TranscriptMarch 25, 2021 ~ Conservation Commission Meeting

All right. You want to kick it off, George? You ready? I am ready. All right. Share my screen and Yep. It looks good. Okay. So, um, last month we met and I presented some research that was primarily done by Mike Morris, a former D Shorland zoning guy. And uh, I took his research and basically put it into a report for the planning board and had presented that to them back in August of last year. And with all of the um uh drafting work related to homebased businesses and other issues the planning board was dealing with, they never really got back to that. And uh now the town meeting is coming up in April. And uh so I just continued to do some research that um I thought it might be good and Juliet agreed to bring that to your attention just to get your input. So, uh, as I said last month, I gave you the results of that first phase of the research, which is to, uh, look at the Shorland zoning and, uh, getting Durham

into compliance with the mandatory Shorland zoning act. So this time what I'd like to do is kind of take you through uh a bigger view of resource protection because uh Durham has uh very everything in green shown on that map is is resource protection. So uh what I'd like to do is uh is just walk you through uh four questions. Uh first is

how does this resource protection compare with the state uh state laws and requirements for resource protection? And then secondly, um how did Durham's resource protection zoning as it exists right now come into place? What is the basis for it? And then thirdly, uh the town has in 2018 adopted a new comprehensive plan. And so the uh

question is what does a comprehensive plan recommend because that's what the town should be following. And then finally um assuming it were to con um continue to implement the recommendations of the 2018 comprehensive plan relating to these issues. Uh what would a refinement look like? So, I'm going to walk you through those four questions and as we did last time, I just invite uh rather than, you know, getting to the end uh if there's any part of this and I'll probably pause after each section and just see if you have questions or comments. Everybody good with that? Okay. And let me just see if this will advance. Here we go. Okay. So, uh, this is the first couple of slides are just a summary of what that report was that I presented to you last week or last month, excuse me. Um, so what is required under the mandatory shoreland zoning act uh to be covered by D

regulations for shorland zoning. And so within Durham, you've got everything within 250 ft of the uh river. Uh the runaround pond similarly is a great pond under the under state law and everything within 250 ft of that must have some form of shoreland zoning. Doesn't have to be resource protection but there have to be some limitations of development and standards that they have to go by within the 250 ft of the pond. And then the third area is um and this has just been added in Durham as of the work that was done over the last couple of years. Those large uh wetland open wetland areas. Um and they're nonforested. Some of them are wet meadows. Some of them are uh scrub shrub wetlands, but basically they have trees that are less than 20 feet tall uh across their expanse. So they're they're determined to be open wetlands and and and it's interesting in the same way that the river itself is not

regulated by shorland zoning and the pond runaround pond itself the water body is not regulated by shorland zoning. Um the wetlands within those systems are a water body not regulated by the town. Uh, and so within those open area wetlands, there are wetland regulations under D rules, but it's not part of shoreland zoning, which is kind of uh a little bit hard to to uh to

identify for people. Uh so then the last category of uh water bodies, water resources that have to be covered under shoreline zoning is everything within 75 ft of the larger streams. So, the only streams that hit that threshold in Durham are Newbrook, uh, pretty much for its entire length, if you can see that cursor, Dyerbrook up into about where the elementary school is, I think maybe a little bit beyond that. And then, uh, the east branch of Chandler Brook, which becomes the Chandler River when it gets farther down and empties into the Royal River. Uh and then uh Runaround Brook comes into

uh Runaround Pond, that little extension over to the town line and then a little bit of Libby Brook. Libby Brook does continue up through here and then um the west branch of Chandler Brook, Chandler River from the junction of the outlet of

Runaround Pond and Alderbrook which comes in here under the DP rules and the state law only from that point conjuncture of those two perennial streams to the town line is required. ired to be shorand zoning under D regulations. So those are the areas that have to be covered by some form of shoreland zoning. And of those areas, the only parts that are required under state law to be resource protection are the steep slopes and flood planes along the Androskagan River. Uh about half of runaround ponds 250

foot border is forested wetland. And if it's forested wetland of two or more acres within 250 ft of the pond under state law that has to be resource protection. And similarly, if you have forested wetlands along the 250 foot border of these large open wetlands, that also has to be resource protection. So that is pretty much what is required by the state. And so the answer to how does Durham's resource protection

real quick, George, sorry, I put my hand up, but I don't know if you could see it. Can we go back to the last slide because I just want to make sure sometimes I need to vocalize things just to make sure I'm fully uh comprehending them. Um and figure what better time is than when we have you here.

Absolutely. Yeah. Go ahead. So the dark orange is uh just before you turn the and I'm part my I see colors weird so I think that's red but yeah perfect. So the dark orange, this is just saying that mandatory shoreland zoning from the state of Maine is around the Andeskogen River and then obviously around Runaround Pond because it's considered like a great pond and then these named rivers um you know I think they're categorized as as you know blue line on a topo map or something like that makes them you know no. So whatever and then that very light orange which is down by the shoreline zoning required within 250 ft of a large open wetland

right here. Um that's a different shade. So that's not state required protection. Well, actually um this is intended to be the same shade as this one. These are both large open wetlands. And the reason is is that uh and this is part of the thing I'm going to be getting to later on and maybe into the next month's presentation is that these maps are based on various databases that don't all line up. And so Mike, so when Mike Morris did his initial analysis, u there were six wetlands, two over here by Auburn, one off Bowie Hill Road, uh

this one, I think, is that Runaround Pond Road at that point. Uh and then this one off um is that Quaker Meeting Road? Probably not. Um and then there was one here. This one didn't even show up in Mike Morris's report to the planning board, but he found it after. So, that's intended to be the same shade, and I kind of just put it in there from his research, but

Yep. Um, does that make sense? So, when you say open wetlands, you're referring to emergent. Yes. And, um, so are these one, two, three, four, five, six wetlands. Five of which were known, but one of them which was crowned later. Are they from an NWI layer or something like that?

They are. And there are seven. There were six and Mike added this seventh one. Um, and yes, those are all from National Wetland Inventory. Okay, cool. Yeah, perfect. Okay, so then the next slide, this is just resource protection and around the Andro, it's driven more by the fact that there's flood planes and steep slopes.

Correct. Um, and then the it's also because of I'm gathering that it's probably wetlands of special significance that are on the edges of those wetlands. No, actually um the this one has the ring all the way around it is actually based on um high high to moderate to high value wetland uh waterfall waiting burden waterfall.

Okay. The others are all um forested wetland two acres or more. Okay. If those are adjacent to the emergent wetland, open wetland, those then have to be resource protection. All right. And this is still, as you said, this is statemandated. This is what would be required if it was just the state regs. Okay. I just want to make sure I wrap my head around not only what we have here, but the justification behind it. So,

Oh, no. I really appreciate any and all questions like that because the more you understand it, the better we are. Yeah, Joe, that was a great point. I was actually going to make something similar because we're gonna next get into talking about the Durham.

Yeah. I think it's really important that we understand I'm talking to myself here that, you know, the the orange is state mandatory shoreland, right? The red is state mandatory resource protection. Resource protection. Yeah. So, so we've got that already, right? So far, and then we're going to add more to it. So, it's

Yeah. Yeah. And these are non-negotiable. This is what what we have to have at minimum. So, yeah. Well, it's what we have now. Yeah. We are supposed to have it. Yeah. Now, we do. Yeah. Yeah. I understand. Cool. Yeah. And and this basis for doing it is just a critical thing because as you go forward and present this to the public, you really need to know what the basis for it is. And unfortunately, when I first came to work with the town uh back in 2018, nobody really knew why the regulations were the way they are. And if you don't have good science to back up all of your land use restrictions, uh that creates some real real bad political problems, uh and undermines your attempts to do the protection of your resources. So

yeah, and actually that's a good point too, George, is that this this isn't just something that we found on NWI, Joe. It is on NWI, but we had Mike Morse from look at this and he used his science, you know, data to to back this up. So, that's a really good point. This isn't just a a layer that's out there, right, that, you know, saw. It's it's there's science behind it.

Chat, but I just curious if when he was doing his analysis, what his base map data was from. Um, and it sounds like you used NWI and some other resources as well. Yeah. And and as we go forward, if we continue with this process, and I'm going to try to get a go ahead from you each time we do this, uh, we're going to get into the details of that national wetlands inventory because there are some questions about how Durham might go forward based on so we'll be looking at those maps in detail. Okay? But I don't want to overwhelm overload your circuits because uh this stuff is really complicated and it gets very difficult. So I want to take it a step at a time and you know I'm the penultimate planner. Start at the 30 proverbial 30,000 foot level and then get down to the ground level sequentially. But if you don't have the big p if you don't have the big picture, it makes it a lot harder. And this is

where we can insert an insufferable pun about not wanting to get too far into the weeds. Right. Right. All right. Weeds. I don't care. Weeds I don't care about. It's Pete that I'm really Yeah. protection required in in Durham according to state law is that red on that map. uh everything else is far is beyond uh any state requirements.

Okay. So then the question becomes um you know so what does the town really care about that? And so the end of the report to the planning board from back in August that I did provide you with a copy of presented three options for responding to the situation and that's what we're going to talk about tonight. Uh the first option was simply to keep the current resource uh protections and only make the adjustments necessary to bring the town into compliance with the mandatory shorland zoning act. Over the last year, that has actually been accomplished. Uh the the planning board presented amendments back in November of uh last year that pretty much over work

uh overhaul the whole land use ordinance parts dealing with shoreland zoning. Uh Mike Morris also helped us review that all the language and the regulations and uh standards. And so the DP as of December u actually signed an order from the commissioner approving uh Durham's uh shorland zoning as being in compliance with the mandatory shorland zoning act. So at this point legally the town doesn't have to do anything. Uh there is a vote on the town meetings ballot to do one final adjustment to some of the language. like 98% of it was fine with the D, but there were one little part that was missing something. Uh, and so they passed a provisional order. Once we got the report back from them that we needed to make a change, we put that into the draft amendments that are on the ballot for the April town meeting. So, as of that meeting, you'll be 100% in compliance with state law as far as Shorland zoning is concerned. So,

the first option has really already been accomplished. checking Miles and I gifts. Yeah. And she said to come by the end of the road to our mailbox and she gave us these. Yeah. Very nice, guys. Hey, I'm still in a meeting. Can I can I I'll come and check it out later.

is to pretty much take the the shoreland zoning um and make that the basis for resource protection and only have the state required resource protection. Um that would be a second option is to is to not just rework what you've got now to meet the minimum state requirements and but it would be to bring the level of protection down to that minimum. That would be the second option. Uh so pretty much get away from the current resource protection zoning uh and go back to the

uh just having the minimum uh state D required resource protection. The third option is to look at where are the where is this current resource protection zoning really out of whack with the state requirements because the state doesn't require it. um and theirs usually are based on sound research and data. So the third is calibration of the

resource protection. Not keeping it way up at the most restrictive level that it is now. Uh not taking it all the way down to the state minimum, but calibrating it according to the best available natural resources inventory. So this presentation and the research that I'm providing to you is is aligned toward that third track. And uh so that's kind of what I'm focusing on. I want to try to provide you with that data to get give you a sense and hopefully get some direction from you for moving forward along the lines of the third one. But again, legally the town is good uh at this point in terms of, you know, if there's any land use disputes, litigation, and you ever had to go to court to enforce what you've got, um you would uh you're on solid legal ground.

And George, sorry, sorry, Joe, real quick. Um and um uh what we've got and I'm just going to show it everyone's you know we've got those areas that are statemandated right and then we've got the Durham right those are that's what we have right now

well everything that is statemandated is within the Durham resource protection yeah yeah yeah but I mean goes above and beyond yeah yes so I just wanted to make everyone aware, you know, that's what we've got right now is is all of it really in a in in a way.

So my question, George, would be then, so number two, adopt the full framework of shoreline zoning provided by D shorland zoning guide, abandon the town's total resource protection policy would essentially just be the orange and yellow map that you had that and nothing extra. Correct.

Yeah. Basically, what you would do is is this would all stay resource protection in the red, but this would go to stream protection and and not all of these streams. I'm sorry. You have lots of these other streams. If you see over here in the green,

yes, th those would be pulled out of resource protection. They would still be protected by the NRPA rules for stream alteration, but they would not have a 100 foot buffer on either side of it that can't be touched because it's resource protection.

Yeah. And a lot of these flood planes areas, which we're going to get into, um those would come out of resource protection and then they just be ruled by the flood plane uh management. So there are other regulations that are less restrictive than the ones, but this is like

the state requires you to be. I thought I unmuted myself. Um the question is um did you say that in your presentation tonight you were planning to um go over something about how Durham's more restrictive um regulations came into being what the thought process was.

Yes. We did finally find documentation after a lot of diggings. Okay. Yep. And that's actually I think the next part of this. Okay. Is everybody I just wanted to wrap my head around each option before we move move forward. So

y again three options are uh just do what you need to do to get into compliance. That's already done. Second is to roll back the regulations to the minimum state requirements. And the third is to calibrate your system. And that's the track that I'm going to pre follow in presenting this to you tonight. Okay. So, next question is how did Durham's restrictive RP zoning get to where it is today? And uh I it actually goes back to

the 2002 comprehensive plan update. And I don't know how many of you have been around uh that long or longer, but at that time all southern Maine was really being inundated by lots and lots of development. Um you know, many towns were doing uh as a matter of fact, Durham followed suit with most of the other towns and putting on growth caps uh only allowing a certain number of houses to be built each year. uh and that that was in the 2002 plan that actually went forward into the regulations. So at that time there was a lot of concern for the impacts of development on towns like Durham. Andrew Scoggin uh county or uh Androsco

County Council of Governments uh actually did a plan at that time for Durham and the recommendations in that plan are the basis for the current zoning and uh regulations on the map. So in that 2002 version of the comprehensive plan which was just updated in 2018 uh they pro provided the uh principles

and criteria for establishing what parts of Durham would be put into resource protection zoning and the first is flood planes. Uh there's no requirement under state law that flood planes be in resource protection which pretty much limits any development. Uh what the state does require as as does the federal government um that you have flood plane regulations to to ensure that if you do put development into flood planes, it is flood resistant if not floodproof and minimizes the damage and threats to public life. But, you know, as we've seen all over the country and right here in Maine, there's a lot of development within flood planes. But Durham's recommendation in 2002 in the

comprehensive plan was to say look there doesn't need to be development in there's not a lot of development there now in the flood plane along say the uh river and the town does not want to encourage that uh as the the place to have future development go. So flood planes not just along the river but the brooks as well as runaround pond all have flood plane uh and it says make that resource protection. The second criterion was large wetlands and they

use the number that has been used by the state for recent history which is anything 10 acres or more. Um, and the difference between what the state regulates and what Durham's comprehensive plan recommended was, you'll notice it says, uh, these many of these wetlands are forested wetlands and are not subject to mandatory shoreline zoning. Durham in 2002 said, "Look, whether it's open wetland or forested wetland, it's not a suitable place to have development and therefore we're going to make it resource protection." But I will point out the wetland itself, which is a little bit different than the way way the state does. So outside of the wetland under the 2002 comprehensive plan, there was no shoreland zoning applied to those large forested wetlands. Juliet, did you have a question? Okay,

I just yelling at my child. Oh, sorry. Uh then the third area is shorland areas and it talked about basically putting everything required to be ma mandatory shoreland zoning uh put into the resource protection as opposed to allowing limited residential development or some other form of development within those areas subject to shoreland zoning standards.

So the three areas were again all flood planes, all wetlands over 10 acres and all mandatory shoreline zoning areas. And so this was the map uh that is in the 2002 comprehensive plan showing 100red-year flood planes. So you see along the river, you see extensive areas around uh runaround pond

um Meadowbrook. This whole area here drains both half of it drains to Metobrook, the other half to uh Dyerbrook or excuse me, Newbrook. Uh so this was the map they used and I'll show you later. This isn't even close to accurate. I'm not sure where this map came from, uh, who prepared it, what database they used, but looking at the latest FEMA flood plane mapping, which is a lot more accurate, um, than was done back in in that time period of the 1990s. Uh, so anyway, that's the basis on which most of the resource protection that's currently on the map uh was was determined.

inventory at the time uh late 1990s uh around 2000. And so you see extensive wetlands all across town in particular areas are inundated because of topography and hydraology. Uh so that was also a recommendation of the 2002 plan to put uh anything over 10 acres uh into resource protection whether it's open water uh emergent or um forested

wetland. Yeah, it seems like a lot of this uh is overlapped by the flood plane map as well. Absolutely. It is. Yeah. Now, if you look at that map, you know, how do you determine what's 10 acres or more? And that's a lot of land to put into resource protection. So, I I wasn't here and I haven't there I haven't seen town records of the proceedings of the planning board or anybody else. But what went into the zoning map, one of the versions of the zoning map back then was that in determining which of these wetlands to include in the resource protection, they used as a as a basis,

and it says right on one of the versions of the zoning map, areas as defined on largecale tax maps. And uh I colored up this version. Uh if you look at your tax maps on your town website, you'll actually see these swamps uh depicted on those on those maps. So doesn't you know it's part of what is on this page uh but

doesn't line up exactly with it. But that was the basis on which they decided which of those large wetlands to include in the sh in the resource protection zoning. And then you see uh the other three were uh brooks 100 feet on either side center line of all brooks um perennial streams

uh the 250 ft along the river and around runaround pond. And then it says on this zoning map the flood plane uh as to show you how outdated the information was as as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers 1936 flood of record. So um

that's that's the basis on which so it came to be as it is now uh the zoning map which is you see November 3rd 2020 last time it was updated uh that is based on the 2002 comprehensive plan which recommended all flood planes uh all large forest all large wetlands over 10 acres whether forested or not forested nonforested and then all areas covered by mandatory shoreline zoning would also be put into the resource protection. So that's the basis on which the current zoning is is uh is in place. So what does the 2018 comprehensive plan update which went through a public process went through a town meeting and was adopted uh was certified by the state as being consistent with the growth management act which is another framework of of uh legislation that controls planning and regulation land use regulation at the local level. So part of that process was to do some public input and the town put a survey

on uh through the Greater Portland Council of Governments uh on the website and um almost 400 people responded to that which is pretty amazing for an electronic uh survey input of of a town the size of Durham. And so part of the survey looked

at the question of how does the town want to approach growth management. The town had since 2002 adopted this growth area saying that 70% of the town's growth should occur in that southwest bend growth district which is about from the elementary school down to the river and then on either side of the corridor Royalsboro Road corridor. Um, and that wasn't working. The town, it didn't pass state muster for how it was going to be done. And so, but that was one of the scenarios that was presented to the public during the comprehensive plan update process. Um, the second option, and let me just zoom in a little bit so you can see these. I don't know if you can read them and if I can do that. Yeah. Okay. So question 15 on that survey was which of these three strategies is the best growth management approach for Durham over the next 20 years? And so the first was adopt policies that will result in

the majority of new homes being built on smaller lots in the southwest Ben Growth District in the center of town and limit the construction of new homes in other parts of town to preserve rural character and protect natural resources. That was the plan that was adopted in 2002 and the town could have continued down that track. Uh only make it a real plan that would work to do that. Uh second option was to allow home new homes to be built anywhere in town as long as the lots are large and the plan defined that as being 2 acres or more. uh natural resources are protected and views from development to public roads and neighborhoods are buffered. So basically continued the rural zoning of uh Durham and uh but ramp up the the

resource protections that are part of that. So people can build their houses anywhere on twoacre lots but if there are wet land streams and other environmental issues the town should be doing a better job in terms of regulating that. And the third option which I kind of talked about earlier under those how do we move forward and uh that's to uh basically roll back the land use regulations to make it easier to develop land and build new homes. Allow homes to be built on smaller lots anywhere in town as long as minimum state environmental standards are met. And basically, you know, half an acre of land. you if you can get a passing soil test and have a well and meet the groundwater nitrate standards, you could build on as small as a half acre of land under main law. And someone would say, well, why would you want to allow that? Well, affordable housing is one issue many towns look at those issues. And

maybe not allow that everywhere in town, but at least in some places. But we wanted to present, you know, a a fair spectrum of policy options rather than, you know, the typical criticism is you've come in, your minds are already made up and you're just taking our input so that you can say you did it. We wanted to fairly give what are the options for Durham. And then the fourth uh scenario at the the public forums that we did was say look maybe it's a mixture, maybe it's some something else. So we tried to give just every opportunity for the town's people to decide what direction they want their town to go in. So as a result of the surveys and then I'll take your question Robera, most participants in that process both in terms of the survey as well as the public forums uh did not support rolling back the regulations. nor did they, a majority, support the concentrated growth. Uh, most of them

were pretty much along the lines of the status quo, which is large lots spread all over town. Roberta, I was just going to say one thing that bothers me now that I'm looking at the survey is nowhere does it address how the areas are connected in terms of

ecological value or you know like wildlife corridors or you know it says to protect natural resources but you know if you're planning a bought on two acres and you know Durm allows that. I mean, isn't there something about if there's a deer yard? Well, I think there always was if there's a deer yard nearby or I mean, you know, you could be building a lot right where they come through and that type of thing isn't being taken into account, it seems. currently that's correct. However, the 2018 uh Durham comprehensive plan includes the beginning with habitat inventories which includes large undeveloped blocks of land. It includes wildlife corridors.

So there's nothing to prevent the conservation commission or other constituencies within the community to push forward and advocate for those types of environmental protections. However, in the process that occurred in up until two-year process from 2016 to 2018, there was not a lot of public input in that direction. So that's kind of where it came out was and and recognizing you know in a small town it's very difficult to do uh environmental protections. The fact that there is so much resource protection shocked me when I started working with the town because it it is amazing for a very relatively conservative and rural town uh the size of Durham to have that much resource protection. Um, so, um,

yeah, one thing I think is an, if you don't mind me interjecting real quick, is an interesting thing is that, you know, often when you have scenarios where you have three or four choices, you're looking at what gets a plurality, not necessarily a majority. And the takeaway here for me is that um, scenario B, one outright majority of people's, you know, choices. And he said it was sounds like it was about 10% of the town's population that responded to this.

Oh yeah. Yeah. That's I just find that interesting. And it seems like um you know there's a desire to keep lots large. The way I read this is you know there's also the desire to preserve you know they say the rural character and natural resources which you know in a in a in some regards with

us having already a lot of you know resource protection is limiting development in some of those areas that would be unbroken habitat blocks highlighted in beginning with habitat and stuff like that you know so I just think it's an interesting that it seems like people are relatively happy with uh with that approach, you know, by quite quite a large margin.

Yeah. We never really defined, you know, when people say rural character. Yeah. It's never really been defined what is rural character. I mean, they want to have places to, you know, have agriculture. They want to have areas to hunt. Um they have traditional places

where they've gone swimming on the river. They, you know, would rather not have a house there. But nobody really, I don't think, talked about the details of what Yeah. You know, what do you feel rural character is? It's very hard to get your arms around that. And it varies across the state. You know, if you look at the two mains in the other Maine where I originally came from, you know, rural is uh logging and and farming.

Uh in southern Maine and I used to work with a conservationist, a landscape architect named Gary Fog who did a lot of work for Thompson's conservation commission. And he came up with the best depiction of rural character that I've heard. And basically what he said was rural character from the standpoint of a suburbanite is when you're driving along the road and the landscape dominates

your visual senses. Yeah. And compare that with driving through a suburb a suburb in there in in rural the landscape is the dominant visual character and the buildings are secondary to the landscape. in a suburban setting, urban, suburban, it's the buildings that are the dominant view and the landscape is secondary. I just thought that was very helpful. And I think for most people in southern Maine, it's that definition of rural that is really what's driving them. Not I want to see farms with their tractors and their manure being spread on the fields or I want the log of the chainsaws going at, you know, uh 7 o'clock in the morning. that depiction of rural in this part of Maine. I just don't don't think that's what people care about.

Right. And even um choice B, it stood out to me where it said views from development to public roads and neighbors are buffered. In other words, if you just have they're just seeing them as just like tree tree. Okay, we're all set.

They're not seeing it as habitat. Yeah. But if you think about like I remember during the discussion they had u there's a development I think just across the town line might have been in Pel where they had agricultural fields and they put the houses all through the field. Uh that is what people are saying I don't want to see that happen. That's that's destroying the rural character. Wildlife habitat on broken habitat blocks that's not what they're thinking.

Yeah. We used to talk more about open space. Yeah. also I think was part of the definition of rural character though they would call it open space. Yeah. But again just remember comprehensive planning is an ongoing process and this isn't you know this isn't locked in at this point. You know typically you update it every five years and redo it every 10 years. So, you know, part of the uh mission of the conservation commission can be to look at the environmental aspects and try to bring that into the process to offset some of the other concerns of of town people.

Yep. And strike a balance, which is what I've always my career tried to help towns achieve. Okay. So, let me keep going uh and to a different view and then come back in and try that again. Let's see if I can advance now. There we go. Okay. So, let's see. we were through the 2002 which was the basis for the current zoning uh and now we're into what does the 2018 comprehensive plan recommend and so out of that public participation process uh the planning board uh drafted and presented at town meeting a series of uh natural resource water resource and natural resource strategies and the three that relate most directly to the to this issue of the resource protection zoning uh include recommend uh strategy 2.4 underwater resources which is to make the land use ordinance and zoning map consistent with main D guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning. Again, that has been accomplished. Uh then 2.1 under natural resources was

to revise the zoning map to reflect the most recent FEMA flood plane. uh should be plane not plan mapping and apply the resource protection zoning. So keep resource protection on the flood planes but make sure the map that it serves at the as the basis is accurate and then I mentioned Roberta bringing in the uh beginning with habitat maps and those do look at those issues of the habitat blocks rare plant species those sorts of things. uh and they and even the state uh presents to towns as a model looking at the places that have the conglomeration accumulation of those natural resources as the place you really want to focus your attention on whether it's land acquisition programs or uh regulatory

limitations on development in those areas. Uh and then finally in in uh recommendation 4.2 strategy 4.2 to ensure that the land use ordinances are consistent with applicable state law regarding critical natural resources including deer yards, waterfall nesting areas, wetlands, and endangered plants and animals. So, the plan over here in the red calls for refining Durham's regulations to better reflect uh data on natural resources. And the plan itself includes a lot of that data. So you see this is the most recent FEMA flood plane mapping and I'll uh in a little bit I'll show you how that overlaps with the 2002 version. You can just if you can remember that gray map it's far less extensive than what they thought in 2002. So basically you have along the uh Androskogan River and what happens here and I don't know how familiar you are with the way these rivers work. Basically, you have a dam at Lisbon

and during the major major floods like 1996. Um, that dam holds back the flood waters coming down from up the watersheds and uh and so a lot of this is it's lowlying along the road here, but the the dam is is aggravating and extending the flood areas. So, a lot of these streams like this right here, uh what's happening is the water's backing up. These steep slopes constrain it and so it starts the water starts flowing up these streams uh during those major floods. Uh these roads like here, swamp road, those roads pre uh create dams as well that create flooding because those culverts going under the road are are not adequate to hold flood waters. So, but even so, if

you compare, and I will in a minute, the the 2002 mapping of flood plane compared to the actual FEMA flood plane, it's it's not even close to accurate. Um, actually, I'm sorry, it is the next slide. So, what I did was I overlaid in a transparency. The red uh and I'll zoom in just a little so you can see better. Um so the red is the FEMA mapping and the gray is the 2002 flood plane map that Chicago County used and uh and it's far less extensive um based on the actual most recent data for flood planes.

wetland inventory, national wetland inventory. Uh this is the latest and GP cog who you're doing your uh land use planning with now instead of Andrew AFCOG. Uh they did the went by the national wetlands inventory and all wetlands 10 acres or more inside in size both

uh forested wetlands as well as emergent wetlands. So that is the best available current natural resources data on wetlands. Uh here is the beginning with habitat. Uh this is also in the 2018 comprehensive plan and basically beginning with habitat as I mentioned recommends really focusing your efforts on areas containing multiple natural resources and those are listed over here as being rare and exemplary natural communities, rare plants, listed animals, significant wildlife habitats, riparian zones and water resources. and then those undeveloped habitat blocks like this one right here. Uh so what they did was they kind of created a qualitative assessment of trying to say okay which of these are the most important and so based on these rankings of and values. Uh so for example uh

critical impaired critically impaired has a value of four and compare that with uh uh threatened species with a with a buffer has a value of two. Species of special concern and that obviously is ranking coming down uh from endangered species classification uh gets a value of one. So wherever the darker the green the higher the values and the um conjuncture of values. And so

what the comprehensive plan in adopted in 2018 said anything in the dark green six or greater consider uh for either I'll go back to that chart uh either resource protection or mandatory clustering to preserve those natural resources to the maximum extent possible. So these are the most recent natural resources inventories available to the town.

recognizing whenever you're talking about increasing environmental protections especially uh for a town um which has as much as it does already in Durham. Um, one possible strategy for moving forward is to say, look, if something is currently in resource protection because of these convergence of values, um, if you're going to recalibrate and consider taking anything out of resource protection, those areas are not where you would do it. So, this comprehensive plan could be used to say, look, if we're going to start refining the resource protection. We're going to use the beginning with habitat criteria to say even if an area isn't currently uh under the current flood plane uh and but it has all these natural resources values, we're going to keep that in resource protection.

sorry about that the last map there? Yeah. the that you had up the beginning with habitat. Uh it says area the second one. Next one. Yep. So this shows a significantly fewer areas with that are uh being called valued areas currently zoned as resource protection than what is a um has six or more on the other map.

Yes. And and the reason is that in terms of refining what's there now this is not at this stage advocating and again this is all subject to discussion and your yeah I understand but just my starting place in terms of look it would be hard to argue against

saying areas that are currently resource protection if we're going to be refining this the comprehensive plan says areas six or higher be considered for resource protection. You don't need to consider it. It's already there. So what this

my question So my my question is on this map right here it's saying that these are beginning with habitat highv value areas currently in resource protection. Yes. But there are more spaces on the beginning with habit areas on the beginning with habitat map that have six or more occurrences. So I was just wondering what the discrepancy there is.

Okay. So again, in my view, what I would recommend is a staged process where you re-calibrate your resource protection zoning to accurately reflect the best available natural resources inventories. And once you have it calibrated to that, then you can consider that recommendation,

provided by inland fishers and wildlife to identify areas with a co-occurrence value of six or greater for any other areas that are six or greater. but do that as a separate process because it's adding on more land restrictions.

Yeah. So, I guess what I'm asking is that map that you just showed, is that saying these are areas that have six or more occurrences but are already resource protected via another mechanism. They're already in your zoning resource protection and all you're advocating is keeping it there.

Okay. Yeah, that's what I was just trying to understand. So this isn't this isn't the six or more co co-occurrences. This is just saying these are things that have six or more co-occurrences but are already protected under a different classification due to flood planes or wetlands and things like that.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, perfect. I just wanted to clarify for myself. That's very again very important to understand what is what is being presented here. So, does that mean that if we were going to go to the beginning with habitat uh maps and strictly just

say, "Okay, anything, you know, 6 to 8 um that we want that in resource protection." Does that mean we would be adding um resource protection that is does not currently exist? So we'd be adding things and then Okay. So there'd be even more.

It sounds a lot unless we subtracted some. Sounds a lot like refining this like what like what currently exists where we're refining this. where we're finding these protocols and uh and where we're going to go from there, which which especially if we're going to, you know, say finish this part and then move on to other areas that are six or greater but not yet reflected on this map that we're looking at. Hey, we'll have some precedence and a bit more guidance. So, I think it makes sense to uh to address this area first and then expand to that.

Yeah, that that's my thinking and approach. Yeah. Yeah. Uh but again, when we get to the end, I'm going to be looking for you folks to say, "Okay, let's continue in that direction." Or you could say, "No, let's let's go in the other direction."

Yeah. And my question was just confirming what what we're looking at right now. I wasn't trying to start the That is going to be a whole different discussion on what we want to recommend. I just want to make sure that what I was understanding now is that these are just areas that are already being captured.

Yeah. In the mechanisms. Everybody with me? Yep. All right, let me just keep going. We're almost getting closer to the last set of questions. So, assuming that you did go in the direction of the comprehensive plan recommendations, but simply re-calibrating what you've got for resource protection to match the most recent uh wet wet land, flood plane, and other natural resources inventories. What would that look like? Um and so I think a comparison for a process is what the town did in the 2002

recommendation uh as well as the 2018 plan related to aquifers. So this map was done by COG and it shows this was up until 2019 the aquifer protection district was sh is what was shown in red. And that goes back to old standing gravel acquirer maps that are outdated. And in 2011, the state did the geological survey and showed that the actual with more detailed analysis, these blue areas are act the actual low yield sand and gravel acquers and the dark blue is where you get a certain flow rate out of wells or high high value high yield. And so in the last iteration of the zoning map amendments, um the aquifer protection district was revised from the red to the blue. And so what you see on the zoning map now, these blue areas, see that red used to come all the way out into this area. And the problem with that is is that you've got land that's outside of the aquifers that's being regulated and you got land

that's actually in the aquifers that's not being regulated according to the aquifer protection standards. So it's very important on all of this to try to use the best available data. And so that would be what I would sell this as is what we're doing is the same thing we did with the aquifers. The maps weren't accurate and we're calibrating the maps to match the natural resource inventories. And so what that would look like and here are the criteria that I've come up with to maybe guide that process. And this is really where the rubber hits the road in my presentation and discussion with you. Uh first keep 100red-year flood planes uh rivers, runaround pond, and streams, but just limit the flood plane itself, not an old map version. Secondly, uh all areas subject to mandatory shoreland zoning. That was recommended in the 2002 plan. And although the current plan doesn't specifically um advocate that it's nothing in there

says to change it. So what's on there that's shoreland zoning would all be resource protection. Going back to the gold maps, remember uh third criterion would be instead of a 100 feet from a stream, DP and all of the uh state regulations

have been calibrated by them to go to 75 ft because they had some were 100, some were 75. And the state just to avoid confusion brought consistency to all of their regulations to be 75 feet from a stream. And so that would be a possible calibration here. They'll calibrate it with this DP. So you don't have somebody out there, which has actually happened in Durham where they D said it was 75 ft. They built their foundation 84 feet from the stream and the town said it's got to be 100 feet. So that's a that's a bad situation where you got one agency telling them one thing, another agency telling them something different.

Yeah. But doesn't local ordinance take precedence over state? Absolutely. You can be more restrictive. Yeah, you can be. But what is the science behind that? And if you want to make a case for 100 feet is far more protective than 75 feet, you can try to do that. But you should have science to back it.

Yeah. Yep. Okay. So, uh, land within the forested wetland of 10 acres or more and I've added this having done some additional research which we'll get into next time along with all contiguous wetlands. So, let's say you've got uh a 10 acre forested wetland or say 12 acres and there's a 2

acre emergent wetland that's right on the edge of it. Uh if you go by only 10 acres or more and but they're two separate wetland classifications, the whole wetland system is what should be considered. And we'll get into those weeds, Pete, next time. Uh but I just

wanted to lay out some criteria that we can explore in more detail next time. Uh so one would be based on the 2002 comprehensive plan based on the current zoning uh basically use a criterion for consideration for uh recalibrating the resource protection include all forested wetlands 10 acres or more along with any contiguous wetlands uh with it. And that's more restrictive than the state is. And similarly, those emergent open wetlands, non-forested, again, if there's a 2 acre forested wetland on the edge of a 10 acre, include the two acres of forested with it as one system.

emergent wetland. Okay. Under state law, there is a provision for reducing the 250 ft around those open wetlands down to 75 ft. And we can get into the pros and cons of that and details next time, but I just want to lay out these criteria as possible considerations for refining the resource protection zoning based on the research that I've done. And then seventh would be under state law if those open emergent wetlands are rated as moderate to high value for water waiting and water foul that has to be 250 ft around it. But for all the others and I think there might be one or two that meet that criterion. All the others you don't need to have resource protection and you don't even need to have 250 ft around that swamp. treated like it's along the edge of the Andrew Scott River or runaround pond.

with habitat as having six plus multiple natural resource areas but only that are currently in resource protection as we just discussed. So if you were to do that, what would that map look like? So, I've actually gotten GP Cog to do a first crack at this. And so, what it looks like is this. So, on the left is

the existing resource protection. And I'm going to zoom in. green. It's just one color here to help compare. Uh so you see the river, you see the flood plane along the river, you see the flood planes along the streams, this large area which is a lot of uh forested wetland uh runaround pond as well as this very large wetland area um and then the streams themselves. Okay, so that is currently based on a lot of outdated natural resources inventories primarily the flood planes. Uh and so what this calibration would look like is to really get more accurate boundaries of this stuff based on the most recent flood plane data. So you can see along these streams it shrinks down from probably about 300 ft on either side of the stream down to the 75.

Now if there is flood plane along the stream it would extend out with that to the edge of that flood plane. So some of these areas are going to be wider than the 75 ft on either side, but only where the flood plane extends beyond them. So this map is a first cut at applying

those eight criteria. And if you're supportive of moving in this direction, then next time what I'd like to do is zoom in on this map. Sorry. um zoom in on this map and start looking at some of these and I'll give you a little kind of a preview. This wetland right here, can you see where the hand is? That is a 10acre wet land, but there's a wetland right beside it that's 8 acres and and is a part of a continuous system. But because the National Wetlands Inventory gives a different classification to this 8acre, it comes out as being not showing up on the map. And that's kind of the finetuning. But again, to go through all of that work of trying to refine those types of situations, if you're not supportive of, you know, moving in this direction, u then that's a lot of work. That would just be a lot of waste of time.

next time, what I'd like to do next time is kind of walk down through some of these and particularly from number four on that's where it really gets uh really gets complicated, but I thought I'd start out with the 30,000 view first.

No, this is good, George. So, one thing um that I'd like the commission to think about is um that I'm thinking about is if we are going to do this based on science, right? Based on data, which I think we we need to do, right? This is what we talked to residents about back in 2018, George, and you know, it's it's the truth. That's what we want to do. Then I feel like we need to like with the um BW maps, we need to look beyond

just the areas that are already within our resource protection. Um just because if we if we only include what you know we drafted back in whoever then that's not data you know that's not science that's just limiting us you know um

just the thought at least to look at it see what it looks like and then we can go from there but I I don't know why we wouldn't just just politically the my suggestion would be having done this for 40 years. If you start out with

re-calibrating it based on existing zoning and the best natural resources data, you have a chance of getting it approved. uh if you start going beyond current regulations, whether the science supports it or not, there's going to be, you know, and a lot of this stuff isn't black and white that yes, we need to protect that un unforested, excuse me, unbroken habitat block. You have to make a pretty strong case for it. And my concern and experience has been if you start layering on issues, it

gets so complicated that the average voter just throws up their hands and say, "Let's not do anything." uh as opposed to if you build credibility and trust by saying look we're going to start with just fixing what's broken here and then we're going to come back in the next phase and start looking at other resource issues including beginning with habitat and take that planning board recommend or excuse me comprehensive plan recommendation to consider resource protection or mandatory clustering for areas that are currently not protected by resource protection, but do that as a separate process because that's complicated enough.

You lay it you layer that on top of this and you end up potentially jeopardizing this important refinement, but other argument playing the opposite argument to say look if you if you get this people going to say we've had enough. And so, you know, it's not like either way is is perfect, but just my experience is

coming in and really having a solid case for what you're doing based on look, it's already there now. We're not really changing that. We're just fixing it. Yeah. Yeah. George, what what Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Juliet. So, one last thing. I I hear you, George, completely. Um, I would like to look at it, though. You know, I would see what where are those areas? Is it really like majorly different than what we've got on the right hand screen? You know, is it is it a major increase? I I'd like to just see it. Um

honestly, the righth hand screen there are some areas that are quite different um compared to the left hand, right? Like your like the the wetland complex in the um northwest actually if you can see the arrow. Yeah. this area here which is based on outdated data.

This shrinks down over here. Yeah. But this this wet land system right here Yeah. is not currently protected over here. And then it go to the west the very edge of our town over here. Yeah. Right there. Yeah. So you can see how this would increase protections for these wetland and stream systems over what's there now.

Yeah. I I think Go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry. No, no, please, George. Go ahead. So, what I'm saying is again politically what you're telling people, look, yeah, we are going to be adding these areas because the science supports it. We're going to be taking out these areas where the science doesn't support it. And whether it goes which way is really not the issue. The issue is what does the science support. So when we when you said um not looking at the BW outside of the RP, the resource protection that that was for just the BW, but for wetlands or flood planes, we looked outside of the existing RP. Is that right?

Yeah. There are going to be some areas like along the river here where that boundary actually expands because the most recent flood plane. But again, some land owners are going to have their land more restricted and others are going to have restrictions that aren't supported removed. And you want to be able to say to both sides, you know, whether they're getting more restrictions or restrictions are on there unfairly. You want to say, look, we're being fair to everybody and we're following the signs. That's why I' I'd really like to see the six and up everywhere because if in those areas where we're adding and we can show there's six and up as well, you know, then there's more proof in the pudding, you'd say, in that data, you know.

know Zach's been trying to say something a little bit as well. Yeah. No, I'm I'm just I'm looking at this and we're we're basically I I see us at kind of sort of a junction here on strategy and I think it's going to be pretty important for us to to come to an alignment here in the group before we uh before we jump too too much further down this path. I I think that uh yeah, I it's it sounds like having good data is important to everybody. It sounds like we've got a reasonable amount and I think we have to have a discussion between ourselves to sort of see uh uh where where we should go with that data and what strategy might be best because what you're saying George is makes a lot of sense. Um you know at at this point now we just have to we have to sit and I I think as a group we need to look at some of the specifics get get into some of the gritty detail on our own and maybe uh maybe from there come to a come

to a conclusion on where we go. Oh, am I am I reading the room here here maybe the same way everyone else is? Yeah. My question is so what's the George is George what's your plan with us for next meeting April 1. Okay. So again this isn't the end of the discussion. This is the beginning of the discussion

and so you can keep those larger policy issues in the background and and recognizing you're going to have to make those calls. But for now, what I'm trying to do is give you the information and just explain what's there now, what's in the comprehensive plan, possible directions. You remember with the planning board, I said your three options are to uh just bring yourself into compliance with state law on shoreline zoning. Secondly, to roll back the regulations to the minimum estate or to calibrate. So every step of this process as I help you what will I'll be giving you those options. So I'm suggesting and and pre prepared a strategy that says let's limit at this point the uh beginning with habitat to this but we could certainly after you have those lot larger policy discussions and strategy discussions we could expand this to be everything that's six plus on the map but think about the pros and cons of that

politically and practically. So again I'm not trying to lock you into anything or limit any of your options. My main thing here is to give you the information but present it in a way that you could begin to start thinking about some of these options.

Yeah, I think that um you know the discussion of data driven decision- making is obviously very important and you know I think that I see both sides of the argument with if you try to take too much you might get nothing. But I also think that there's just as much if not a little bit more validity in if you don't go for what you want, you're not going to get another shot at it. Um, right.

And I think that one thing, you know, that we can talk about is, you know, outside of the ecological sense here, it the give and take. you know, we want to take more space to utilize um with resource protection or whatever utilizing uh the most up-to-date beginning with habitat data six plus co-occurrences. At the same time, we're also saying, you know, we're about the data. So, that's why we're reducing the we're utilizing the new FEMA maps. That's why we're also going to talk about reducing some of our larger stream buffers of 100 feet down to 75 feet because we're trying to make data driven decisions. So it's not like hey we're trying to use the data when it's convenient but then go extra just because we want to when it's not. So I think that there'd be value in looking at the map with essentially what I I like the eight. So, I I kind of had already made a list before the meeting of things that I was just

thinking about. And I like these eight things here. They all really um jive with what, you know, the cut of my jib. But at the same time, I think that if we're going to use the data driven decision-m, we should probably include the six co- occurrences, which was the only thing on my list that I, you know, didn't necessarily see in right here. So, at least take a look at the map, see in my opinion, see what it looks like, and go from there. Um you know especially because we know that this 50% of the town had said they want to conserve the rural characteristic protect the resources and when they say things like we want buffers um you know those buffers many of them are captured in the beginning with habitat data and if you turn a layer of potential crossings and stuff like that they're lining up well with these places that already have six co-occurrences. So, I'll start rambling. Stop rambling. But

that's just kind of my thought on it that it might be hard to get something and then go back and ask for more because it's going to be like, well, we already gave you that. Why not? Why do we want to give you more? You know,

George, is there any way that we could have access to the last two or three slides? I think I'll send them all to you. Okay, that'd be great because just for myself just to look at them and I know the beginning with habitat

um stuff is already in so on on the uh beginning with habitat let me just suggest that as far as your analysis goes and your policy decision making I think everybody hopefully would agree that from your perspective keeping the

RP on areas that are six plus is a no-brainer in terms of every everybody would be in agreement with that I'm assuming but then the question becomes do you go beyond that so what we can do is do this analysis in these two parts so keep this separate because this everybody's in agreement with assuming you are and then we'll see whether you then you can make your focus your policy discussion on should we expand it or not and here's another thought is that when and if th this goes forward to town meeting, you can make a similar decision on whether to couple these in a in a single amendment or a warrant article or present them as as a package where one can pass and one can fail or both can pass or both can fail. So that way, and that's what we've done, as as Juliet will attest, on a lot of these issues, if you got one part of it that's just taking a lot of political fire, you don't lose the whole ball game over that

one issue. And this could be one that you get a lot of political fire on. of going beginning with habitat going to everything in six plus six or more, right? It it could and we'll look at it. It could affect a lot more than this right here.

Oh, yeah. So, we could we at least for your discussion purposes it it makes sense to me to to talk about it separately. But I do want to Yeah, I I agree. I agree and and I hear you definitely like But the the the maps that you just showed us side by side, it's got

we're looking at beyond BW data. We're looking at, you know, there's wetlands in there. There's flood planes that are above and beyond the RP. So, it's almost like we have to include BW, the wetlands, the flood plane, all of that that's outside the RP in one.

And then then everything in the RP. Yeah, I'd like to I think I think I agree with Juliet. I'd like to see this map on the right with the BW6 plus co-occurrences on it as well and see what that looks like and and start from there in terms for our discussions. That'll be a useful overlay.

Yeah. What you're saying, George, in that like the RP, we can we can look at the whole thing, right? And then we can look at what's in the RP right now as far as a policy decision down the road, right? But yeah, We can uh we can talk about that next time. So again, next time what I'd like to do is now now that you've you've imprinted in my brain chemically the need to look at the rest of the beginning with habitat. Um what I'd like to do is just continue with this analysis looking at some of these really really complicated issues of these large wetlands and the boundaries around them. Uh that's going to be a real daunting

thing to get your mental arms around as we go forward next time. And that would all be with uh existing maps. I mean, none of this is going to have to be on the ground. That was already Oh, no, no, no. This is all with existing maps.

Townwide mapping level of data. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that the where George is bringing us, I think that in terms of like the political give and take that what he's about to present to us, we could probably do some some giving off of some of those things based off of, you know, don't hold me to it, but just like my thought process on some of those regulations now that George just kind of put a little bit out there. I've done some more reading and they're they're it's a lot and they're complicated.

Well, I mean, yeah, just the the streams, right? The 75 ft. The difference between that and what is it right now? 200 250. No, it's 100 on either side versus 75. 75 on each side. Yep. So, it's 150 versus um 300 total with along that stream corridor.

Excuse me, 200. 150. 150 versus 200. Yeah. We'll need our thinking caps next week. Yeah. Do we want to use next week to discuss further on this? George, are you able to join us next week or would you want to present the rest at the end of April?

Uh, let's see. That would be next Thursday. Are we first? Sam, what did we have on what did we have planned for the first? I forget. We kind of just wanted to discuss what we've been hearing from George and kind of wrap our heads around it,

which it seems like there's a lot to talk about. I think we need to keep going with George before we can really fully understand everything. Right. So, you guys really want to make a fool out of me, huh? No. What? We swear we'll show up to the meeting.

Okay. Yeah, I can do that. Okay, great. Yeah, this isn't a this isn't a week long April Fool's joke. Don't worry. Okay, I get it. I get it now. Sorry. I will I will uh I will send these slides out to you. just as a concom just going to have to like just talk about this for a full meeting, you know, bounce ideas around. Um,

well, let me ask you, do you want to do that next meeting or give George maybe a little bit more time and we can run the and we can run uh George's next presentation, the following meeting? Do you think that would be better time to have that discussion earlier?

We had originally talked about having this extra meeting in between this meeting and next month's meeting to discuss. So, essentially learn some stuff from George and then discuss what we learned from George and then learn some stuff from George and then discuss. So we don't spend more George's time here of us just chatting while he's like waiting because he's doing a lot for us. But you know like Julia said there could be merit in just learning some more stuff as we go. Like you know I just want to make sure that personally I would like to move through it a little slower so we can discuss in between meetings and make sure we're not missing any questions. So the following meeting we can bring some questions that might have come up in the previous discussion. But I I'm comfortable with whatever the group would would prefer, you know.

Well, can I ask George, too? George, you're doing us a heck of a favor by bringing us all this uh by bringing us all of this info. Um, what would you prefer? Would you prefer to meet next week or would you prefer to have a little bit more time uh in between?

Well, I'm ready to roll. Yes. And I think this is kind of good to have it fresh in your minds. And the other advantage with going next week is then you'd have the full package of information. Okay. Uh and there's a lot of technical aspects in terms of the limitation of my ability to do research and mapping and GP COG. I

have to tell you I have squeezed blood out of both GP COG and beginning with Habitat to the point where they're not answering my emails and phone calls anymore. No. Oh, George. No good. Yeah. So, uh I mean these maps that I've presented to you that the town basically got at no charge through your membership dues with GP COG. Uh but I've asked for

iteration after iteration after iteration to get it this far. And I could show you the 50 different versions that I've got. Appreciate all the door kicking. The guy the guy down there isn't returning my emails. So, oh no.

So, let's we'll talk about limitations of what we can do next time, too. Well, maybe George, do you think you can grab that BW map? Is that something they've already done, the BW6 plus everywhere, or is that something they'd have to run? Well, here's what I asked uh beginning with habitat to do is I basically said look on this map they've got and I'm going to zoom in if I can here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So under their inventory and ideal world

recommendation from an environmentalist perspective um they have a 250 foot buffer around all forested and uh nonforested wetlands 10 acres or more including along all of these streams. Um, and so what I asked them to do just to see what it would look like, remember those criteria I had 75 ft. So instead of instead of having 250 foot buffer around some of these wetlands, what would it look like if you had 75 ft? But first, they offer on

their website to do customized maps. But um after hearing what I was asking for, part of their problem is this data is not just for Durham. Their databases go across all the town boundaries. So it's hard for them to make a change to just yours without changing everything else. Um and so it's a lot of work, GIS work for them that they're not willing to do at no cost. and JP Cog is saying, "Look, we don't have the capacity to do this."

Okay. Well, um, so I guess that's something the commission can talk about, you know, see if we've got some some budget available to make any extra maps that we might need in the future, you know, but also I've got I know probably I know Joe, you've got some too, but GIS resources that if I could get my hands on the data, we can

Yeah, let's talk about that next time. Okay. Okay. For sure. Yeah. Okay. Great. So, everyone write down all your thoughts right now and then we'll reconvene. Yeah. Yeah, I mean ju just real quick, I do think Julia at some point um going to need to explore private or some other

way to get some of the the mapping features just because um you know I think it's difficult. You can only rely on the free resources so much due to band before they stop answering your emails. Yes. Yeah. Oh, no, no, yeah, no, no. It's just, you know, and then when it comes to like beginning with habitat data, you know, there's limitations on what they can provide um due to the fact that they're just supposed to be generating um maps that have existing data and not like projection type stuff. So, because I I work in the beginning with habitat group. Um so, like it's just it's just two of us the or three of us, the the mapper myself.

Supervisor. So, you know, that that are like exploratory maps more or less, which is the uh which is the issue with the beginning with habitat stuff. So, that would have to be explored at another um another way. So, not sure what the best option is for that. mapping can get expensive, you know, and you know, I don't know what we have available there or if there's anything through some sort of town grant like I don't know if the town has any relationship with any mappers or anything like that. So, makes it a little little tougher to get the conceptual things and on my own I don't have the the GIS knowhow to do it myself either even if I had the data layers and whatnot. It just makes it a little little tough.

further from George and see what we're lo you know what we're lacking for for resources for maps and then we can go from there. Yeah, this is going to sound really stupid, but I'm going to say it anyways. Can't you get the beginning with habitat on a see-through printed just physically to look at it?

Robera wants to go old school with uh old school overhead projectors. Not a bad idea. That's how the GIS master made back in the day. You know, that's what I'm saying. Actually, that's what I did with this one. Yeah. Basically made a transparency just using

transparency. just using u a PowerPoint and made it made one of the graphic images transparent and overlaid. So, but it doesn't come through clearly enough and especially when you start getting into those shades of green.

Yeah. It's a little bit harder. So, we'll do the best we can with what we've got. Yeah. Yeah. Could be a way to brainstorm brainstorm ideas though. Something to think about between the next couple next meetings. Yeah. Well, thank you, George, again.

This is awesome, George. Much appreciated. Thank you. Yes, thank you. You have to have a certain mind to be able to dig in and really solve the mystery on this kind of stuff. So, I'm glad we got you helping out. Yeah, you're bringing us a lot of data.

Yeah. And part of it is part of it is look it's like I was working out in Montana and I had this hydraologist that was doing these aquifer you know uh recharge because water rights are a huge thing out there and he came in with this data and all of these charts and graphs and you know a lot of those technicians scientists they come in and they don't know how to present it so you can understand it

what I try to do I can at least get a foggy note of what they're talking about. And I try to I try to present that in a way that everybody can understand. As complicated as it is, it's hard to get it any less complicated than this. And next time you're really going to see that. But

yeah, I think the real challenge of what we do as planners is to is to be able to to take that hard data and translate it into common English that everybody can understand and process. Yeah, I was just gonna say I think George should be town planner science translator because as a scientist I commit we often

don't speak the common speak when trying to describe things. So yeah, time with us next week then? I'll be there. Awesome. Fantastic. Great. I'll be here everybody. Okay. Good night. Have a good night. Good night. Thank you.