TranscriptSelect Board Meeting ~ June 23, 2026

We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, and thank you all for coming. Typically at the end of a year or after the municipal elections, we have to vote for a chair and vice chair of the elected officials. So I'm on that part of it, and once we do that, we'll get into the agenda, public comment, that sort of thing.

But the first thing of our business is choosing a chair and vice chair. So let's get that started. So for you folks, is there a nomination? We'll start with a chair. Is there a nomination for a chair? I nominate Joe to be the chair.

Okay, let me know if the member of Poster nominated Joe Roy for a chair. Is there a second? A second. I'll accept the nomination, I guess. Well, okay, we have seven. Say none, all in favor? That's three. Do you want something to have favor? And then one abstention.

So motion carries. Okay, now we've got to vote for vice chair. Is there a nomination for vice chair? I'll nominate Josh, kind of. Okay, I'll nominate Josh. I'll second that. I'll nominate Josh. Second, discussion. Josh, accept that. No discussion. All in favor ahead of the post. Yeah. One, two, three. There's four in the post, so I'm not supposed to go to the end of the day. Yeah. He's abstaining. Okay, Mr. Chair, take it away.

Thank you. Do we have any amendments to the agenda? All right, seeing none, do we have any public comment? Yeah. Why not? It relates to the agenda items, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, so you just need to say your name, your street, and then you've got three minutes and you can cover any topics you want.

My name is Joe Keith, 24 Christmas Tree Trail. This is in relation to the consent agreement for the Jaden PIT. I've asked the slide board to reject signing the consent agreement. I do not feel the penalties are significant enough and will set a dangerous precedent for the town and the current future violations.

It also does not address all aspects of the violations of the PIT use card operations. The current fine levied in the agreement is $15,000. Section 14.9 of Land Use Ordinance references the state regulations for imposing penalties.

The state regulations state that if economic benefit resulting from the violation exceeds the applicable penalties under the subsection, the maximum civil penalties may be increased. The maximum civil penalty may not exceed an amount equal to twice the economic benefit resulting of the violation.

To put the size of the card fine in perspective, I looked at the market prices for aggregate materials. The sand sort of being low in there at $15 a cubic yard, the high end being 3-4-inch crushed stone at $37 a cubic yard.

The picket slated 10 acres beyond what the original permit was. This translates to about 435,600 square feet. If one inch of material depth was removed from this area, that translates to about 1,300 cubic yards. The market value per inch of depth is approximately $20,000 to $49,000 based on those prices that make a billion.

At one foot of depth excavated, this only represents 3 to 6% of economic value. At five foot of depth, this fine represents between half a percent and 1.2% of value. In other terms, the union post-buying translates to about 30 to 75 truckloads of aggregate material removed

based on the range of trucks leaving the property between when the stock work order was in place on the 7th and when they complied on the 12th. I'd estimate that more material was removed during that time than they were being fined for.

The future proposed bounty also is not a significant deterrent. $35,000 represents between 70 and 180 truckloads, less than two weeks of operations from the rate that they're at. Assuming the pet operates in violation order of five days a week for nine months a year, the total fine would be $125,000.

If only five feet are extracted in the year, that would be 410% of market value. So as you can see, the fines don't sort of stack up to the economic benefit obtained, and the current proposed fines can simply be viewed as the cost of doing business.

Also, I believe this does not properly address the property line buffer violations. The consent agreement notes that an engineer's 5- to 50-foot boundary setback. This has not been completed along the eastern boundary of lot 60A against my property.

The natural buffer strip was not properly maintained. Tree clearing conducted by Jane up to strip that's only between 29 and 45 feet wide from the majority of the property line. The recreation plan shows an approximate relocation of the strip based on the tree canopy but not where trees were actually removed from the property.

Also, the survey does not have the proper location of my well. The well loaded on my property is actually the well of my neighbors and not mine. Mine is much closer to the property line than what they have in their survey. The re-vegetation plan indicated also does not extend the full length of the area where the violation of the buffer strip was removed.

And in the plan, you'll notice that they also do not specifically note that they will re-plant that section of the property. This consent agreement also does not address the performance standards and violations related to noise.

Under the current stop work order, the work at the pit is restricted to lot 57, as it would be in the proposed consent agreement. During this period, noise levels of the property line measured four feet above the ground were consistently measured in the ranges of 60 to 65 decibels.

This is in excess of the 55 decibel limit listed in Section 519, Paragraph A of the Durham Land Use Formants. The noise levels greatly increased as a result of the clearing the excavation of lot 60A that they cleared without permission from the town of DEP.

And I believe a proper sound study should be included as part of this consent agreement prior to work being allowed to resume on Lot 57. Finally, this consent agreement does not address the violations related to the Aquifer Protection District.

Almost the entire area of Lot 68 falls within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Per Section 10-2 of the Door of Land Use Ordinance, no more than 50% of the portion of the lot within the groundwater protection dish shall be stripped of existing vegetation without replacement of similar vegetation.

The satellite imagery provided and the attachments that you have as part of this meeting clearly show that tree clearing in excess of 50% of the lot coverage was completed. The rot was completely forested prior to the PITS operations, and as such, I'd ask that the consistent agreement must be amended to include provisions for bringing the rot back into compliance with the requirements of private road protection to support the lake.

Okay, thank you, Jim. Thank you, Keith. Is it Joe, Keith? It's Joe. Any questions? I'll do a follow-up. I can provide my own personal analysis for the rest of the day. Thank you, sir. Do we have any other public comment? Hi. Yeah, that's permission. I'm hearing what was done on Rabbit Road. Okay, honey. And also, I'm speaking for a bunch of people who could not be here tonight.

So, we want to speak first to process and safety and standards before you consider and vote on this consent agreement. First, process. I recognize that tonight's agenda was posted on the town's website. However, I have also made formal freedom of access requests for the most recent revised stop work order

and the legal enforcement documents, and I still have not received them. In addition, the town's attorney told me directly that if a consent agreement was executed or was going to be discussed at a public meeting, I would be informed right away. Neither of these things has happened. I only discovered this agreement when I saw the agenda online. So while an agenda posting may meet the bail of legal minimum,

the town has not honored its public records, obligations, and spirit, or the specific commitment made to me as an impacted resident. We are being asked to approve a settlement that replaces all prior stop loop orders without first providing those orders or the underlying enforcement record to the public, and that underlines transparency and trust in this process.

Second, safety, which is high on my mind today. Just this morning, there was yet another accident at the intersection of Rabbit Road and Holloway Road. No pit trucks were involved in this particular crash, although they were at the scene. But it is the same small rural intersection that already carries heavy pit traffic and has a history of serious accidents.

For those of us who live here, it is one more reminder that this intersection is operating right at the edge of what is safe. Hollywood Road is a state road. To my knowledge, the main DOT has never done a focused safety assessment of this intersection,

despite the crash history and the added burden of truck traffic. In that context, the Consent Agreement's traffic language, which only buys Jayden's own vehicles over 23,000 pounds from using Rabbit Road, and mainly requests that contractors avoid it as much as possible, is not adequate protection for the people who live and drive here every day.

Out of Midiman, there should be a clear and forcible prohibition on all heavy truck through traffic on Rabbit Road, and the town should formally ask Maine DOT to review crash history and safety at this intersection and recommend improvements.

And finally, third, standards. The planning board checklist for the after-the-fact gravel pit expansion calls for substantial evidence under Articles 5, 7, 10, and 14, including groundwater and aquifer protection, fuel storage, and refueling plans, professional noise and traffic studies, and a full compliance history.

Many of those items have not yet been completed, shared, or reviewed in public. This consent agreement is an enforcement settlement about past violations and a pathway to resume operations and pursue expansion. It is not a substitute for formal findings that the standards in our land use ordinance are actually met. It should not be treated as proof that the PIT now complies or as a guarantee that the expansion will or should be approved.

So for all of these reasons, I'm asking you to table this agreement until the missing enforcement documents and plans are released to the public and the traffic protections are strengthened, especially a clear enforceable prohibition on heavy truck traffic on Rabbit Road, or at a minimum to state clearly on the record that this agreement does not prejudge the expansion and does not believe the planning board of its duty to apply the full checklist and, if necessary,

denied the extension if the evidence does not support it. Thank you. Thank you. Both of you seem to have written remarks that you had prepared. Would it be possible to have those sent to our board if you're comfortable with that? Thank you. You can find our website on our email on the website. And I think, I know Kimberly, you have it. That's right. Yes. Perfect. Any other public comment?

Okay. Perfect. Thank you all for participating. Our first order of business is to approve our main minutes from May 12th and June 1st. Do I have a motion to approve? Josh, second? Second. Any questions or discussions on the motion? That was not after June 1st. I have to close myself. All in favor? Any opposition? Seeing none. Passes. Why are you taking care of the plan?

So this is where we're going to review and discuss the authorized consent agreement from the J.D. Pitt. We just got some public comment here as well. Jerry, this was prepared by the Our Town lawyer. Yeah, it was prepared by Our Town attorney and the opposition's attorney as well.

You can have Our Town Council here. If you have any questions, then I believe the opposing counsel is here as well. I'm going to ask questions regarding the consenting thing. Let's hear it. Oh, sorry. Kristen's not here. Kristen, I was like, that's not Kristen. Yeah, okay. Okay, no worries at all. Well, before we have any sort of motion and whatnot, I think it would be good to have a discussion on it, and if there's any elements that board members have that they want to raise for discussion, either for additional information to ask our legal representative or to share opinions or concerns about any aspect of it, now's the time.

So we'll kind of have an open discussion period before we discern any sort of motion. Does that work for folks? Okay, so that being said, does anyone want to begin on discussing any of these points or have any questions for the attorney?

Yeah, I have a question. So the two residents who came up had mentioned about noise surveys not being done. Rebecca completely asked him to come up and do this himself. My name's Gray Lewis. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Select Board representing law. Thank you. So what studies were done by the office, by the law office, on behalf of the Select Board, which was a requirement to rectify noise violations? So, you know, Craig Flaherty, as the town's attorney, has not conducted any noise studies on its own.

I would defer to Jerry to possibly explain if the town has taken any action on that, but I don't believe that that's the case. We have no idea. You know, in working with the pit operator here, really the town's goal, and again, Jerry, please correct me if you feel differently, is to ensure compliance.

And so long as the pit operation is maintaining adequate levels of noise within the areas that it is allowed currently to operate, that is what we have been concerned about through this process. That issue had not been raised, to my knowledge, and so it is not something that we looked into.

However, to the extent that this board wants to include that as a requirement, it is certainly entitled to do that. And with that said, also, we're buying the aquifer, Blue Bear, and I guess it's also to you, Jerry. Plus we're in Calvin, too. Oh, yeah, as well. We're in the aquifer, too, so. So, just to clarify. Just let the people at home know who you are. Okay, I'm going to go in the aquifer. So, to clarify, almost all gravel pits are in the aquifer, and that's why they're in the aquifer, because that's where the gravel is.

So, it's just gravel, there's the washouts from, if you remember, the dump shore, you were pretty more than me as a biologist, but it's just where gravel is, but it's always in the aquifer, so that's why they put gravel bits there.

All I can tell you is that Lot 57 was permitted by the Planning Board, and that is all they're allowed to work on. The conditions that were in place by that board for that operation, and if they didn't require a noise study at that time, I don't see where we would have the regs who do that now if we're just allowing them to work on something that's already been permitted or already been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.

If we were to allow them to go to work on Route 60A, then I would understand that argument, and I would say the planning board, when they go back, which their intention is to go back, and they've already started the planning process, at that point they could review the synonyms, decibels, minus 10, and they were using an iPhone to gauge the sound bubbles.

That's a long ways from what you would use for professional equipment to get an actual decibel level. So, that's what I know. So, correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the original permit allowed for excavation at that site,

but had to stay a certain level above groundwater because it's an aquifer, and that we also are pit. And, John, I think you were on the planning board at this time, so I won't put you in the spot, but if any of this stands out to you, please feel free. And then my also understanding is that we had constrained, obviously, the lot, the depth,

hours of operation, and then there is a noise component to the initial permit. What I'm hearing here is that if people are recording noise higher than that, that would be something that's not allowed, but there hasn't been a noise study done because that

wasn't a condition of the permit, but it's one of those, you have to remain within a certain decibels, and if someone's reporting nearby, the decibels are being broken then it needs to be looked into further. That's my understanding of it.

Can you back up for a second? Yeah, I'm sorry. Can you tell us, because I can't remember at this point in time, what exactly was in the stop-vote order? What the violations were? Maybe. So, you have a copy of the stop-vote order.

You have a copy of the stop-vote order? Yeah. It just says that there was a stop-vote order. I take an action and look at this view. I guess the noise was not in... No, it was not part of... So it would not... Well, they weren't supposed to be working. They were creating noise during the term of the stopover. So if I may interject, there's two ways that noise may come into play here.

The first is if keeping noise is a condition of the planning board's prior approval. And the second would be if Durham has an independent ordinance restricting noise during certain hours. Hypothetically, if both of those are present, the town has a multitude of ways to address

those. If it wants to, it certainly doesn't have to. Even if there is no noise restriction in the plan board's prior authorization, or even if Durham doesn't have an independent noise restriction, this board, in theory, as part

of this agreement, would say, a condition of entering the into this agreement is we want noise reduced. It does not have to, but it can't. If I may get the question, the noise limits are in the land use orders, which have now changed since the 1st of July. I apologize. Kristen normally works for charge, so I'm just not... That's what I'm getting at.

I think that's a very valid point brought up, was that anything that continues needs to be following the initial permit constraint, which includes sticking within the noise requirements. The reason this is being brought to our attention is because due to the unpermitted expansion, they're now close enough to residents who were never intended to be neighbors with a pit.

And so that's now raising that concern too. So it's not only, it's like the actions of the pit are moving closer to people, so they're now obviously easier to hear. There's less of a buffer. Unfortunately, Keith or Joe, we don't allow additional public comment during this portion of it. So if you can do it briefly, that'd be fine. So it wasn't because it was a violation of the stop work order. The reason I mentioned the stop work order is because during the stop work order, they were only supposed to operate

within the existing five acres. So the noise I was measuring was not noise that was on lot 68, there was noise from lot 57 to 5-acre parcels. Thank you for that clarification. Does the town have the ability to bar commercial trucks or any vehicle from driving on certain roads?

We can permanently post rabbit road. Yes, for public roads, this board has authority to impose traffic restrictions, which could be a weight limit. limit, you know, likely needs to be a rational justification for doing so. But in theory, yes. But, John? But not Route 9, because that's a sign of good. So, I'm glad you brought that question, because I'm looking at this and I saw the same language that, you know, the company's trucks and equipment were saying they can't use Rabbit Road, but everyone else has to avoid it to their best extent. Not because they can't use it, they can't use the entrance onto the property. So, the way that they can't The truck, the consent agreement, as well as the stop work order, provide that the operator can't have their own trucks that are over 23,000 pounds using the traffic route.

The reason that that language was settled on is because the operator has limited ability to control, you know, others. And, you know, our understanding was that, granted, I'm not an operator, so I don't know this firsthand.

Trucks that are over 23,000 pounds make significantly more noise than trucks under that amount. And so that's why that language was settled upon, essentially, these are trucks that make noise, and the homeowner doesn't have control over trucks rather than it doesn't control.

And so, not to get ahead of myself here, but the mechanism, if the town wanted to say we are permanently posting rabbit road to only trucks under 23,000, Is that something we can do as a select board without a town meeting and things of that nature?

Sure. Traffic ordinances are within the purview of the select board. On its own, I will say, you know, that is obviously related to this agenda item, somewhat, you know, separate. Yeah. The reason I ask is because the location of the pit, you can always, no matter whether you're coming from south or north,

you can either come north onto Route 9 or you can, on south, continue down 136, take a left, adds two and a half miles to your journey. So in my mind, it's not an unreasonable ask to have that built in as part of it, though it might not be contingent on this. It might be something we separately have to do, but I think that's a pretty easy ask, both from a residential and noise issue there,

but also increased trucking and impacts on town roads as well. I tried that several years ago to get Rabbit Road Post because they come from Douglas's pit, they come from Blackstone's pit, they come from Bailey's Pit, they come from...

So they all come up the route down and then go across. I followed them, and they were always going to Brunswick with a right to Freeport on the 25th. They were all leaving the town, but they were using that moving one. And I've already got ruts this deep in the road and the pavement, and that truck, that road was never built to withstand five or six gravel pits, which are all using it. So, I mean, I get, you know, messages over the weekend that the trucks are going down the road.

Not one of them came from this pit. It came from other pits. And to speak to the reason I'd be agreeing on that he would restrict only his own trucks is because their customers come and get his pit. He goes, no, wait. He said all it would take is one of those trucks to go down that road, and he would have to pay $35,000 for this agreement plus $500 a day.

So that was the reasoning why he said that was beyond his control, which I can understand. So I read this from using Redwood to enter or exit the property. I read it three times before tonight, and every time I read it, I thought it meant there was an entry or exit onto Redwood from the property. Isn't that language ambiguous?

Can it be challenged? And if that's the intent, then I'm going to tell you right now, if that was the intent of both parties, but I'm not going to support this because I think that's ambiguous. What you're telling me is not how I read that. So you read that as there's an entrance from that. That's why I asked the question. I was completely confused by what you said and what she said.

I thought you were both absolutely bonkers for saying this. That is not how I read that at all. I've read a lot of news in my career. I understand where you're coming from. I'll point you towards section 16, which essentially says that ambiguities will be resolved in paper on the town.

But, you know, when you get into some other contractual law, which, you know, it's a clear ambiguity, that's the intent, and I don't want a clear ambiguity in this. Understood, and, you know, candidly, that's why this discussion is happening. We can address that from the floor today.

So, that answers my question. So my understanding is obviously the pit owner can tell their employees you can't use Rabbit Road. The pit owner can't tell anybody else, customers, you can't use Rabbit Road. So that's separate from this. We can't really tie that to this, but that's something we could adopt separately by saying we want to direct the town to post that road for all trucks over $23,000.

And now that's taking the onus off of all of the owners, all the business owners, putting the onus on the town where that frankly belongs. So I think that's a separate thing that we would want to bring up to talk about from this agreement, that I think it's a piece of information that's risen to a high level of importance for me. But along those lines, how does taking these trucks off Rabbit Road affect, you know, you're coming down here to the school, ambulance, fire department, or are you going the other direction to Brown Road? Or, I mean, how... We're not there yet, I understand, and we're talking about, I don't know how many trucks

go in and out of here a day, but how is that affecting the other roads? I mean, this is not an easy intersection for any vehicle to get out of on the 130 sets. The idea behind it is that from a taxpayer standpoint, we're subsidizing these five

or six pits because the taxpayers for 1,700 homes or are paying to build a road at the expense of even if I grab a pit owner's head. Whereas 9 and 136 are built to a higher spec. They're built to a higher spec. They're designed for... In my opinion, Josh, to your point, I think that folks who chose to or live along 136 and Route 9 made those decisions

with the understanding of the traffic associated with a state road as opposed to people who are living along Rabbit Road who made that decision with the traffic associated with a town road. And that's where I see a bit of a distinction there.

I don't disagree, but you're talking about one out of five or six. And so I'm just curious of me because there's been this talk and I'm going to take them into Freequad to go right down road 9 and take a left on Elmore and come right into Freequad there's a lot of other options but the easiest way for them right now is straight across rabbit, quick immediate heads and I watch them go straight into Brunswick or right into Freequad and we're getting far it just seems to me that's the point of confluence because of where all the pits are located yeah, that's where the aquifer is and that's why the pits are there I'm sure Josh is concerned about the law of unintended consequences.

Homeowners are one thing, but we do have a school. And that's a lot of heavy-duty traffic. And the fire department, and the fire trucks that can also... And the fire trucks. That's a consequence of... Yeah, we need to think about it because it is the law of unintended consequences cause and effect.

And I hear you. Yeah, I mean, the way I see it is nothing we do changes the amount of trucks going in and out of there. We're just asking them to change the route, and I would be more in favor of changing the route to state roads, especially ones that have signage, have flashing lights, have slowdown speeds, as opposed to the private.

But we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves on this discussion, so I think we need to push that off and address number seven, to Josh's point, to clear up any ambiguity. So is there alternate language that you think would better address this issue?

Yeah, I would just, from using Rabbit Road, period. I mean, I read to enter or exit the property, and I thought there was a TMO. Yeah, so just... And everyone's talking about they're not going to be able to, and I'm... So just end it at, so the property owner will bar any of its vehicles with a gross vehicle rate that exceed 23,000 pounds from using Rabbit Road, period.

All right, I'll take a motion to strike... Before we do it, do we create a problem in that the other four pits can still use Rabbit Road? We are creating that scenario. I think our intent is to address that separately, but we can't put that onus on this pit owner. Did you have something you want to add? Just in a public comment, available for any question. Yeah. And I think for this, correct me if I'm wrong, right, you're allowed to issue an additional restriction as part of the consent agreement. And the property owner is comfortable with telling his employees and telling all these parties and friends and he could please use it entirely and he won't let all of his visitors to the pit and request that they not use it and I'm checking with him right now to see if he's alright with the post language can you identify I'm not sure attorney for general we can have you over here yeah absolutely

just happy to answer questions I will not insert myself in too much. But just in case there's questions or checking with him about the proposed language. Was that your understanding of what the agreement was, that they wouldn't use Rabbit Road? Yes, that was the understanding. So, you know, I do understand how there's an ambiguity. So, I get it. Yeah, good question. Well, I'm comfortable, if someone wants to make a motion to modify number 7, I'd accept a motion to modify number 7 to state the property owner will bar any of its vehicles with a gross vehicle rate that exceed 23,000 pounds from using Rabbit Road. Are we... No, I know, but just to clarify the last sentence, the property owner will request that all contractors refrain from using Rabbit Road to the extent possible. Is that gone too? No, I might get rid of it to the extent possible. Yeah. All right, so... I'll make a motion then.

Okay, now I'll make a motion in paragraph 7, page 3. The first sentence read, the property owner will bar any... will bar any of its vehicles with a gross vehicle weight that it seems to 23,000 pounds from using Rabbit Road, period. The property owner will request

that all contractors refrain from using Rabbit Road. Period. I have consent from the client to authorize entering into the property so we're fine with that change as well. And to the extent possible, I think it was added by you folks. I'm not

sure what the talent's position on that is. Again, to me, that's another thing that, what is... Real quick, you have a motion. Do we have a second? We can go into the discussion. I'll second. We're seconded by Rebecca. Okay, now we're in discussion on the motion. I can't believe if you expected those last four words to the extent possible. Kristen added that in recently. However, it is obviously the sports purview to remove it if you think that that's... Yeah, and I'm comfortable with that change because I mean, looking at the pit location it's possible what is someone's desire to say well I don't think that that was possible for me today it is possible it would be different if this was a 7 mile reroute to avoid it but it's you know 3 mile total I think if even that we would also agree to the removal of that language as well if I could get you to modify that to say gross vehicle weight register

registered after weight because that is what you go by GVWR is what you go by. Josh, would you accept a friendly amendment to say gross vehicle weight registered that exceeds 23,000 pounds? All right, if you accept a friendly amendment, you don't need to vote on that. So the motion as amended states the property owner will bar any of its vehicles with a gross vehicle weight registered that exceeds 23,000 pounds from using Rabbit Road.

The property owner will request that all contractors refrain from using Rabbit Road. so that's the amended motion we're getting heads up from all three lawyers in the room so I'm feeling good about that do we have any additional questions on that? so all in favor of that modification any opposition? seeing none so that passes unanimously okay thank you for that Josh because that blew that over my head in terms of the ambiguity there well I guess maybe the easiest way to handle this then is let's just start at 1, and we can go through and ask if anyone has any questions or discussions about any of these elements. I know this feels a little painstaking, but this is really important stuff to talk about and work on here. Just give folks many here to take a look at 1. So it says, the property owner acknowledges the unpermitted work described above was performed in violation of the ordinance and current

use permit. The property owner hereby waives any rights of administrative appeal to the CEO's May 7, 2026 stop work order. In the May 21st, 2026 revised stop work order. Are there any questions for any of the people in the room about that? Okay. Number two, this agreement replaces all preceding stop work orders issued on Mount 57 and 68 and shall be agreed upon terms for operations of the properties going forward. Any questions or concerns there from the email? Number three, upon execution of this agreement, the property owner shall pay a fine in the amount of $15,000 via check made out to the town of Durham, which will be held in escrow by council for the property owner and distributed to the town of Durham

upon ratification of the agreement by the town Durham Select Board. Any questions or discussions there? Yeah, I'd like to discuss how or hear how we came up with that number. When I first looked at this, I was not there.

Immediately thought, that is nothing. This was an intentional act. And I'm just telling you how I was looking at this, thinking that does not hurt the business owner one bit and the fine for this I felt should be very painful and especially with the impact to the residents and the blatant disregard to what was authorized.

And so I will tell you that our attorney, Kristen, thought that that was a reasonable amount in that she was stating that the fine had to be somewhat commensurate with a cost to the town to remedy the issue to bring. Our objective should be to bring things back into compliance. That should be our goal. Not to punish, but to bring things into compliance and make things above board and get them back with the issue. That should be our purpose. Yeah, and I actually understand that. And I was thinking, what are the residents going to think when they see that?

If I might hop in here and piggyback off of what Calvin just said, you know, as we've been saying, the goal here is compliance. And one part of this consensus agreement section, was it 12, speaks about performance. Right, right. And essentially that $100,000 bond is required to ensure that the property can be properly remediated.

What that guarantees is that if the operator doesn't do what they're required to do under this agreement, the town will have that security to essentially bring the property back into compliance. If the operator does do what they're required to do, in theory, they will be spending roughly $100,000 to remediate. It's also important to note that that $100,000 number might be changed depending on how remediation ultimately unfolds. And if it ends up costing more, you're at the CEO's discretion. That amount can be increased. So I completely understand where you're coming from saying $15,000 seems really low.

But, you know, when Kristen and I assume Emma, you know, came together on that number, the thought was, it's a $15,000 fine, but an $115,000 fix. And I hope that's fair, yes. I'm happy to provide a little bit more information about how the $15,000 came out with the town.

And that was initially proposed by the town, $15,000. So we agreed to negotiate, and we eventually agreed to do $15,000. This was also in the context, and I know that it may not be the best to say, but my client has lost considerable contracts in several hundreds of thousands,

if not millions of dollars, and so he is feeling pain. He has been out of work for, you know, I think it's been over one little bit of a month, and he has been able to resume. Initially, the operations were fully stopped for about three weeks and then was able to resume just the removal and very limited to just keep up

and not lose current contracts and more than he already had. And now he's able to just continue to operate as he originally was permitted on 57. So there is additional pain that, you know, of course, is not public or is not in the town,

but there were additional consequences that came out of this stop the border other than just this consent agreement. Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you. The common $115,000 fix, that's assuming that the planning board doesn't approve the expansion,

because if they approve the expansion, then there's no remediation. That is right. Right. Well, at some point, it would be for like 57A, so it shows both. So if, you know, while this, if you don't mind, sorry, While this consent agreement is agreed to, my client has agreed that he's going to continue the permitting process for 60A, and during this process he still will have, once he applies for a new permit law, to show that he's going to be compliant with all the boundary, setbacks, natural offer zones, ensure reclamation of those areas to comply with the permitting standards for the town, and additionally he is going to be conducting traffic and noise surveys on that as well, to ensure that they're in compliance,

as that's required by the planning board. So those will all be part of the additional permitting process for 60A. And I know it's kind of hard to separate the two because they're so conjoined. It's a separate process, so he's committed to ensuring reclamation of both lots of it in compliance with the ordinance standards. I think it's important to note that the reclamation was required,

is required for 57A, regardless if they violated anything. So they're not doing extra. They're doing what they had to do from, you know, their initial approval. I think the difference here, though, is we're now getting a $100,000 bonded agreement for reclamation, correct?

Is that, is that, my brain was going the same way as you, John, it sounds like $15,000 fine and we'll agree to do what we're supposed to agree to do. And I understand the concept of we just want to make sure that this gets mediated appropriately.

But it is a hard pill for me to swallow that, you know, the person saying, I'm losing contracts and I've been excavating in an area that I'm not permitted for. It's like where you gain contracts that you wouldn't have previously been able to get because you're working in an area that you weren't allowed to.

And when you're talking to the order of hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, $15,000 sounds like a pretty good way to avoid that permitting process. That's what I'm getting for feedback from the general public. That's, I used to work in permitting. That's what I'm seeing. So this is a hard one for me to swallow as well. And I frankly have very little sympathy for that argument. No offense to you or anybody else in the room. It's just this is a hard one for me to wrap my head around. I also know the history of gravel pits and how successful their reclamation happens in this municipality and other municipalities is a pretty poor record in terms of how that functions.

And I'm going to say this one does have specific deadlines for when a Reclamation must occur with specific additional fines that will occur if it's not. And, you know, from the moment that the stop work order was issued, we've been ahead with the town, and we've been trying to ensure that whatever the town wanted for a Reclamation plan we provided,

and we've engaged our engineers to ensure that we can meet all DEP and town standards. But if you don't understand your perspective. Yeah. The other thing I want to look at here, too, is I'm thinking about how much, you know, I'm happy you're here, but you charge by the hour, and I think we budgeted $15,000 total for legal for our next budget.

That budget line did not anticipate extended legal expenses, and so that's part of the fee here for me is to say that I don't think it should come out of our budgeted legal expenses to handle this issue, which is above and beyond what we would normally expect.

So I think that as long as we know that our fee that we're recouping here addresses that concern, that's an important thing for me as well. And I'm not providing any solution here right now. I'm just stating my concerns. I'd like to hear what other people in the board have to say. I agree. If I could speak to that, I'll tell you, I asked Kristen specifically in a meeting.

I said, so would we ask for legal fees on top of this? And she said, no, that should be included in $15,000. So, I mean, I'm not sure if we've gone beyond where we initially, where she thought we were going to be. I don't know where that's at. Wait, she said it should be included in the $15,000? And when was that? That was back when we were coming up with that number of $15,000. I said, well, should we also put it here that they're going to pay all the time's legal fees? And she said, well, that would be covered in the $15,000. So we would bake that into this fee. So the reason I raised that point is so that $15,000 we're looking at,

A subset of that is eaten up by legal fees before we even get to talking about what the fee is paying in terms of that violation, in my mind. I think her position was that you have to justify, you can't just say I want a million dollars, you have to justify, and when you talk about the fees, the statute that was referred to earlier, about being double, that's a statute.

If someone was to go to court, a judge could award damages. That's not for us to say, okay, we're going to award damages. What was happening was people on the lake would buy a lot. You couldn't cut a tree. So people like the developer that seemed to be a great important advert bought a lot on a long lake and just clear right to the water and said, I don't care, I'll just pay the fine. So given that situation, the legislature got together and decided that we're going to fix that problem because that's what people do. They lived on a lake. They paid a million dollars for a house and built a mansion and there was a $100,000 fine. They didn't care. So they decided they were going to take, okay, your property value was increased by half a million. So now you can pay the fine to go inside with that.

That's what that was all about. But we don't have the right, I don't believe, to say you could get double it. If they went to court, because they wouldn't comply, then we could take them all the way to court. A judge could have ruled it. Dalton is correct. And then you have the attorney's fees,

have all of those costs, all of Calvin's time, Jerry's time, and then there's no guarantee you're going to win, and then there's no guarantee you're going to get what you're asking for. And so, I can't remember, you said it first, you know, it's not, we're not looking for punishment, we're looking to fix the issue.

And I understand there are neighbors who want more, and probably deserve more. But I don't think this is the right forum to do that. I think for us, for the town, we need to fix what's been done. And so, do I think the $15,000? I agree, it seems light, but it could be more than you end up getting in the end, so how much more time and expenses do we want out of pocket for something that could take two or three years, and what's going to happen in the interim?

You can make a condition that if the legal fees related to this issue exceed the $15,000 that would be included, I suppose. Yes, at the end, you could make that addition. The operator would have to do it. I don't know what our exact fees are at this point. I can guarantee that they would not exceed $15,000. But at the minimum, they do need it into $15,000 two-year-old.

Yeah. So, John, I was just going to, I think, echo Josh there, which is, I think, step one is we're not, this isn't a punishment. This is going to cover our costs. And if we think they're good at $15,000, you know, I guess we just tell Christian we're not paying any more, but would you agree with that?

Yeah, I'm trying to, so my brain works with analogies, and I'm trying to figure this out. If someone had a permit to build 10 houses, and they built 11 houses, would we say for that 11th house, you owe us double the value of that house as a fee?

That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around here. And so I would be more comfortable with this to say, you know, a $15,000 fee plus legal expenses incurred to this point in future not to exceed $5,000 or something like that.

So I would be more comfortable if the fee itself was the $15,000 and then the legal was covered separately at a minimum. Because, again, I understand that this isn't like we're not judge, jury, and executioner here, and the intent isn't to say you're being punished for this.

I also understand that the lot that has been expanded on is already owned by the person who did that, so it's not expanding into somebody else's property. Arguably, what they have done on that adjoining lot is something that could be permitted. So I'm just trying to wrap my head around all these externalities and also keeping focus on what is actually legally defensible

in our town ordinance in separating my emotions side of my brain to my logic side of the brain and stick into it because we've got to make sure that we're following a proper process here. So, again, not offering a lot of solutions here, just kind of thinking out loud. Can we do that? Can we add with the cost of legal fees in addition to? So the town can certainly request it, obviously, that would have to be consented to. The reason I bring that up is we're fresh off our budget cycle and our legal fee line is very tight. and many of us felt uncomfortable with how tight it was to begin with.

What's that? A $3,000 over illegal. Right, but either way, so this is just one of those things that are saying this is an unexpected cost, and so we don't want the town to have to bear the responsibility of an unexpected cost. And from a philosophical standpoint, too, the way I think about it is when we're asking the taxpayers to pay for legal, we're not asking the taxpayer to pay for legal to be tied up with one individual business owner, property owner's case, which is then cutting into the town's legal line,

which is then cutting into the opportunities for our town to manage other things. So I think that we need to, I respectfully disagree, and I would like us to separate the legal expense from this fine personally. So do we then get a different number for our other town expenses?

Because if they thought it was going to be $30,000, If we use Kristen's estimate for legal, so it would be $15,000 plus, which pays no legal, plus $15,000. Is that it? I'm saying that the fine of $15,000 is what covers code enforcement time, covers planner time, covers town staff time.

But I want to separately bill the legal line because that's the most expensive component of this for us. And so I'm of the opinion that the $15,000 fine should be separate from the legal expenses associated with this. And that Kristen and our legal team can essentially, as they're billing us, we can recoup that deliberately through this process is where I'm kind of suggesting.

So I think we would just also want to clarify, to the extent that, you know, that the operator does agree to this language, whether or not those legal fees are capped at tonight, or if they would extend into the future if there is, you know, non-commodation.

Yeah, and I'm comfortable putting in language and emotion for that, so I can do emotion. So I move that the, and again, emotion just gets us into discussion. Do we need to wait until we get passed? Yeah. So, I move that, what number are we on here, sorry?

3. That paragraph 3 on page 2 states, Upon execution of this agreement, the property owner shall pay a fine amount of $15,000 by a check made out to the town of Durham. Sorry, $15,000 by a check made out to the town of Durham, which will be held in escrow by council for the property owner and distribution of Town of Durham upon ratification of the agreement by Town of Durham Select Board. Additionally, the property owner shall pay legal fees

incurred by the Town of Durham not to exceed $15,000. That's my motion. We'll have a second. I'll second. All right. So the intent of my motion there is to cover the $15,000 fee and have our legal fees covered separately. We don't know exactly what those will look like, but not to exceed $15,000. So if it does exceed $15,000, we're at least recouping a large portion of our legal fees as we go into this.

I picked that number because I thought that number was higher than the number that we would actually get from a legal fee standpoint. I can't remember the exact hourly rate, but the ballpark in my head would put this at a lot of work to get to $15,000 an hour, $15,000. But that's my justification for the motion. So can I just ask a question? Do you want those fees to just cover up until the flight or any disagreements that arrive? From the beginning of this process. So all legal fees from the beginning to the end of the process that the town has incurred because of this.

So then I might just suggest it and have that additional sentence say, additionally, the proper owner shall pay the town's legal fees not to pay the town's legal fees incurred up to this point, as well as any legal fees that might accrue or rising from a dispute related to this agreement not to exceed $15,000.

That says a lot nicer than what I was saying, but I would agree, yeah. So I'll accept that, Franklin. I'll modify my motion to state that, but I'd like us as a board to discuss. Can we drop dispute? I mean, you're going to have legal fees, additional, do the legal fees end tonight if we approve this?

No, it depends on me. It was a little bit of a dispute, I guess. No, I mean, Christian and Freddie have still been out of time involved in this whole process after this. Because I think maybe it just hung up on a real dispute. I think that that ties it to this specific issue. In other words, if you didn't put that in here, let's say that Pitt's in operation for 10 years,

and 10 years from now there is a sudden violation, or a violation of a different nature, than that. You can tie that to this. So now we're going to be paying legal fees for the next 20 years that we're in business. So this is specific to this issue that we're dealing with now. Yeah, to my comment's point, the way I see it is like if next year there's trucking occurring on Rabbit Road and their consent agreement says that there are fees and stuff like that and then there's a dispute between whether we should charge it or not, our town lawyer has to be involved in even just the hour preparing the email, sending those sorts of things, that's a cost that's incurred because of this.

So, I want to, I apologize. If we could turn to section 13, that section invasions what might occur if the agreement is violated. And when the agreement is already included in there is that, you know, if successful, the, sorry, it just says that if there's a dispute that arises out of the agreement,

the property owner be responsible for the town's reasonable attorney's fees. So this is all to say that I think my amendment of your amendment was premature. And it should just say it should just read, additionally, the property owner shall pay the town's legal fees

not to exceed, legal fees accrued up to execution of this agreement, not to exceed $15,000. That was my intent there. It's certainly not mine, so I apologize. All right, so let's have a discussion about that. So I'll withdraw the motion. Let's have a brief discussion there so I can write down my motion and read it the way I want to read it.

Does anyone have any questions on that? Josh, do you have any input? I have a lot of things thinking about. I mean, part of the issue here is that, you know, our limited role in addressing the situation that's a resident, we can't fix it for everyone.

I think, I mean, I wasn't part of the negotiation, and, you know, I think some of the language, there's literally some of the language in this, and so I feel like this is almost a renegotiate the contract, and, you know, it shouldn't be happening in this form.

If that's an issue, we should say, this is what we'd like, and send it back, and have the attorneys discuss it some more. That's the concern that I'm having. I think there's a difference between renegotiating and changing a bit of language here and there to address an ambiguity.

Candidly, I agree. As you said, if there are going to be wholesale changes, please let us know what you generally disagree with, and we will negotiate. If there's a tweak here, a tweak there, that definitely could be resolved tonight.

And just as you begin your discussion, not to interrupt at all, I did speak, or I did hear from my client, and I think at this point, the town was the entity that proposed the $15,000, and my client is comfortable with the $15,000.

It's up to the board what they would like to do, but at this point, we're not willing to make a wholesale change to the agreement to the extent of increasing additional fines, particularly not for, I don't want to be a lawyer or a lawyer, but for an undefined amount, and I appreciate the attempt to cap it, but having an undetermined amount with a potential cap

is just not something that my client is willing to agree to at this moment. It's a difficult thing to negotiate, It's a group, and we appreciate the board's perspective on things, but at this point, I think the $15,000 will be a sticking point.

And I should also mention, I did hear from my client, and I know there were concerns from the group about profits made during the stock work order period. He made a little bit around $2,000 was the profits made in that period.

What about profits made from the five acres that were harvested without the permit? I don't have that information around me. I certainly, I think it probably won't be more of an estimate because it was essentially a continuation of 57.

So I don't have an emotion on me. And I just don't feel comfortable providing an estimate because literally I couldn't give it. At this point, I mean, we are maybe starting to renegotiate or things that were settled, not to prove, but it settles.

And so we need to kind of tweak minorly what's in here or give everybody our comments and send it back. Yeah, I think you both made a good point. I think that my motion, which I'll withdraw here on three, is getting to the fact that the board members, some of us are not comfortable with that fee structure.

And that maybe that needs to be talked more about between the two representatives for each legal team here. Other thoughts from board members? I'm okay with the 15 if that's what the lawyer recommended. But if we want to make more changes to that, I think we need to kick it.

I agree. I think, you know, when I was in private practice and what I tell people now is, you know, you hired me for a reason. You can listen to my advice or not. And, you know, we start renegotiating and it doesn't get us anywhere and this is the best we're going to get.

Then we're just spending money to try to get a little bit more. When does it become non-cost effective for us? And, you know, I keep going back to it seems like a penalty. And, yes, we want a penalty, but I don't, you know, and there are some circumstances when that might be appropriate. I think putting a stop to what violated the prior approvals

and it's what we need to focus on, put the property back the way it was, I guess. and enforce the land use ordinance for the new application is, I think, what we need to focus on. And if there are other violations in the future,

no worries or whatever, letting that somebody or Calvin to address in the future. But, you know, I agree, the $15,000 number seems low, and ideally would it be where I would want to be? Probably not, but I wasn't in the room, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. So I just want to make sure, you know, we're not, we're, you know, the dollar signs are going now and they're going to keep going.

When does it end? Because if there's no agreement, what happens, we're going to spend more money in a lawsuit. And that's going to take, I mean, our criminal cases that are supposed to take six to nine months are taking two years.

And so these civil cases are not being tried very often in Anishron County. And so you're talking two, three, four years. Yeah, I mean, candidly, I would think that it's a little bit less than that. But your point is well taken. litigation process does take a long time. And usually we've been seeing with these 80K type cases,

it takes six, eight months. This one is a little more sophisticated, so it potentially could take longer. And we meet our own studies, and we have to waste a lot of out-of-market expenses for us, and we go that route. And that's the concern that I have, because we're talking about up to $15,000 in legal fees, but you start getting these experts to do these things, And you're talking much more.

We'll chew up that 15,000. Yeah, I think those are really good points. Obviously, Christian came to this number. And I don't want to, I feel like I'm diminishing what you, and I don't want to. No, no, no. This is the conversation about the persevering emotion from what's actually feasible and things like that. So I think it's an important discussion to have.

Well, let's just keep, we'll just put a button here on three and we'll talk about the rest of these things because, frankly, the only concern I had, and I had overseen seven, overlooked the adjustments we made on seven, the only concern I had with the agreement outside of that was whether that fee was not a fee, what was the appropriate amount.

So other than that, I'll just read out number four. Can you stick one up here? I don't, yeah, I mean, we're already in an hour. I think at this point, we've all read it at the time, So the most glaring thing was the 15,000, you know, to the point of the rabbit road.

So is there anything else maybe we can flag or that kind of stuck out? That works too. All right, so is there anything outside of the number three here that sticks out to board members that they'd like to discuss? I don't want to change it, but I'll point out, I think both residents had concerns about what happens on Lot 60.

And I think that basically nothing until it's approved by the planning board. So your points are well taken. But other than some reclamation that's required to start, the Lot 68 will go through the planning board process.

And I would just ask you to stay tuned. And you'll get the opportunity, I'm sure, to comment at that point in time. So to that question, so you had mentioned noise studies that your client would be undertaking. Is that guaranteed or that's something that they may undertake?

So from my client's perspective, his plan is to work to get Lot 68 permitted. He was working through the process with the planning board and they provided him with a new checklist on May 6th, I believe, of the day of the last plan where he was considered and I believe was rejected.

So, as part of that plan, the checklist required or requested that he provided a new study, a traffic study, or at least more substantial information than what he provided, which, you know, to our opinion, means hiring out a third-party engineer.

And so, my plan is to continue to work on the permitting process for 60A, which will require those documents. And so, hopefully, we hope to be on the next planning board meeting, depending on how his studies go. But, yeah, if he does continue with his plan, which is my understanding of what the plan is, is to get 68 up and running, and that would all be a part of that process.

My other question is on the existing pit footprint, on the comments we're hearing about the vegetative buffer not meeting the minimum width. Has that been addressed? So, the natural vegetative buffer, to my understanding, is a max of 50 feet with 25 feet.

and part of that needs to be reclaimed, and that's part of the reclamation plan. So all of the areas that my client had surveyed and his engineer went out and staked everything out to show where the five-acre pit would be, and then they also staked out the vegetative buffer zones, and part of that does need to be reclaimed, and we worked with Calvin. He's walked the site several times with us to show the exact areas

for the permitting process that need to be reclaimed. So all the places in which there was a violation of the vegetative buffer should be reclaimed. And I believe the city or the city of the town has reviewed all of those plans and agreed that the parts that were within the natural legislative buffer zone will be reclaimed and were flagged. So I'm not entirely sure about the specific comment. I'm not positive about that specific location just because I believe to see the map in front of me where they were going. I don't have a very small portion of it. But all of the zones that were in violation and the city agreed, or the town agreed that there's a sliver of green on the eastern

boundary of the property, and there's no note stating that it would be reclaimed. All the other green sections have reclamation specifically noted about it. There are also no flags on the portion of the property. As of 5 p.m. today, rather than a flag

at the steel rod of my property marker, no 50-foot line has been blacked around. Calvin, does this all sound in line with what you're talking about? Yeah, so I went up with ADP. So if you look at page C-20, there's a box

that breaks through that box right there in the center right at the beginning of the picture. It says construct reclaimed side slope along lot 57. Seller the boundary using stockpiled clay material. Construct to original elevation. That is the area. And if you look at the section where I think this gentleman is referring to where that pin is perfectly right,

that's on lot 60A. And right now, the DEP is saying there is no violation. It says just re-vegetate the cleared area within the 100 foot. line setback typical. I guess there were some trees cut there and the applicant said he cut more than the tree kind of cut more than he was supposed to. And so DEP simply said that that they paid Yeah, so if you look at page C22 and you look at that patched area right there if you come in along the side of the boundary, right here, this first one And the first line we come to, and you see the photos that correspond with what he's looking for, what DEP's looking for.

The photo on the bottom aligns with that box that says Reclamation Area A, and then you'll see a picture of it. And then you'll see the milk that DEP wants there, what he wants replanted, and maybe five or three to four feet, and he wants those.

So what happened was the applicant had gotten a complaint from a neighbor. We don't know which neighbor it was. about noise. He asked about the beeping of the backing up of the loader. So he tried to build a boom, which is industry standard. What you do, you try to build a boom so it deflects the sound up over, instead of going this way, the voice isn't up.

And in doing that, he violated the setback in that short piece, and DEP considers it a minor encouragement into the 50-foot property. And that's on the 57A? That's on 57A. Yeah, both violations are on 57A. And what you're saying is DEP saying that they're, so lot 68, obviously, the PIT itself is a violation.

the DEP is saying that... Not from a DEP standpoint. The DEP is saying, the DEP originally gave their report, and he was very apologetic, in that he said, you know, I might be somewhat to blame for a lot of the confusion here that started this ball rolling, and that down in that, if you look at, what, 68, down toward the stream, he thought that that area had been bulldozed, and in fact, it's already regrowing vegetation trees, and he said, you're better off just to leave that. He said, I thought that it had been stripped, but he said, now that I'm here looking at it a little more closely, I can say that it's clear.

What I'm hearing is it sounds like a member of the public is disputing DEP's determination that the area is properly vegetated. Well, I think, so there's, you have the original part of the map. Yeah, if you can show me, I just want to make sure we get this clear. If we look at the green shaded areas,

this map would get tiny. I've got a bigger version for you here. She's good. I can talk through all this. So there's a green shaded area along this tree line here that requires revegetation. So you can see that this green area calls out revegetation, this green area revegetation. This green area along my boundary has no note along with it.

what you're saying. And I believe it's actually wider than what's indicated there. Whether it's wider or not, you can take it or leave it, but it's not called out that it should be re-advaged to you. And I'm usually not allowed this much input. I'm just trying to understand from your public comment, along your property boundary

there, are you saying that the width of the buffer appears to meet the standard, or are you saying that it seems too thin? I made it as little as 25 feet. Okay, that's it. That is that area, right? If you look at the picture, the photo. Okay, we're talking about over here. I believe it's my understanding. Calvin, this part over here. Where have you gone to? Right over here. Along the eastern boundary. Right here. Yes. On this eastern boundary. On 60. They found no violation on that. If there is a way that we could have that in our town or somebody double-check that,

because if people are saying they're measuring 25 feet and they're saying no vegetation, I just want to make sure we get that cleared up. And if you look at the little green piece that I believe he's referring to with his property pin there,

it does say there is a box that says re-vegetate on C20, re-vegetate cleared area within 50 feet of the property line setback. And I'm seeing a very small area on the eastern boundary. It's just green hashing on a green aerial footage is hard to see.

On the southeast corner, I'm seeing a very small area of revegetating where there's an annotated 240 line for topography there, and so that might address some of this. But all I'm asking, and we're getting a little into the weeds here, it's just that an extra set of eyes be put on that buffer just based off of public feedback. My understanding of your client's intent is to get this where it needs to be

if that was missed or something like that. Let's just take care of it while we can. Absolutely. I was going to say, he's had his engineers and private surveyors go out and do a flagging zone and to mark this up for these reclamation plans. And he's had the DEP come, I believe, twice. And I think they've come to the site two or three times now. And everything's been reviewed by all three parties. Yeah, okay. So I'm going to get an extra set of eyes on that east-south-eastern boundary there. I see a little bit of green hashing showing up, but just make sure we're doing a good deal I don't think there was any intended to be on that sort of line and the map is showing some green hash marks essentially from where it says 240 which is the topographic line from 240 to 220 I'm seeing a little bit of green hashing I just want to make sure we get this all I don't think that anyone's trying to skirt what they're

supposed to do here just want to make sure we're doing it right while we're doing it I believe, if you look at that, he does say that, if you look at that pin in that corner, he does, there is a note that says to re-regulate that area, if you look at that, but the area is, if you look on C, so what DDP wants, as soon as they are able to get to work there, is they want to see on C22, the hatch area, reclamation area B,

and A. You look at A as on the south side. That's that area I think we talked about a few minutes ago where the photo is. See the photo on the bottom? That's where we talked about the bottom. It's about 75 feet long. That is too close to the sideline. And then if you look at the area B that is the area where he has things too close to the stream. He has the steps and things too close to the stream. He wants that in the back. I think maybe we've kind of come to a decision, which is, you know, move forward and then...

Calvin, and I know you will, but, you know, the town just needs to make sure that these are followed. Okay. Any other questions here on this order? Right now, the only thing modified is number seven, which we've made a motion and approved.

That doesn't seem super substantive in terms of a renegotiating side of things. Are there any other questions on this? Okay, so the next question is, is the select court comfortable approving this and sending it back to the attorneys to sign?

Or is there additional work in the list of the select court wait to see done? Probably in seven, I think. Okay. So just to clarify, we don't want the attorneys to reiterate the discussion of the player space. uh i've been convinced otherwise i brought that up because i was concerned but um to josh's point

you know we have our attorney and this was just knowing that this was discussed before and this was what's considered and then to your point about the litigation process and addressing the concerns about the double of the extraction amount um that assuages my concern so i don't feel the

need to make a motion to do that so i would just ask that once we get the listening comments in writing, Calvin, if you can just read them over and make sure the spirit of their concerns are met or addressed. Like if there's something

that feels accurate with their comment that we return some information back to them. I will make a motion that we approve the administrative consent agreement as modified in item number seven and previously approved. John, do you have a motion? Is there a second? Second. Josh, is there any additional questions or discussions? Please make sure that Kristen's okay with that change. I don't know why she would be, but she's actually on a plane right now, so we won't be able to find out, but in her stead, I think it is all right. I didn't want to put you on the spot with it. No, I appreciate it. I mean, to me, that was, I heard people talking about it. I've read it before, so you've got to pay the big bucks. Not as much as Kristen. You know that was tape, right?

All righty. Seeing no questions or additional discussion, Paul, in favor? Any opposition? One. All right, that passes for one. Thank you, Paul, for your time and answering these questions. Obviously, there's a lot to this, both from a legal perspective,

from people's personal opinions and those sorts of things, so these are never easy to work through, but I appreciate everyone being here. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Alrighty. And thank you for everyone who gave public comment. It is appreciated. It's pretty much.

Alrighty. Next order of business here is selecting a town auditor. Jerry? Yes, thank you. So we went out to bid quite a while ago on this and we got the free proposals I'm assuming that you saw them and read them. So what I've done is I've taggerated the bid results for you and the recommendation.

So ultimately it's up to you folks. The choose one mark is here if you have any questions on audit services because you can answer. What was our budget for audit services? 22,000, I believe. Pretty sure, wasn't it? Yes, 22,000. So I will say, I don't know if you are ready or not,

but one of these companies, there's three of them. One's out of Chicago, one's out of Florida, and the other one is out of Maine. One of our advisors and accountants is out of Maine. They're the cheapest, and an audit is an audit is an audit. That's why I'm recommending the least expensive. Ultimately, it's up to you folks. to choose because it ties, it's a contract, so.

Any questions you have? They're reputable, right? Yeah, they're reputable. They're reputable, and I know, I haven't worked with them. But they do audit services for other named towns, so... I was the audit partner for the firm before... Sorry, can you just identify

yourself? Sorry, Mark, I'm a town accountant. I was the audit partner for the firm before I came out on my own. own. The person who's managing the audits now I've worked with in the past, and they know how to do audits. I take a motion to approve royal advisors and accountants as our town auditor. Do I second John? Any questions or discussions?

Anyone? All in favor? Any opposition? Seeing none, it passes unanimously. Thank you, Mark. Sorry, Mark. All righty. D, review, discuss, and authorize employee handbook. Yeah, so that's another one that we've been working on. We all have reviewed it for the most part. We haven't really had any changes other than an AI policy.

We had to wait until now because there was some language that needed to be changed based on how town meeting voted. So we were just waiting for that. Just as a reminder for everyone watching at home, When we hired the HR consultant, one of the big tasks was developing an employee handbook.

And the select board, over the course of three or four meetings, went through and approved the non-fiscally impacted elements of that employee handbook. And then brought, you know, recommendation around wage tables to the town.

And so that was the last piece. So this has been a process that's been going on for about seven or eight months. And this is kind of the final thing. we put a lot of time and effort into it and I really appreciate the town staff and the select board and everybody's contributions so that being said I would take a motion to approve the final employee handbook as written so moved I asked for a motion

Josh moved I spoke over Rebecca alright so we have a motion on the table, any questions or discussion Jerry did you have anything you wanted to add? I just need to sign All right. All in favor? Any opposition? Seeing none. That is approved. We have a copy for you.

Yeah, we'll get that signed. Manager report. Jerry, what do you got for us? I just have one report that I want to share with you. You got my notes, yeah. It has to do with the pairs you throw in bags. So, I'm in constant contact with Voice Zero, but I have done for the last two or three weeks because we're getting close.

So what I can share with you at this point is the get-and-go is all set up and complete. So their account is set up. They just have to order bags. Food City has confirmed participation, but they're still setting up their account.

Shaw's corporate has indicated they will work to get their account set up before July 13th. And Market Basket has confirmed that they'll also participate. So what they're out right now is they're trying to get these retailers to get on the stick and get their payroll plans so they can do this.

They haven't said anything about my internet. So all retailers are going to be encouraged to place orders three weeks before August 1st. So we still have some time. I don't think this is going to go as we would really love it to go by August 1st.

So I just want people to understand that we're working with 12 different retailers. They're all not going to jump when Durham says jump, right? So it's going to take some time, but I think by September 1st when all this gets put in,

people will be able to get their bags at multiple locations. I was going to say to that point, I know you're absent from our July 14th meeting, but if you could have a written report as to where things stand, if we need to make a modification to the start date, I'd want us to make that decision on our July 14th meeting. Well, I think there's going to be some places that will have the bags by August 1st. So I don't know if you want to modify that date. I just want to report if that works for folks, a report on the 14th, because if it's half the locations are good to go, that's a different discussion for modifying versus if it's one of the locations good to go. And so if you just have a written report for the 14th, Does that work for folks, and we can talk about it then? Yeah. Because I know the expectation from community members is to have a couple of weeks to get them,

and most people want to be able to get them at the grocery store they already go to. And the other question I had was on the ability to order them online directly through. And I haven't got any word on that yet. Okay. So as soon as the information comes in to me, I'll keep you updated. So my other addition to that is starting next week, can we begin with having information on it in the newsblast and on the website?

Sure. Prepping the town? Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. Maybe. We'll give the information as we get it, yeah. And I think there should be a separate, if possible, we can do an area on the website with links or locations of where it will be available.

we can add to that if possible. I don't know. I think there is a already dedicated automated trash on the website. It kind of moves as new news comes in. It is, yeah. Yeah, so you can just stop. To Rebecca's point, one thing I've learned is the way we throw out trash is a very important thing to a lot of people in town.

And so if that, I mean, if trash is front and center on the page for a little while, that would be great. So whatever we can do to increase communication. And also, you know, you all know when you like to use the text service and stuff like that,

but it could be after the July 14th meeting, we could use that to communicate where we're at on the trash bag things, even if it's, you know, trash bags are now available at these locations. Like, I almost see, as soon as a place says we have trash bags now,

almost always having a text that goes out at that point saying, Payage, you throw tags are now available at Shaw's. Payage throws are not getting going or whatever. Because inevitably, no matter what we do, week one, there's going to be a bunch of people who said,

I've never even heard of bags before. I just started using the bin that I found at the end of my driveway. So we want to make sure that we are putting in as much good faith effort to get that communication out. I mean, I'm thinking maybe I've got to stand at the corner there and spin a bag around like people do with the for sale signs and stuff.

all that but I like the bins I love the process I actually get some pretty positive feedback on the bin I mean I've got negative feedback too don't get me wrong but it's been I know people who have enjoyed the use of them so far I also want to mention August 1 is a Saturday so technically it will probably start on August 5th yeah it's Wednesday or Friday Yeah, so just throw that out there. Okay, so I won't be here for the 7-14th.

I'll be on vacation. I'll also be on a vacation next week. If I don't start using it, I'll lose it. I really don't want to give it back. So the things that the board needs to consider, some of your agendas, is that we've signed that contract with GP Confident

a $75,000 grant to look at economic development in the town of doing it. so we need to start thinking about a committee for that we had talked about someone from the planning board the conservation commission there's a couple up agriculture someone on this board and then maybe someone at large in town that maybe has some business experience being on that committee but that's something that we're ready to go should we put out a bid for the at large yeah that's what we'll put out a call for volunteers Yeah, I think we need to craft something about what the committee is going to do first, though.

I mean, you want some sort of qualifications? Well, I would say we could put out a call for volunteers for Economic Development Committee, and then we can vet volunteers as they come in, understanding that it's likely only one position.

Do you want to have a meeting and discuss that and vote on it before we put it out? Can you see if they have specific bylaws they would want for this committee? No. I just so that we can put all this call. People understand what they're signing up for. I know how they'll understand. Yeah, it's only 20 hours a week for the next year. I think George was hoping to get somebody with economic development to have it. If they can make that a... We haven't had a talk about this in a while, but But, like, we appoint the committees, so they're kind of, like, besides, you know, obviously elected committees, so they're kind of at will appointees.

So that's where we can make or break that decision. So we can say, hey, we're not, you know, we're not comfortable with any of the people who volunteer. And we can say a special consideration will be given to people who have, you know, business or economic development experience.

Because I think one thing you're getting at, too, is, like, the community is greater than the sum of its parts. Like, there's certainly people in this community who know how to do that really well. Maybe how do we draw, let those folks know, like, you're the person we're looking for, you know?

Well, there was somebody on the, whatever you call this, committee that we looked at. It seemed to me there was somebody with those qualifications. You can certainly put our mail there to see who we can get. Typically, after town meeting and we get started up with everything, there's select boards and real counselors do a goal setting for the select board.

So, I think you had to mention GBCon might facilitate one for us. Yes. So, before you, I just put it on the agenda to, like, set a date for that and try to organize that if that's what you all want to do. So, all I'm saying is that at the annual, um...

GPCOG meeting, and they said that this year one of the new services that they're offering is facilitated goal settings for select boards. So in the past, we've done it where we've brought in all the committees and said, like, what's important to you, all those sorts of things. This is something that GPCOG can offer. We have to confirm with them, though, because

they offer us one free workshop a year, and everything else is paid. The other workshops are paid. So we should check, and I saw you email Tony from GPCOG today. We should make sure we understand what the fiscal impact is there, if that's something that they can include, but if that is, I would be interested in us using that service this year, as opposed to their other workshops services, so I just want to

make sure that the goal setting is something, because they called it out as something separate that they're offering now, and I want to make sure that that's included as the one free Can we intend to plan to do that for the 21st of July.

I don't know if the people at GPCOG that are doing it can attend, but I can certainly look into it. But even though we probably need to get to it sooner rather than later. It's better to do it sooner than later. Certainly not after August. We want to get it done before September for sure. So if you could just work with GPCOG to see if that's something... I mean, I'm fine tentatively having it be the 28th if they call and say, yeah, that's one of our free services and we're available at 28th. Is everyone okay? Yeah. With that? Okay. Okay. So, this is a typically they're a little bit different. They're not like an open public. I mean, people can come but they're not televised. It's different. I guess we need to get some details from now on. Well, I'm not like what I was regarding. That's the way they do them. But I'll get you the details. But typically it's not. You just have to set a different date for us.

You can do it the same day, but it's not your typical select board meeting. Right. It's a facilitated goal setting. Like, a lot of towns and councils will do a retreat. That's what they do. They do a separately. So we landed it on a Saturday. So they're different. You know, they're not your typical select board meeting. Can you just have them send us their info on it then? Yeah. And we can bring it up at the meeting on the 14th once we get the scope of what they...

I'm sure they have a flyer or something like that that they write up or Tony or somebody or Christina can send this out. Yeah, it sounds like they can email us. If they emailed it and we reviewed it and then added that material to the agenda packet, we could come to the meeting on the 14th and say, is this how we want to do this? Yeah. I understand how we want to get it done sometime either late July or early August. Yeah, can we do that? That works for me. And then that will? Am I in opposition? No, I'm just like my wife is heading out of town as soon as I get home and it's starting to get... Yeah, we'll answer my email

because that was my initial seed plan, if you will. Okay, so other than out next week and then out the week of the 13th. So that's all I got. Thank you. Next time I go, Jason. So board members, I'm going to start. I'll be a little wordy here. A few things to cover. First off, thank you to all the board members for the town meeting. Thank you to all the staff for the work in the town meeting. I think that the five of us are aware of the colossal amount of work it takes to get that to go off.

And, you know, we're really appreciative of it. And I'm very appreciative of all the board members being there, being engaged. You know, I left the town meeting and be really proud of all the work we've all done over the last year.

So I just want to thank each one of you for that. A couple things. July 14th, we're going to have the Ag Committee back in to discuss approving waiving fees on greenhouses as they had presented a few times. I have kicked them off of our agenda three times because our agendas have filled up. So I really just want to get them here. I think we've already had the discussion we need to have. They were just letting us ruminate on it, which we have for a couple months.

So, they will be back on July 14th, and also on July 14th, I'm hoping that we can put out our call for the committee member at large for that downtown, or that business development, and we can talk about that. Also, we'll follow up on Jerry's discussion around the bags.

The other thing I wanted to know, so I just want to get approval from you all. I reached out, so I hear where at the town meeting, the budget committee introduced documents that none of us had ever seen before, and graphs and things like that, and put them next to our packet and presented them to the town as, like, documents, official documents.

There's a lot of inaccuracies in those documents. I reached out to, and I think you all probably saw the response email. I reached out to the chair of the budget committee asking if he could provide us with those documents.

There's no record of those documents being approved by the budget committee, so I asked if he could provide us the meaning at which that happened and the emails pertaining to it. He responded saying my request was a form of harassment and that he didn't want to give us that information.

And so I submitted a thorough request today to the town to ask for that. After submitting the thorough request, I realized I submitted it from my town email, not my personal email. And so I wanted to know if the board has issue with that request coming from the board or if I should resubmit it via my personal email.

Ultimately, I want us to have that information because when the first tax bill goes out, we get email questions of who approved this, why was this, why was that. None of that information has been made public to this point, and it needs to be made public, and so that's why I went about the request.

So, is the board okay with me having that come from us as the board, or would we rather have that request for those documents come to go to them as me as an individual? I think it needs to come from you as an individual, because I think it's something we would have to vote on and we'd have to have notice of.

So, we can add agenda items to this meeting as we go. So, we do have that mechanism, but I'm happy to just, it's just, to me, the funkiness is I will request it as an individual, and then as an individual forward the results to myself as a board member and say, could the board member please address this? So it's me asking myself to do something. And it's that clunky line of once we're on the board, it's really hard to speak as an individual, even if you say I'm speaking as an individual. Ultimately, legally, they have to provide these documents anyways,

and they're kind of a little clandestine with it right now. And so that's where my point is coming from. It's like we're going to need to have this information. And so your opinions, I should send it as an individual. I don't disagree with you.

This goes to a long-term concern I have, which is we seem to be very, between the budget committee and us, everything's very antagonistic. I don't see anything wrong with them putting documents together. And if somebody from the town, because they don't work for us, they're a separate entity, and if somebody in the town says,

hey, where did this come from? It came from the budget committee. If they put something together, I don't know that that's a problem. Whether you know it's a problem or not, it is against the law. MMA informed us of that today because they called MMA saying that they shouldn't have to comply.

MMA informed us today that it is against the law for them to craft that material outside of a public session. It's a Class E crime or whatever. But, you know, are we going to fine them or whatever? I guess they didn't get up with the law. In a general comment, it seems to be very much us against them and maybe getting to the point where it's personal.

So I think, you know, however you do it as, you know, 6-1 Joe Roy, private citizen, Joe Roy, chair of the select board. To me, that's the immaterial. So that's my thought. Yeah, and I understand I have no public-private issues with individual members of the committee,

But we do have to uphold everyone following freedom of access and following the laws around public meetings. And that is something that that committee has been very clear to us in the past. And so we're going to have to answer the questions that come out of this. And so without the actual material, it's hard for us to answer those questions.

If it's developed in an illegal manner, that has to be addressed, too. Okay. But I think, you know, the budget was decided. I mean, it was at least a two-to-one vote in favor of the budget, the select board forward it. So those are my comments. It doesn't mean it would be how you do it. Deborah, Rebecca? I think it needs to come for me personally just because of how it's stipulated and it wasn't on the agenda.

I disagree, though. I do think it is something that they should answer to the information that they put out there. They are elected officials. They should back up their information. and that wasn't videotaped. Their meetings are supposed to be videotaped. Now, there's no, is it a requirement? It's not a required, no, they have to be public. They have to be public, but there are no meeting minutes. But the minutes don't have, yeah. There's no information on how they came to those numbers. I mean, that was a little suspicious. It just, it didn't look, it didn't look kosher. It was just, it looked very just off. And I, it left a bad taste in my mouth, it left a bad taste in other people's mouths. And so I just don't feel that was the right way that they should have gone about it. If they would just come to us with that and said we're going to present this, it would have been a whole different situation.

But they didn't. And so I feel like it was fairly under the table. Like they were trying to be shy about it. The other issue is that that wasn't part of any of the public material that was made available. And so people make decisions as to whether they're going to participate based off of what they can review for public material. And so if new material that's never been seen, that's never been presented to the public, pops up.

And I'm assuming it's new material because it's not on any of their meeting notes that they approved documentation, approved their own wage studies, and approved all these things. And I can't watch that. And I usually watch all their meetings. And so, like, especially because the numbers were factually inaccurate, too. That's just challenging. We and the planning board are the only ones who televised. Agriculturalists come up with... And again, that's fine, but when material is submitted and there's no notes of it,

like when you look at the notes, there's no notes saying material developed for the planning board town meeting. Did the town print that? Did they ask the town to print those documents? Right, so it's just then separately printing their own documents and then presenting them as town documents, like official things at the meeting.

Well, and I think going forward, you know, we can just say, hey, if you want to put it out, just, you know, I don't think they need our approval to do that. No, but my point is that we're seeing that a committee is not following the law.

And so I think we have some responsibility to raise that awareness and at least request that the information be submitted. And so I can put in the request as an individual, and then as an individual, forward it to myself as a board, and then as a board member, bring it to you all. But to me, it just seemed easier to say, if I'm just asking, as a board member, could you please give us... It's also weird, too, because it's like one elective party to the other, you just say, could you please provide this information? The answer is no. At my state job, I never have to throw out another state agency to get information. I just ask. I don't think that's it. I think it's because it wasn't on the agenda, and that's the only thing that I think, in terms of that. I think, yes, we should be doing that. So, I do want to clarify, Kristen has made clear, we can add things from the floor on the agenda. So, it is allowed

we don't do it the reason I brought this up tonight was because it was like as I was coming in I said oh this just happened today and while I get this request put in I sent it and then said oh maybe I shouldn't have sent it from my town email and I came and asked Jerry I said do you think I should have sent this request to the town clerk from my town email and he said well if it's going to come from your town email talk with the board and if the board is hard. No, you shouldn't have done that. I will withdraw my request. I will copy and paste it, and I will send it from a different email as soon as this meeting ends. But if the board's okay with me asking for that information officially, I'd rather

just let the existing request live as is. And so I wanted to get that feedback. So can you motion this? Yeah. You have to motion it to add it to the agenda, I suppose, right? My understanding is, yes, I could add it to, I should have added this in the beginning, now that I think of it, to add it to new business. So, I'm not a parliamentarian. I would say just withdraw it, put it in with your personal email, not to an agenda next time. So, when I receive the information, do you all want it sent to you from my personal email? Sure. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I do think it's important information for our committee to have. No, I think we should have it. Yes, I agree with that. I don't disagree, but I also think if we're going to have this discussion,

I think there needs to be an opportunity to defend the action. Yeah. I mean, we're talking about it's classy felony and everything else. I was going to say felony. That's a classy offense. I mean, with my job, I am pulling the law forward. Yeah, and frankly, when I asked for the information,

as a board member said, can you send this over to us? I was not expecting a, no, we're done working for the year, this is harassment. And so that's when I just said, oh, okay, I'll follow it, and then that's where we can get today.

And so now I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. So I withdraw my request via my town email and resubmit it tonight via my personal email with the intent of gathering the information to bring back to the board anyways.

Sounds good. All righty. Josh, anything on your board member or floor? Just to add to what you said about the, I know Jessica's still working on the election stuff, so, you know, that was a lot of hard work. I appreciate everybody doing that as well. I know we all do. I don't know. We've seen everything that you said, but... Can I just throw out there something that, and that's the night of the election, called me and offered and did buy the election workers dinner and delivered it, so... Thank you for being a huge help and using the facility was no problem at all. Thank you again for letting us use the facility. Yes, no broken bones this election. That's the new ball we're trying to maintain. So, Deb. All right, I had the action to meet with Tia on the bandstand, which I did,

her and another member of the Historical Society to kind of get that moving. We have a resident Eagle Scout who wants to participate in that. So we'll probably have a lead team of three, Tia, myself, and the Eagle Scout.

And we have a list of residents who have already placed interest in participating with the renovation of the bandstand. To what extent it will be renovated, you know, that's still up in the air, and we'll come back with that.

But we want to get that moving with the idea that it will stay in its same location, which if it's in that location, it technically, we're not going to be holding any concerts in that little bit of land and probably won't be really used, but pieces of it can be restored.

I know Tia had mentioned, when I first talked to Tia, Tia mentioned that the Historic Society would like to see it restored as a historic monument, not as something for use because of all the issues with ADA compliance and stuff like that. And so it doesn't have to be structurally sound to hold up a band, but it can be restored for historic monument status, which I think is a really great way to address what's been a perennial question

at least the last four town meetings. So we'll start to get that moving. We'll see some of that. That's wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Rebecca? I have nothing but to thank Jessica and Kimberly and Denon and Jerry and everybody else for the town meeting. And good job, Joe. Thank you. Thank you for meeting us. Absolutely. John? I'm good. All right. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So move. Josh, I would say. Could I just ask a question from the municipal release deed? Could you just very briefly tell me what that is? Is somebody, do we have a lien on a property and now we're taking the lien off?

I'm not sure. Yep, so I attached an account detail to it. So what happened was in 2015 there was a lien and the residents paid that off, but the town did not discharge it at the registry. Okay, got it, my question. Yeah, they need that discharge to go forward with what they need to do.

Then 10 years late, but we got it taken care of. Thank you, John. All right, so we have a motion from Josh to approve the consent agenda. Do we have a second? I'll second. And Deb, any other questions in favor? Any opposition? Seeing none. Upcoming meetings, Conservation Commission meeting on June 24th,

Planning Board meeting on July 1st, Agriculture Committee meeting on July 8th, Slept Board meeting on July 14th. We've already discussed upcoming Slept Board discussion for that meeting on the 14th. I don't believe we need an executive session. Seeing none, I have a motion to adjourn. So moved. Josh, John, and thank you to Public Works and the Department for your reports.

All right, all fairly much to adjourn. Any opposition? Seeing none, meeting ends at 8-22. Josh, we'll get to the second first. No, you're done. Over at 8-28. Oh, God. Right in 3. I'm not going to thank you.