Select Board Meeting ~ February 25, 2025

2025-02-25 · Select Board · 2:37:02 · watch on YouTube →

Regular Select Board meeting held February 25, 2025 at 6:30 p.m., with a quorum present. The board worked through two draft ordinance amendments headed for town meeting (a combined battery energy storage system (BESS) and contract zoning amendment, and an amendment to the historic property provisions that would replace the historic district and its commission) and tabled both to March 4 so missing language could be written in. It then voted to pay a deposit for repairs to the Union Church and approved the FY2026 budget as the board had already set it, declining to move toward the budget committee's lower figure for general government. Much of the budget discussion was a response to the budget committee meeting held the night before, including the proposed removal of the text-my-gov notification service and an HR contract. The meeting closed with the town manager's report on mailings, website updates and the audit, board member reports, the consent agenda and adjournment at nine.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 6:53
   Call to order and public comment

   The chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and confirmed a quorum. Paula Erman (?) of Hallowell Road, a member of the historic district commission for ten years, said commission members had been excluded from drafting the amendment to the historic property provisions and the elimination of the commission, and disputed the statement that the 2018 comprehensive plan eliminates the historic district.

2. 12:06
   Battery energy storage and contract zoning draft combined

   The board took up the revised draft of BESS standards, section 5.8, which after a meeting that day with the town attorney had been combined with the contract zoning amendment into one document. The Conservation Commission recommended raising the threshold at which a solar project requires a contract zoning vote from 175,000 square feet of panels, about a 10 acre project, to 400,000 square feet, about 20 acres.

3. 17:15
   Buffering and project size

   George (?) explained that applicants must produce a visual impact assessment and that the 50 foot vegetative buffer softens rather than removes the visual impact, and takes six to eight years to mature. Members compared acreages, noting that an acre is about a football field without the end zones, and asked whether a threshold between 10 and 20 acres could be used.

4. 23:02
   Argument for the higher threshold

   John (?) clarified that 400,000 square feet is roughly 9 to 10 acres of panels inside a project of about 20 acres. The Conservation Commission's position, as relayed to the board, was that contract zoning at the lower threshold would deter any commercial developer and that solar has lower surface impact and can be decommissioned, while one member said a project of that size in an open field was too large to allow without contract zoning.

5. 28:35
   Motion on the 400,000 square foot threshold

   The chair moved to increase the surface area triggering large scale classification to 400,000 square feet of panels, and the motion was seconded after discussion. The recording of the vote is garbled.

6. 28:35
   Town attorney on combining the two ordinances

   The town attorney, Kristen (?), said that keeping contract zoning and the BESS standards separate risked the standards passing without a siting tool, while combining them risks voters rejecting the whole package, which would leave the existing moratorium in place until it was renewed and a different approach tried.

7. 39:36
   Missing minimum standards clause

   A member noted that the language agreed at the previous meeting, limiting how far a contract zoning agreement could depart from the standards, was not in the draft. The attorney's suggested wording was to add, immediately after the heading for section 5.8.5, that tier three BESS shall meet the following minimum requirements unless otherwise specified and approved in a contract zoning agreement.

8. 45:09
   Vote to table the BESS and contract zoning draft

   Members said they wanted to see the added wording in writing before voting, and one said it was supposed to have been in this draft. The board tabled the item to its March 4 meeting, noting the public hearing has been moved to March 19 and the language must be posted by March 5.

9. 50:12
   Historic property ordinance and the district

   The board took up the draft amendment to the historic property provisions, which merges the recommendation received from the commission with the attorney's version, removes the historic district and renames the commission. The chair said the invitation to the commission to give feedback had been sent on February 6.

10. 55:13
    Historic district commission feedback

    David McLean (?), vice chair of the historic district commission, said he had missed the commission's last meeting, had not read the changes and was not prepared to comment on the draft, though he answered questions on buffering. He said he could not speak for the commission on the removal of the district.

11. 1:00:34
    Commission vote and the case for building based protection

    It was reported that the commission, with a quorum present, voted at its last meeting that it does not approve of removal of the historic district. Board members argued the district is not functioning as one because non-historic buildings inside it are not held to any standard, and that moving protection to the listed and eligible buildings themselves would apply town wide and be reinforced by a future architectural survey.

12. 1:10:55
    Advisory opinion process

    George (?) explained that under the proposal the commission would have about 45 days to give a required advisory opinion on any permit involving a listed or eligible property, to the planning board or the code enforcement officer. The permitting authority must consider the opinion but may issue the permit anyway, and the permit decision can then be appealed.

13. 1:16:16
    Disagreement over abutting properties

    One member objected that a subdivision or a gas station next to a listed property would not trigger any historic review because it does not affect the historic structure itself, using the Wingate subdivision off 136 and the Bliss Farm as examples. Other members said such projects would still be subject to site plan or subdivision review and buffering, and disagreed that a neighbouring owner should face added standards.

14. 1:21:25
    Proposed advisory language from Shoreland zoning

    George (?) read the archaeological sites language in article 9, section 9.11 of the Shoreland zoning provisions, which requires submissions for activity on or adjacent to listed or eligible sites, and proposed inserting similar wording into the site plan and subdivision standards so the local commission is also asked for an advisory opinion. Members debated how to define a project that stands to directly impact a historic property.

15. 1:26:54
    Historic ordinance tabled to March 4

    The board moved to hold the historic property ordinance until the following week's meeting pending the edits discussed, with George and the town attorney to pull the language together. Members asked that any further comment from the commission be emailed before Tuesday, since the final draft has to be voted that night.

16. 1:32:17
    Union Church repair deposit

    The board moved new business ahead of the budget and voted to direct the town manager to pay a deposit for Union Church repairs out of the Union Church account; the figure is garbled in the recording. Tia Wilson, chair of the Historical Society, described the work: lifting the church, replacing the sill on one side, repairing the rock and the two back corners, setting the building back down, replacing boards and repairing interior damage from the shifting.

17. 1:37:54
    Fund balance and the coming revaluation

    A member said he would support the increased use of fund balance in the budget but wanted the board and the budget committee to remember the revaluation ahead, the last one having been in 2008 when it is required every ten years. Members said a third of values are expected to stay the same, a third to go down and a third to rise sharply, and that residents will look for mitigation.

18. 1:43:05
    Response to the budget committee

    Board members objected to the budget committee's proposed cuts, in particular removing the text-my-gov notification service, which the town manager had set up after the flooding complaints, and the HR contract. The board argued that applying a flat inflation percentage ignores a 9 percent insurance increase, staff benefit changes, the loss of the town's IT vendor and the fire chief's per diem rates, and that no factually accurate data had been presented to justify the reduction.

19. 1:48:34
    Decorum between the board and the budget committee

    One member said the tone of the previous night's meeting and of emails sent that day was inappropriate and proposed that the select board chair and vice chair sit down with the budget committee co-chairs after the process. He also said the board could not hand the committee draft articles before it had taken its own final vote, and that a quorum of the committee remaining in the room after adjournment is a problem.

20. 1:53:50
    Motion to approve the FY2026 budget

    A motion was made and seconded to approve the budget as presented and to carry those numbers into the warrant articles. The board said the general government figure is the minimum needed to deliver current services and that it was not willing to negotiate toward the budget committee's lower number.

21. 1:59:46
    Whether new services are being added

    The board addressed the claim that services are being introduced without a town vote, saying the warrant is that vote and that only text-my-gov and the HR contract are new. The HR line is about $28,000 and communication about $88,000, while the IT increase reflects the same service costing more after the previous vendor stopped serving the town.

22. 2:10:49
    Taxable valuation question and draft warrant articles

    A member relayed the question of why growth in taxable valuation, such as eleven new houses, is not estimated in the budget the way other revenues are; the answer given was that the assessor supplies the actual figure after the budget is set and it is used when the mill rate is set. The draft FY2026 warrant articles were handed over for the budget committee's Thursday meeting, to be reviewed on March 4 and signed on March 25.

23. 2:21:07
    Reserve accounts and fund balance messaging

    The board discussed how to explain to residents that reserve funds and fund balance are being used to hold the tax rate down, and that the amount drawn lines up roughly with what is being set aside for future capital expenses. Members noted the select board has authority to spend from reserve accounts for the designated purposes.

24. 2:26:37
    Town manager's report

    Jerry (?) reported that next week's meeting includes the two ordinance amendments, a public hearing to adopt the GA ordinance appendices after the rate increase, an abatement, and the first draft of the warrant. The fiscal year trifold is at the printer and will be mailed to every household, a GPCOG assisted video may follow depending on resident feedback, and the audit is being finished.

25. 2:32:17
    Board member reports, consent agenda and adjournment

    Joe (?) thanked Public Works and the fire department for work through the snow and a run of chimney fires. A member asked that municipal budget training be arranged for the budget committee and board, possibly as GPCOG's free annual workshop; the consent agenda was accepted, upcoming meeting dates were read, and the meeting adjourned at nine.

What was decided

• 28:35
  Motion to increase the panel surface area threshold for a large scale solar project requiring contract zoning from 175,000 square feet to 400,000 square feetoutcome unclear
• 45:09
  Motion to table the combined BESS and contract zoning amendment until March 4, pending insertion of the wording that tier three BESS shall meet the minimum requirements unless otherwise specified and approved in a contract zoning agreementtabled
• 1:26:54
  Motion to hold the historic property ordinance amendment until the March 4 meeting pending the edits discussed, with George and the town attorney to draft the added advisory opinion languagetabled
• 1:32:17
  Motion to move new business ahead of the budget on the agendapassed
• 1:32:17
  Motion to direct the town manager to pay the deposit for the Union Church repairs out of the Union Church account; the amount is garbled in the recordingpassed
• 1:53:50
  Motion to approve the FY2026 budget as previously approved by the select board and to include those numbers in the warrant articlespassed
• 2:32:17
  Consent agenda accepted, and motion to adjournpassed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 1:59:46
  The difference between the select board's budget and the budget committee's recommendation is about $72,000. On a home valued at $300,000 the board calculated that as less than $60 a year, under $5 a month. The HR line is about $28,000 and the communication line about $88,000.
• 1:37:54
  The town's last revaluation was in 2008 and is required every ten years, so it will be about twenty years by the time it is done. Board members said they expect roughly a third of property values to rise, some doubling, and warned the fund balance will be drawn on to cushion it.
• 1:00:34
  The historic district commission voted at its last meeting, with a quorum, that it does not approve of removing the historic district, and members said in public comment and at the table that they had been excluded from drafting the replacement and were not prepared to comment on it.
• 45:09
  Both ordinance amendments must be final on March 4: the public hearing has been moved to March 19 and the language has to be posted by March 5, leaving one day after the March 4 meeting.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 9 passages of motion language, against 7 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2025-02-11 Select Board2025-03-04 Select Board →All meetings