic preservation commission Andor the M the

Durham historic commission recommend ations for mitigating impacts on official historic properties so you could require buffering as a as a condition of a subdivision approval or a site plan approval again Windgate you didn't have the tools you needed you didn't have people that knew what they were doing so that was just a very messed up situation that didn't come out well for anybody but in the future if this goes forward there'll just be clearer parameters for decision making and not having this m of who's supposed to be doing what just total confusion and it doesn't result in a good project project for anybody so you will still have the tools to require buffering if it's appropriate and needed and supported by the historic preservation standards that are in the ordinance so that covers subdivisions and conditional use cor correct what about the and I don't know about the houses on 136 the

two duplexes what about if somebody wants to put a house a single family home single family home either duplex or something like that that that is not a sub no the code officer unlike the planning board does not have those types of of authorities to require mitigation of historic and other things well the the two on 136 are in Auburn they're not in Durham I know no it's not it's not our fault but I that's that's an example of what shouldn't be shouldn't so then the question is should there be a buffer on U yeah so if that housing project high density housing project were being built in Durham under these regulations you as the planning board could require intensive buffering between that project and the his the budding historic Pro property yeah my question is what if it's not a sub what if it doesn't go a duplex Standalone duplex doesn't come before the what do Standalone duplex have that type of an impact on a

historic property that's a question right compared to a high density housing project or a solar farm okay um I mean yes I mean I think there's a potential because even before the second dup Church duplex new duplex that first

duple question is how far do you go some communities not many in Maine go to very intense standards on historic property durm is the derms currently with you this goes through is still going to be far beyond as the attorney indicated in my experience far beyond what most rural communities do on historic preservation okay and I'm not worried about necessarily a single standal single family house but it that is so

the question is do we recommend uh a buffer for a house um or because the codes guy doesn't have a to a tool to say you got to plan a buffer right does it exist today right so are you asking us this yeah do you have an opinion on it why do you think a single family residents wouldn't have as much of an impact as um a

little bit more compatible than than that I mean I it could I mean it very easily could if they clearcut or whatever it may be I first off I struggle to think that there is an exam that 136 is a is a example of what's bad but houses next to houses don't bother me quite truthfully I mean it's okay you got a historic house but your neighbors doesn't have a historic house that doesn't necessarily bother me um and so but the qu the question is

should we should we require something because we don't we don't require an architectural design on a new home yep but can right going back to that example what if that person land owner owned the property full property beside that church and just put a single family home clearcut single family home that's different than what's there the historic district that's no more potentially Southwest um one will be no more it could be no more yeah U one of the reasons it might not be no more is because it didn't keep the historic character or whatever right was that one of the reasons it doesn't make the think we had talked about just a little bit ago I'm just so so if there had been trees or other things that had been protected ing the historic resources in that district from the non-historic would that District you know I'm trying to say I'm trying to find I don't think it would have met I think the question was

there's only three no I know that was but we you had brought that up right another reason that the the lawyer thought that the district shouldn't be a district anymore is because it hadn't kept its historic so I'm wondering if there had been trees planted in between the historic proper properties if that could have helped to keep the character and if the answer is yes then if we have historic properties in Durham then I would argue that that is helping to protect those properties the trees I would I would say there's lots of trees in South westbound I mean lot of lot of houses are here I'm just try opin probably far more trees than there were at the time that it was historic before they took down the agricultural community there weren't that many trees okay Miss Roy one more time Miss Roy's the head of Mr Roy part of the reason why would you please come up in yeah please speak in the microphone part of the reason why is

because the district they they didn't go through the process to do things that were required they just the codes w always upheld or people did things to homes that in the district they were um not defined as contributing resources but I think that was the intent um but then they weren't held to the same standards and so it's fallen out of compliance because not all the homes in the district have stayed compliant um okay they're not all over a

hundred years old there's some some homes in there that have been built like in the 70s or 80s right so they don't meet those criteria and then they just did things to their homes because they weren't historic homes that's what happened yeah because I think when you were when someone yeah Mr Roy Mr Roy's turn and we'll have that discussion thank you Mr chair I was not providing a policy opinion here just to answer their question and George you can correct me foror my understanding from what the town legal council told us was that because the the historic district that was put into place there I think in 2002 um did not require uh anything

outside of the historic buildings to actually meet a standard the adjacent development has just been allowed to developing it whatever way they wanted so generally in a historic district you have um like all of the properties within there are considered contributing factor so they have to meet certain standards a good example of this is like in Bath And The Old Ship Captain house the untrained eye can drive through there and say this is an old Community there's facade requirements you know you probably can't put a above ground pool and a bunch of Pink Flamingos out there um and so since that our historic district doesn't require that that that's part of the reason why it's not really function doesn't really function as a historic district so zero policy opinion there that's just the what we were told by the lawyer as part of the answering your question okay yeah so the buffering doesn't really protect that

wasn't the issue like like it wasn't the didn't meet the requirement yeah so okay so great thank you okay so buffering we seem do we have again it's each individual opinion I think you've given them that the select board is her correct on buffering whether it's needed or not and if you want to State it again that's fine too I'm good either way I mean I can

I the example had they brought up is a really good example that those are duplexes you could even say they're almost single family homes and there's complete impact to that historic right but that's just just a duplex or just a single family home so you can have Major Impact with just that low use so I don't know if like defining the use in the buffer makes any sense I think it's more just any kind of impact around would require a buffer I could go either way like I can see I can see both sides okay

Brian um I agree with getting rid of the district that makes sense to me um and what I see in this proposed ordinance is um littered with things that sound like a district however um hearing about the buffering makes me like compatible with adjacent buildings sounds like in a it's in a district visually compatible with AB budding buildings sounds like a district uh the big one here uh a building bu shall be visually compatible with the building squares and places to which it is visually related in in its directional character sounds like a district so these if we're going to get rid of the district this needs to be like purged to get rid of District stuff however I'm listening to the buffering part um and I think it just needs some more work it's it's not this all sounds like a district still and we're talking about the standards yeah yeah I'm sorry let me rephrase I am in for people who are follow following section

C2 visual compatibility um it just reeks of a district that I think needs to be Rewritten yeah I don't take it that way I mean I take it as here's your historic building you want to build this next to it these the kinds of things you have to consider but that you're that's my opinion and so yeah yeah can I address that too because two two points on it first is that these are National Department of interior standards and this is what everybody uses that does historic preservation so this is kind of like the rule for historic preservation so uh if you take these away then you take away the ability to regulate uh what happens on these properties and then this does sound like a district but there would be a district for for example on the Bliss Farm the Bliss Farm in they have they have three historic buildings on there and they've added them so in essence what this would do is say if they're going to add a new

building it has to be compatible with the historic character of the Bliss Farm as opposed to putting up some tin building uh preat Bal so I know it it's probably doesn't seem like it would be a but there are two reasons to have it is number one these are the only standards that anybody uses for historic preservation and they're supported by courts uh and then there will be instances where people are putting up multiple buildings on an individual property and that'll be how they determine whether those are compatible or not it will not apply to other Pro buildings and projects in the neighborhood just to these properties because that's the direction that the town is heading so it doesn't apply to the empty lot next door no yeah this is just to a specific property correct so so not to squares and places

to which it is visually connected right this is just the boiler play language from the Department of the interior which is the what the town attorney has said that is what courts support they don't support you making it up on your own well I think it's very important yeah the and the select board discussed that at some some length is the expertise that is on the commission is important that you know their level of training and because that's that stuff's hard to understand and apply so as the select board is appointing people to that board I think it's incumbent upon them to make sure that they're either they either trained understand or get trained quickly so that it doesn't become I don't like that you know I just don't I just don't like it it doesn't look historic to me you know not that that would or that the current board is going to do that so miss Roy I'm glad you brought that up we'll finish here I'm sorry no at the um

um select board meeting there was a lot of discussion about training and in this um proposed language it says that the current committee can be right now but the historic district Commission current members can be appli uh uh be

the new historic commission not District um but it doesn't say that they have to go through that training and I think it's important that even if the current committee is translated to the new committee uh go through that um uh

training not just not just um people who are um uh committed to that committee or uh from the from the select board but anybody who's currently on the committee should be as well I was just going to address could you come up yes I was just going to address Brian's example um what it was brought up at our meeting and one of the things that the lawyer gave as an example is that if people wanted to put an addition on a historic property that

that happens but you don't want that to look like a brand new build being attached to a historic property that those things are addressing making sure that whatever they would be adding for an addition met those standards so that it stayed um looking historic even though they're allowed to it add add on to their property that was an example that she gave us when I addressed that as well so okay thank you that yeah anything else we we probably do need to start to wrap it up sorry I just want to watch come up and I just want to leg on this table before it

your table off your taxes um okay I just have another comment go ahead n um just getting back to these standards here 5.14 oh actually have a couple of more comments sorry so if if a new subdivision comes to our plate and there's a 100y old wall stone

wall through that subdivision uh does that have to do those does that applicant have to go to the committee for approval yes okay if they're going to be altering a 100 year old or older stone wall you have to send it to the uh historic commission right now that doesn't have that doesn't happen we just say you need to replace it in kind yep in some way so all right that's just another burden on an a subdivision applicant if they're going to alter 100 ft yeah they have to go to the historic main historic preservation commission anyway that's that's standard they have to you have to get a letter from the main historic preservation commission so just making clear this is another step yeah for for a uh developer

yeah well it's not so much another step it's another part of the current process that's not called out so wait you're saying that they have to go to not the state but our local are you saying that's a state thing Noe they have to go to the state right now if this passes every subdivision that's affecting any stone wall over 100 years old will have to get the historic commission to look at it as well and did you say they have to respond or was that something else they were given 45 days to respond okay yeah it's just another we've seen plenty of subdivisions where you know there's a St going through relocate it right right now they don't have to go through that step but they will have to in the future yeah good point um also

5.14 c one um I feel like the word maintenance should be removed from this paragraph um basically what this is telling me is if I am if I have one of these I'm sorry six or eight structures in the town if I want to repoint my chimney if I want

to uh if I have a a a a step on my porch That's Fallen apart any maintenance I want to do on my house I need a permit or I have to go through the historic commission to do that um it's basically it's replacing um Article 2 12.6 of our current ordinance which 12.6

has a it's a whole listing of Maintenance which says maintenance does not need um to go through uh um any kind of permitting taken out of this paragraph or this I'm sorry what section where are you come on it's on page 47 of the packet yeah and it's uh C1 at the top

C1 okay so this was one of the discussion points that occurred at the select board meeting and the issue was that no one will have to go through this process process unless they are required to get a permit from the code officer or the planning board so that the discussion was that if some some activity that's occurring on the property does not require a building permit or any other permit then they would not have to go through this process and there was discussion and debate among the select board members whether that should apply to all activities including maintenance that affects the exterior or just to those uh issues requiring a permit and I think where this currently stands is only those activities that require a permit would be the only basis at which the code officer would look at it and then require the advisory opinion so just simply replacing a step on your stairway does not qualify as a requirement to go

to the historic commission Define maintenance it says maintenance yes it does say maintenance but it doesn't say but this only applies if you're getting a permit from the code officer because that's what triggers it well and I think that it's because the the windows is I think that needs to be clear if that's if that's what we want is that it should not apply to replacing a window or

fixing a step or replacing a step if I have Granite steps going into my house and I pour concrete you know they they wobble uh and you come step out my back door and I want to rep them with concrete I can't you know do I have to I understand that if you need a building permit then the code officer will have this I think that needs to be clear in here is all yeah yeah our current ordinance again 12.6 yeah clearly states what maintenance is and what is not applicable to go to the board and and

it's this replace it 12.6 is not even listed in air you just get this couple of words about doents and to me this looks like again if I wanted to waterproof or recor my windows I need a permit or I need to go in front of the board to make that change so the the uh the current language that is controlling I believe is we go to um to

5.14 b a uh B it says applicability any application relating to a structure or place deemed by the applicable reviewing Authority the applicable reviewing Authority is either the code officer or the planning board uh to be a historic uh resource identified in a above shall be subject to advisory review by the historic commission so any application for a permit either to the planning board for site plan review or subdivision or to the code officer for electrical um building permit or other required permits if that building is being affected then they that's what triggers this but somebody just doing maintenance on their house replacing siding anything that doesn't require a permit there is no application to trigger this and I think I I can see where it could be a little bit confusing and maybe just somehow couple of words or whatever that drop maintenance or say it only applies to those that are getting

permits I think that's that's what Brian's getting to so I would agree with them anything else anybody buffers doesn't have to be uh agricultural buffer a buffer can be a stone wall and I'll go back to that example with theh two

duplexes if they had put a stone wall around the perimeter of those two it would really enhance the beauty actually of the church that's a really good point like when we think of buffer we're not really thinking completely like visible right exactly blindness right you're just like it's blending in yeah with whatever you the goal is yeah that's a really good point but and going back to buffering I think you would like to see a buffering I think but we're I think on the L the

subdivision conditional use There are rules for buffering and but the issue is do do we think it needs to for a single family home or one duplex or whatever it may be in other words do we want to add it to the ordinance yeah I mean I think I thought we kind of some I said yes some said no I mean the more I think about it actually you gave me a little more time um I would say yes I mean if you know if

we have an ordinis who are trying to protect these resources that's a way to do it and with what Allan just mentioned the buffer does not need to be these huge tree you know right yes I I I would in agreement to adding it into the ordinance I'm not NE I'm not necessarily there but we got two for one against

and I just trying to give guidance you know what no I I I I agree I agree um again my um issue is with language that looks like a district but I can see whereas the district languages could be altered to um uh look like a buffer

are kind of saying to take a look at puffers is that fair one in one is not so we've passed that on now we need to move on is there anything else uh then it's just a a word that I don't like in I'm sorry yes there is something else John um you under visual compatibility again

we just use the word poor or cheap imitations I just don't like those words poor or cheap I just I think less expensive maybe cheap just sounds we will P that is passed on to the select than just a com okay moving on to the next item on our agenda is board discussion on draft land use ordinance amendments which quite truthly I think we have U beaten up the the contract zoning and historic preservation have been beaten to death so we're not going to vote on those so I think we've passed our comments on and concerns to the select board the uh resource protection we do need to vote on um and again we finalized that back so long ago I actually thought we' passed it on but you know we came to to a conclusion on that and fixed everything that we thought needed fixing and so what we need to tonight is a vote to pass on to the select board so yeah that hasn't changed that has not changed not changed so do I have a motion to pass it

on you know to pass a recommendation yeah just to confirm this is what the Conservation Commission like the same exact same thing yeah okay I will make a motion that we pass on the draft Amendment resource protection to the it with a positive recommendation that they included in the warrant on resource protection second oh second moved in second any further discussion hearing none please raise a

hand four nothing um and again I think we're done with the two of the last two so battery energy storage we've had our public hearing last meeting uh George Incorporated our recommended changes and so a just you know are we ready to pass that on or comments about battery energy storage maybe could we hear a quick overview of what changed the only change from your uh I think I reported the last meeting the modifications that I had done as a result of your discussion and the only change since then was the town attorney clarified after your meeting that her intent was not to allow a reduction in these standards as a result of a contract zoning agreement um and uh her

intent was that you could only require more of an applicant not less in terms of the standards so I did incorporate that language in here and uh she advised if you want to allow variation in a standard such as sound uh levels some of the input that you received indicated for a gorm type project trying to meet 55 dbel limit during the day and 45 at night would be impossible so uh what she advised was if you want to make allowances like that put that flexibility into the standards and my uh response is that probably it would be better to do that when you do the contract zoning proposal um and then if needed amendments occur for best um then

you actually propose those as separate amendments to the ordinance which would basically say for example you add a clause in uh section 5.27 whatever it comes out uh you would say subject to a sound study you would uh the planning board could vary the allowable limit for a sound of 10%

whatever it might be so you could but trying to anticipate all of the different modifications you might need at this point is just impossible so you can either do the change put flexibility into the standards now or put flexibility into the standards when and if you need it from a contract zoning proposal but I just don't think at this late hour of the process you can now decide and try to incorporate flexibility into these standards I maybe I misunderstood but I when I was Rel listening to it today I thought very that she very specifically said you could as part of of contract zoning uh change dimensional standards yes and I thought that too because I listened at the time and I asked her for clarification and she said that the intent was you could vary from the required dimensional standards but not lowering the standards that was where we were Miser understanding what she was saying so you can always get more

through contract zoning you would not get less is what her position is so I've gone with that language because that's the select board's uh Direction at this point where are you on that language again George what where's that change be this right here what yellow I did highlight it it's on page 28 and 29 of your uh packet s 5.74 so at

the top of page 29 of the packet you see the tier three I clarified that it's uh subject to contract zoning it used to say special permit in there now it says specifically contract zoning U subject to this ordinance and require approval through a contract zoning agreement in the zoning districts in that table and it also clarifies that tier one and tier 2 do not require call that out but then the next paragraph says tier three best shall meet the following minimum requirements which shall not be reduced or made less restrictive by the terms of a contract zoning agreement that language came from the attorney and I've Incorporated it into

last look at well that yeah and I think you um you kind of merged the other part which was we had talked about making sure that tier three is separate from tier two and one correct we had already done that we had talked about it but yeah I think or maybe yeah yeah yeah it's done yep it's done um I guess I okay I took what she I hadn't really thought about that much because my understanding what she said you could change the stand first off I'm not in favor of changing many standards definitely not favor of changing the noise standard yep but that's again me personally but if two things one is if

we have to pass contract zoning before we pass pass because otherwise several paragraphs in here in the best standard are are moot correct we refer to contract zoning in here and if so contract zoning doesn't pass we have a problem with best right so just is a which one you go which goes first the the head or the tail U we've been on the premise that best comes first because if contract zoning doesn't pass you still need the best standards so so wait are you saying that there's contract zoning wording in the best standard now there is I just you just said okay I see I see I see yeah I see that actually a really good point I would hope that again throwing my Prejudice and I would hope it would would pass but more importantly you have B and the intent is to negotiate stuff so if we say you can't lower any

a negotiating tool from the town to some extent it does so I guess my feeling would be why can't can't we go back we back to contract zoning but can the contract zoning allow lowering standards it could and I mean I guess if because you're going to Neo the town's going to negotiate so if the town if if the negotiation through contract zoning that comes out through the select board says to raise the minimum no uh maximum noise whatever it is the town can say hell no we're just not going to approve that so they still get it's not like you we lowering the standards and the town loses control of that yeah that was my argument so and and the attorney hasn't agreed with it that so it's not a not a law that you can't change these we don't think so I don't know just you know I would say to the select board do you lose part of your your negotiating strength guy comes in and says you know I can't do you know I remember the

comment was 40 55 is no good you got to give us 85 and so you know that to me is uh do you just say can't sorry can't do that or as you said you come up with another way of doing it I'm not trying to throw a wrench into this in the last minute I don't know I think that the way we've been working with best especially solar is that we want them to follow at least these standards nothing below them mhm right that's the premise that the town attorney is is we do not want

negotiation to hinder what we've gone through to develop these like these standards are in here for a reason we all talked about them discussed them voted on them like I don't want the select board slash you know others to like well they're making a recommendation it's still the town's decision for the whole yes but they still have to follow the standards they can't go unless the town decides to lower is a no well as proposed they can't lower that they canot now they can't I guess without without an amendment to this language right okay you can always amend this language or any other language can you do I I don't know I hate personally hate individual amendments because as soon as you amend it for that The Sawmill is going to come in and say well you know why you holding me to that yeah we've always held people to the to the 55 days 45 night yeah and there are ways to mitigate sound are you noise now no I'm

talking still still as what as an example on noise you're right I mean in my opinion if you got aund million dollar million dollar project build a sound wall yeah you know I mean there there are ways to you know I don't want to kill projects because of that and if at the end of the day going through the process the decision is to make to change the standard and the town votes yes that's the nice thing about this this process is it does allow you know the town gets the final say y can I add a clarification you may please step to the table Mr chair um I think that one thing just to consider with the contract zoning and and I think this is in line with what the lawyer was recommending is that like these are for not only Project Specific but site specific so there could potentially be the argument and I'm not saying yay or nay here just presenting this the argument that there could be some flexibility allowed

because there might be a different desire for standard for noise if something is way in the middle of nowhere out of sight and you physically can't hear it from the nearest road it's on one property owner versus right next to the school or the town office and that's where the intent is to provide um that negotiating tool to still be on the table so that's totally a policy decision for you I'll recommend on but that's the thought process behind allowing that flexibility then with the added coverage of the town has to actually choose to say we award that flexibility so it knows may be a bad one but but you know buffers and other things she's saying that the contract zoning can't change anything which to me weakens I'm not saying it's bad but it's it weakens the the town's ability to negotiate I agree and guy comes in and says I want to I don't want it put in the middle of nowhere and I don't

want to put a I don't want to put a 50- foot buffer against power line or whatever it may be that it may you know so would it be this amendment to this so let's just say this this goes through as is um this am individual amendments is

part of contract zoning or you know it in simultaneous to me you're going now you're going in with it will complicate the process you could go in with contract zoning and oh by the way we want to lower the the stand you know we're going to lower the standard put in flexibility to vary the standard I would rather see it in the contract zoning I'm just passing that on to to so be specific John sorry because I'm I'm getting confused what would you rather see what I would rather see it in contract zoning what would you rather see the ability to change the standards to to lower the standards we can raise them as is now but I'd rather see that language in contract zoning as part of the negotiations doesn't mean that select board has to recommend it or we recommend it or the reason I put it in here is because the contract zoning basically applies to lots of different uses so you could either try to put this

but it doesn't huh yeah it doesn't right now it doesn't right now but the contract zoning part of it authorizes contract zoning okay so yeah it doesn't authorize it only for bests it requires bests to go through contract zoning so it's this this trying to keep them separate but they're they're linked together so you either put that language that one paragraph there tier three best shall meet the following minimum requirements which shall not be reduced or less restrictive by the contract zoning agreement you could put that language without the best in into the contract zoning and say contract zoning cannot lower performance standards I'd be fine with that would well no why would we want to do that that's what I was getting at that was my whole thing yeah no I mean I don't think you don't agree with that I well I think they I think the town should have the ability to lower standards without going

through another nut roll so if they it goes through this part let's just say they come in they ask for no Ford I I just think being able to lower the stand is a dangerous path to be% and did the lawyer agree or she wanted that in there she wants it in there yeah so I don't understand what she's saying is there's an other path to to lower the the standards go through the these additional amendments go ahead the sorry the other path is to add them to each use best okay so that's what we're arguing against yeah I mean is is my feeling is is that you take away part of the tool for contract with contracts owning and it's up to this you know select board at the end of the day and they'll talk to their attorney but if you say UPF front that you can't lower the standards then um you limit the town's

negotiating ability yeah that you just I'm trying to not limit that negotia so what if a rocket shooting facility comes in we might want to lower those those standards again that's part of the contract negotiation I'm just trying to be like I think if we get rid of of this in the specific uses and put it in the contract zoning that's going to like help with two things one it's going to take out contract zoning the term right right so we have that problem contract zoning doesn't pass and then two my pitch I just talked about yeah but my my Pro my recommendation is that they not start out limiting the ability to change standards lower standards because it takes away a contract I mean they can always tell the town we're not going to lower that standard you know particularly in that site we're not going to change the buffer and in fact we're going to require 200 feet and because you want to go next to the

school but why would we want that subjectivity anyways like it's already I feel like contract zoning already has some of that added already you know like why would we what the purpose of it is to is to allow negotiations for stuff if we're just going to say you have to follow this why Bo why would I bother other than maybe I could put it somewhere because you're larger than x yeah but I mean you can put it somewhere else but I guess what I'm saying is you do you lose some of your negoti and I leave that you know we're not going to I think I'm hearing opinions the select board is hearing opinions it it's up to them if if they want to lose a part of their I don't want to say that the wrong way in my mind you give it up the town's ability to negotiate negotiate I mean also the lawyer is recommending this m yeah I don't know it's to me it's new because that's not what she she didn't just say specifically it's not okay to lower the

standards she did now yes she is now so I mean if that I've made my opinion I would go back to the lawyer and and say hey are you taking away our negotiation policy I'm not a big fan of but there part of the reason is you want to go on these 40 acres we want you right up against um the power line we want you 200 ft off the road we don't want you that close to a stream even though it's not in an RP area um and he may they the the guy may come come back and say you know I can't meet that noise standard and walk away or he may say crap got to put another 100,000 into sound walls or enclose it or whatever if this person is going through contract zoning they've got a lot of money and they've got a lot of like resources behind you know what I mean like I feel like one standard isn't going to they just want the project approved like yeah I'm I'm not saying it will I you know might I'm saying that we

take away one of their their negotiating tools if they're if they're if they prefer to leave that then you know and I'm not dumping it on the select board I'm just saying that's that's their there's the next step so okay I would not recommend that okay on that note though if we do keep it in the best um and say the contract zoning doesn't pass then would we and best standard passes do we need to would we hold a special meeting uh that that's probably the reason to take it out of here yeah I thought that was a really good point that you brought up John about the fact that contract zoning the words are in the standard for best but if it doesn't pass then we're Stu so here's what I here here's a suggestion why don't we go back to the prior draft submit that to the select board they can talk to the attorney and they can decide whether to put this language into the contract zoning part or put it in here I

think they they will understand from this discussion that the concern is if you put it in here and contract zoning doesn't pass then you're you're creating a real problem can you put notes on that when we do that please this is AIG yeah it was good it need to see it in black and white yeah I mean and it may be that those those things are not uh a big issue in the negotiation there may be other bigger issues they have meaning on the 11th and on the 25th but Christen will be there on the 25th okay I'll come to the 25th thank you will we be back

yesai so I guess that that's my concern about that one anybody else have any other concerns or about the I'm trying to figure out what we we do we send it to the select board with the language as is no let's do it with the prior version and then they can sort that out okay and the town attorney and I will help them so I need a a motion then EXC me sorry go ahead um

there was public comment that we received that we haven't talked about okay I had I had mentioned this about best you mean I had mentioned this earlier and um we had cled well public comment is closed but go ahead and say whatever it is okay sorry go ahead oh yeah this had actually been brought up previously and the issue is using a special fre uh spectrum of lighting that's less attractive for uh and for certain like in brown tail moth and less srup disruptive to uh Wildlife oh today

so we got it today but the issue there is that you know this is one particular use and doing lighting standards is very complicated and that shows you how complicated it can be so I think it'd be better to address that issue we're going to be doing codification and we'll probably be looking at lighting standards across the board so I think that'd be a better place to discuss it than as part of the best standards did we talk about not having lights at all for like solar yes you require you this limits it to necessary lighting for security purposes this currently on both bass and solar limits it to only necessary lighting and he was saying not go beyond that to limit the spectrum of lighting of the units to to not attract insects or disrupt Wildlife I think that's going Way Beyond where we are right now in terms of this discussion and what we're trying to do here so I think that can be brought up again when we look at light

stand okay let's just postpone that to lighting then he had an additional one that escapes me wasn't there a second yeah there was a second issue we brought up the noise we talked about that or right noise no his wasn't no it was um about landscaping and the type of oh yes yes yes I natural ground So currently in here on the buffering part we talk about uh non-invasive but in the ground cover within the project this talks about IV and other potentially invasive so right now there's somewhat inconsistency between the the planting limitations within the compound grass uh and other ground cover so his point was that should only that should prohibit I certain ivys that are invasive or something so that was the issue they brought up yeah I I I kind of agree with his um comments on lighting and the um Kelvin ratings that he that he mentioned but we also ask for um uh lighting diagrams and

uh during our site plan review we can look at that contract zone for for uh bird friendly lighting I think well we look at that now we ask for a lighting um um right but you don't have standards and he's asking for standards yeah yeah um I'm good with postponing until the next iteration of

issue um can so and it's this kind of ties into codification I know that we've taken these standards from another town and it's a great starting point for us to look at um but uh we already have a noise ordinance right and we talked about the conflicts between the wording here and what's in our current ordinance so I just would make a suggestion that um we just say that it complies with section 5.19 of our current current ordinance and leave everything after that just take it right out instead of to put the standard itself yeah you have to comply with 5.19 of our current orance period so sorry just to remind myself what how is this different than our current

at the at our last meeting what what we agreed to was striking any increase in ambient noise noise um which didn't happen so uh again just we already have an ordinance that specifies and it's clear in 5.19 so instead of um having to look at two different places to figure out what we need to um measure it by just say it needs to comply with our current or because the 55 at during day 45 at night that's what we have that's what we have right the same thing you're exactly right so the only Chang this any increase in was supposed to be stricken yep yes and but it's saying the same exact thing yeah but why have it in two different places no I agree with you I mean I I would agree George if we could change that uh I noise I noise to you know inord with

our uh whatever paragraph that is any other changes before we vote to send it fall okay seeing none do I have a um approve send make a recommendation to the select board uh recommend approval of this with the change to uh eye noise to reflect uh to state that it should be a compliance with our current ordinance and then that would be whatever those numbers are um [Music] 5.75 I and then the next one is going

back to 5.75 just the main paragraph we strike out references contract zoning and the and the the comment that tier three best shall meet the following minimum requirements that that new paragraph second we a move in a second any other

uh just for discussion should we add and consider what the lawyer recommends regarding the contract zoning I think they've they've got I'll be there I'll be there y okay and George will be there I'll second that then that's already seconded by Allan you have two I'll agree to that second okay no further comment she thirds it okay any further comments saying none please raise a hand to vote to recommend that is done I have two questions though regarding this whole thing all of this all of it all of this if you're ready John but okay I I don't want to J head okay one is um when will

the select board be making the final ordinance language decisions for all of these these things March 4th March 4th well we have a meeting scheduled for March 11th but we're going to um make the recommendation at our um next meeting to move that meeting to March 4th so we can align with the printing turnaround time for time report and stuff like that okay great and and I would just want to follow up on that if George if we get them on March 5th which would be our regular meeting but we can't do a public hearing at that meeting will that be in time what do we need to we because one of my things to close up this meeting on March 12th yeah the uh for the publication those have to be uh ready for public review on February 26th oh so we can do it for February

febrary so be ready for because we have to send the ad we have to post we have to run the ad for the March 12th meeting on February 26th but does that happen 13 days before that public does that have to include the uh the language has to be ready for public review it has to be written at that point that was my question okay so that's then changes to February 25th for the language to be drafted board yeah lawyer sorry our lawyer will be present that meeting so we'll be a to make sure that what we prepped is fair in the school La I haven't pulled an all nighter since College um okay and then so our plan was to have a public hearing meeting hear public hearing hearing because that's different than just public information yep a formal public hearing on March 12th we had heard that um maybe some

more info regarding at least contract zoning would be helpful um not sure if we we will uh as soon as the select board uh approves what they're going to put up y it's all set up for going live on the website with all the background information on all of the issues y so we have put that in planning board packets ever since last fall on various issues as as it's been developed so basically taking the summaries and everything else that I've given the planning board in your agenda notes and packet just like we did last year and the year before on the website there'll be a banner that says proposed ordinance amendments you click that it'll go to a web page that lists part one part two part three part four summary of what it is contract zoning resource protection best and historic and then there will be links for the draft amendments and uh background information like that report that explains all the RP changes the

study that was done so and the best presentation so all that information will be available on the website okay soort to be out there so I would suggest to everybody and uh Kim did a great job of kind of getting you know links to uh the stuff for tonight's meeting and all that other stuff and I'm sure Kim our Pio public information person Kimberly but you I'm sure she'll get do the same thing so that you know we'll get plenty of notice on the town blast and other places that hey it's it's all ready to go but we can't post it until the sele no I get but once it's once it's posted she'll get the word out on that so other yeah other thing I've got is um two things March 12th and then the question is do we want to move the location I thought we might we might have a crowd but based upon uh uh attendance this evening those

public hearings might be you know I don't necessarily think we have to move from here where would you want to move it well I thinking if we're going to have a big crowd Eureka but you know we don't need to move to Eureka if you know we just is the crowd we're going to is the technology okay at Eureka yeah it's no it's it's weak I I would rather do it here the technology at R is is uh is on the weak side this is much better for that black white photography in a dark room and we can fit more chairs in here yeah we could I mean you know so some people come in they want to talk RP they'll want to talk historic or they may you know whatever it's going to be so the public hearing will be in this room 6:30 on the 12th Miss Roy I don't know if this is the I should say this to you or I should say this to my board but I think I'm I'm shocked at the lack of people that are here tonight and so maybe this is the

kind of thing that needs to go out on the Text Blast to help maybe that's for us with the town manager I don't know I'm shocked at the number of people that are not here this even and I would suggest it's not for lack of notice going truthfully I mean it was on yet you know what what is 900 people get the text and I however you want to do it an extra way of you know getting the word out but you know there was plenty of notice uh and I was also surpris we didn't have more people want to follow up on RP and a couple other things but uh um we've just had so many people so

many meetings and you and i't happen people just I can't listen to those two guys I would not be opposed to that Heather at all I do think that's a select board decision yeah I I think that's I'm fine with it yeah it's fine yeah

communication well I I guess I would say to sign up for the Durham Town blast and uh and I I realize not everybody gets that but uh you know we put it out it's gone on the Facebook page before and we have not had a good turnout for the last couple of these you know we did at the at the special town meeting but you know resource protection was not what was not heavily attended so people just trust us to do the right thing I will make a motion to adjourn yes he wants me to stop talking we have a motion to adjourn second it's been seconded raise a hand we're out of here thanks to everybody who did come thank you Michael thank you for coming as always oh hey the other thing I forgot to say while I still have an audience