TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ March 1, 2023

2023 regular meeting of the Durham planning board first thing we need to do is confirm a forum we do have that Mr jerrington Mr Williams Ms Caplinger and myself John Talbot so we have four out of five and we have a quorum um are there any amendments to the agenda you would like to amend the agenda going going on uh the next is acceptance of the minutes of the prior meeting which goes back to January 4th

I would move to accept the January 4th meeting minutes as presented a second we have a Motion in a second are there any comments discussion seeing none please raise a hand 4-0 that takes us next to informational exchange on non-agenda items so

um Town officials which we'll start with Mr LaBarge Our Town planner and then we'll open up to the vast collection of town officials in the audience uh the only thing I have to report is that I we met John and I with the select board last night and uh presented the recommendations from the planning board and they made a request for a change to part 1B which we're going to be discussing a little bit later so and the new GIS system is operational on the website hope you've checked it out and if you do see any errors uh you know the prop the parcel maps and they're from their paper version were put into a GIS system and some parcels were not connected to the trio database and the consultant gave a list of about a dozen or so where the property record cards don't match the maps so she's looking for the assessor to uh to you know find out where those connections are and make them so it's helping the assessing

process as well as making all that information available to the public so people have pointed out some errors and as we just uh as we receive them probably they'll be handled and I've asked for direction from the consultant but she's not going to be paid to check it every time someone brings something so what will happen is every year they do updates and so all of the parcel changes the new subdivisions everything goes in any errors that are found will probably be put into the pile with all of those other changes for the next update okay mine is one of them do we let since we're on TV do we let people know now that do they see you we will forward them on to the consultant and she'll keep them in a file until she's ready to do that email top planner and say my property and I will I will follow up on yours John it might be good to understand the schedule of the updates like yeah basically um the tax assessment year goes from is

it April 1st to April 1st I know it's April uh and so what happens is from uh April of 2022 through April of 2023 any property changes that have been made somebody sold a lot subdivision gets approved uh somebody changes the boundary line uh and usually there's about 20 changes uh in terms of individual and so those as of April 1st of the following year then get basically documented and sent to the mapper and then the maps are updated based on those changes okay so like April May time frame yeah well usually there are several towns that are all you know trying to get their Maps updated at the same time so usually over the summer it'll be done but if you want it in the next round

that makes sense anything else nope that's it any other Town officials that are here have any comments questions concerns jokes um so we're on to uh residents uh and this is for Stuff two things I know so many folks are here of somebody here for the project some some of you one of you at least is here I I would have guessed to talk about the um land use articles I just want to ask a question and make I will make an exception this time one one so if you step in the thing and announce Who You Are

um and my question was um based on the agenda and it says that you're talking about the land use article amendments um and there are select board members that are here in attendance and I was fully anticipating that the slipboard chair would be here in attendance this evening um he's in the Next Room okay and so I'm wondering if they're here as residents or if they're here as members to participate in that conversation later the town the chairman of the slack board is here as a presenter the same way the engineer would be for Deer Creek so he's I guess he's also resident but he's here to give the official the official version of what they've asked us to do okay so with that being said that um if he is here as a select board member which is what you just stated um I find it very inappropriate and also by his own admission I read the letter that he sent to the planning board chair um at our previous meeting where he

stated that the select board should not be involved in recommendations sent to the board that they simply vote up or down the recommendations the timeline was set by this board to complete their work on the timeline as outlined by the planner at your last meeting to comply with the select board being able to vote on the Warren articles at their meeting last night however the slipboard chair now wants the article to read something different and as such you're here to discuss that again this evening even though you've already voted as a board on what you would send to the select board in addition to that the select board chair stated at last night's meeting that what most people don't know is that the planning board is a quasi-judicial board and that the select board has no say or impact act on their work yet here We Are Tonight revisiting this again solely because the select board chair takes issue with it you've

already voted on your recommendations so I would ask that this board keep that in mind when they arrive at the part of the discussion this evening and also how you choose to proceed at that point if you've invited this left board chair to join your discussion I was asking the question against being um redundant I apologize that if he's here as the select board member um because the public comment period closes when I'm done talking or if there's anybody else to make a comment um per your agenda in that case I believe you should also include Mr Roy as the Conservation Commission member since his commission is the commission that you tasked with this work finally we should not be orchestrating Warren article recommendations to achieve a desired outcome and then continuously reworking them to attempt to achieve the desired outcome when the legislative body has spoken not once but twice on this issue and I would again like to

reassert my opinion to remove 1B from the warrant altogether thank you thank you okay any other residents having heard none we will move on to we'll have that discussion on articles uh following this so non-residents who want to talk about something not on the agenda are jokes still an option no you know particularly during your presentation uh so no no residents continuing business so 5A is a decision by this board on whether we consider uh this is for Deer Creek Deer Creek Crossing whether we consider their application complete or not and Mr DeBarge if you would like to just do an introduction to that sure uh as indicated in the agenda packet uh this application was found to be incomplete yet the November meeting and the board reconsidered that decision at the December meeting and it has been tabled uh two times now pending issuance of state agency reviews and permits uh

the three that were particularly noted in the notice of incomplete application or the dep approval of the new stream Crossing and removal of the existing one the Army Corps of engineer approval for of the new stream Crossing and the MDOT permit for the road entrance so the applicant had submitted uh copies of their dep and Army Corps permit applications and they submitted a storm water permit application as well uh and then this is up until this point on February 21st they submitted a new packet which included the MDOT permit as well as updated plans to address the peer review comments received today and presented a copy hard copy to you tonight of the final comments from will Haskell the town's peer review engineer and he identified one additional change that he recommends uh be required which is an impermeable barrier on top of of a stormwater treatment berm so at this point the applicant is before you again

tonight uh seeking a determination of completeness and commencement of the substantive review if you decide that you do want to proceed with the substantive review your packet includes uh the the draft decision in which you would go through all of the criteria and make a determination of whether they meet that criteria or not so the two things are that are not complete we have there are three things MDOT Corps of Engineers dep endot we've received yes uh so core of engineers and DEP remain correct all right hold on sorry yeah is that it yeah that's my question okay good because I was actually going to ask that same one so there's yeah I was just going to confirm what we called incomplete last time were those three things we have one so there's still two outstanding I would defer you to the applicant now to make their case of why you should be considering this complete well we're not there quite yet you will

get your chance yeah I just had one other thing too sure thank you John um so I just want to in the packet um there's uh the um Grange responded on February 21st is that when there's okay so I wanted to comments from um Goro Palmer is that when you responded okay so your packet includes the latest cover letter from uh Mr

Burnham and the plans were done as a separate posting on the website calendar and you have hard copies of that tonight that was the submission uh and then uh I also included the prior peer review comments and the preliminary uh notice of decision when were those submitted

um I'm just wondering if we've seen these already I guess is my question because I'm seeing older things in here and I just can we can we hold that thought let's let's get through a completion and then we'll we'll get into the discussion of um whether you know the uh if we get there to the substitute well this is a completeness question though it is kind of relating to that because yeah understand corrected so if you want to give the opportunity for the for the applicant to present their case that might answer some of these questions yeah yes so in that package there's actually also an email correspondence from the dep because the DP for pbrs don't actually send you a permit they just after it's met so I clarified with her in an email that I think her is her Alexis but there's there's an email that that dep permit has been received so we got two we got the Army Corps we don't have the Army Corps yet we have the D.O.T

department and the dep permit taken care of um the plans you have are each plan has a comment that will Haskell had requested and we made the changes and so we sent you an updated plan in response to all of Will's comments this latest one obviously has not been included I haven't seen that until I just walked in

resubmit with the changes that girl asked for okay um and that that read that the resubmission the package that I sent in I included two meetings ago I hadn't heard back yet so the updated package I've sent to will have sent to you and then the actual response from the dep I just got back two weeks ago so what is that response so I saw just an email saying hey we made the changes to your permit we because will had asked me to include some check boxes on the on the form saying you need to include your adjacent to the Wetland stuff and and so I did I checked those boxes include some upgraded plans showing where the entertaining solo filter is because I originally had just on the stream Crossing but our under drain soil filter remember when we walked out there we walked across that bridge and there's that big Disturbed area I'd put that under drain soil filter right in the Disturbed area to minimize further

disturbances near the stream but it is within like it's like the corner of it touches the 75-foot setback from the Stream So I did technically have to include that so you're looking at in the new permit application that I got the response back okay and all you're going to get from DP I saw it somewhere and I can't find it right now is that General yeah you get oh right the main General construction if that's something like that the main General construction permit something I think that the contractors do on the side that's like Hey we're about to start and and that's that's like a another just paperwork kind of you have our dep permit for the PBR stuff PBR stuff separates PBR Stuffs the stream Crossing and the work adjacent to a wetland and that's something you submit you wait two weeks if they haven't if you haven't heard back from them you just assume it's approved and then because I amended

it I had asked a question saying hey do I need to include an extra fee and he responded saying or she's saying don't worry about it made the changes don't worry about the fee your permission so does that include the nerpa too

okay okay so if I understand that discussion we're down to one thing that is missing the core of engineers permit so the question before us is do we want to Grant an exception for the core of engineer permit being available and start substantive with you if the answer to that is no then our second mission would be to decide what they would they will need a sixth an extension which we can grant up to six months so Step One is do do we want to do I have a do we want to accept it missing just the complete except for the corps of engineer Report with perhaps an addendum

and caveat that before they start construction we get the core of engineer reports hey correct me if I'm wrong but I feel we're also missing detailed drawings of the stream Crossing that was something that at least I requested and I think you commented on that too the the the uh will Haskell peer review pointed out that the stream meanders on their plan through the crossing which is which is the road plus the banks and then the Culvert and the plans show a straight Culvert so will Haskell's question for the applicant which he can address tonight is does the stream get put into a straight line through the Culvert or does the Culvert not be a straight line and follow to me under the stream and I'm assuming that was a discussion with Army Corps that's what I'm waiting to hear back on okay that's the so really the only I think in obviously that you guys can agree disagree I think the big item that could be changed is how that

stream has crossed I mean my my proposal to them is the stream the in their in their General notes if you look at that stream Crossing detail which I think I included in the last package there is there's a detail it's just a it's just a section it's very basic Ally yeah yeah with the footer and was the fourth drawing I forget what number yeah three or five the big one in the back it's just a quick cross-section saying existing grade you got to set those Footers it's essentially in line with the Army Corps guidance on how to cross a stream it's a small picture at the bottom of one of the pages I mean the notes on that dryer I feel like we need to that needs to be designed oh and I've figured out in the field well if we yeah this is a question if we accept that they've submitted something The Next Step during sensitive review would is have they submitted enough if that makes sense if is that

the correct information or any sufficient information I I agree with Ron but that it goes back to the permit so if the corps is reviewing this topic right now we're still waiting on that so my thought is we tabled this before because of one of these permits where so wait on that permit so we still table okay additional comments thoughts

[Music] since I was one of the strong proponents of tabling it back in October November I will say that I am more comfortable at this point proceeding with the caveat they cannot start that we so we can start substantive review and then if they don't have the core permit and I will ask maybe before I go too much further what have you heard from the core I had original conversations with them saying hey we'll have it back to you about the same schedule as the dep and maybe she thought that meant it was going to take two months but she's ghosted me the last five times I've talked to her okay they all have bosses I know so we're going there so the completeness review just says that they've submitted something for everything it doesn't necessarily mean that we agree with it that's correct and then it just it means that you have the information on which to make a decision whether it meets or not meets so they

don't have something then you don't have a complete we can vote Yes on that for instance and then we would move right into substantive review and then we could then discuss if it's if it's yeah if you don't want if we don't think that the not if you don't like it if you don't think that the design is sufficient that would be part of sufficient or if it's wrong uh that's part of substantive review but we don't even have it's like the complete we don't have it to learn about the design we don't have is based on well they're saying they do and then I guess it's up to us to say that if what they say they have is enough let me ask the court to follow up on Juliet's comment the core is just well what is the core saying well they're permit if they give you the permit what are they going to permit you to do that stream Crossing has designed right there as design that's all there so if they don't like your design they

won't give you exactly exactly okay so it could change which could change substantive review when we say substantive it could change how we look at the Culvert but I feel like the rest of the project besides that little Culver I mean that can that's just a piece of a drawing that can be moved around the detail can be changed but as far as substantiative I feel like the other pieces of the project can certainly be reviewed and if that Culvert I feel like that the Army Corps is the authority on that Crossing I respect all of your opinions on the matter but I feel like they should be the final say on that Crossing yeah we can discuss that detail all we want but until here's my I guess I want to make sure I'm clear on this if my mind if we move forward with completion there is a caveat Asian what's a condition condition thank you that says they cannot start until we you know we want to give final approval until we've seen

that and we're satisfied that was that was one of the arguments when we when we voted on this before when it got defeated and it was Ron and I basically said we was talking about conditions and it sounds like you've been

comes back and says good with how it's proposed you still don't have enough detail to review it right yeah I mean we're kind of moving into substance I would agree that even if the core says that's appropriate way to cross the stream I think we need to see a good detailed design on how it gets done right um like that concept and just a line on the plan doesn't really tell us much in I don't think it tells a builder much you know contractor wants so you know how do we know how they're actually going to cross that train that so that would be a condition is that we'd want to see more detail in the design it wouldn't be a condition to me that would be you know that that part of the application is not doesn't meet the substantive okay what is it complete do you consider that I know we don't have the court yeah are you willing to make a waiver an exception to the core permit and get to substantive review and then as we get

into the design pieces of it because they have submitted a design whether we think it's correct at this point is not you know whether we think the the slope of ditches is correct or not is uh is not a that part of the discussion they've submitted that part of the design and it's my thoughts yeah I think um I'm comfortable saying that they have

checked all the boxes minus the core yeah when you if the motion would the motion be acceptable to say they cannot we won't get final approval until we see the core permit actually have it in and I've been asking whoever makes a motion can word it however they want if that's emotion I will say I will make the motion that we accepted as complete with the condition uh that we see the um uh Court we have the corps of engineer permit before we give final plan approval second we have any further discussion seeing none please raise your hand if you vote Yes three to one

we would get into a substantive review and um before we started I would like to come in the planner and you guys for beating your way through this and Mr Haskell from Carl Palmer uh because I think we're gonna we as a town are going to end up with a hell of a lot better project uh as a result assuming we you know we get through this thing so I do want to start off by saying that what I would recommend we do to the planning board is that as you you know for the vote we'll go through like the checklist and say this is we're okay yes or no with this where what I'd like to do is go through the the George have George given introduction and substantive review and I think there's five key issues that he'll highlight and you all may have some others go through those go through any others that you have and then we can work our way through the checklist as we finish this this evening and go into to next month all right I

have one question um in the notice of complete application we talk about um we're scheduling a meeting to talk about it so are we kind of doing that now or like talking about it now instead of scheduling the meeting for it or yeah yeah and I think you know this form is designed to do a process where applicants submits the final plan after completing everything and then the board makes a determination of completeness and then schedules a meeting uh to review it and do the substantive this process has obviously not followed that standard procedure and so at this point you need to adopt a letter determining it to be officially complete and you've already made that decision tonight so this is just a standard notice that we send to the applicant so you don't miss necessarily need to pick a date in the future by the ordinance you could start tonight so that's what I'd like to do is start this evening cover the key points that

you all have that Mr Tavares has and as I said since we're waiting for the core permit anyway we'll get into a final vote because as you go through their responses to Carl Palmer and some other stuff you bounce from structural design to environmental to uh Wetlands the whole nine yards I think it's it's better to beat through those issues and then take notes if we have any concerns that the structural design is not good enough when we get to that on the checklist does that make sense yes with that Mr the bars please okay well I'll start out by just reminding us of the process that we just discussed about the completeness determination planning Board review of a subdivision under main law and under the land use ordinance that Durham adopted has a three-step process first step is the sketch plan review where you just talk conceptually about the project and the board kind of indicates you know has an

understanding what's going to be coming applicant understands what's going to be expected to make the process work more efficiently then they apply for a preliminary approval and the preliminary approval which was completed in September you go through all of the criteria and basically make a preliminary determination whether you think that this project if all the t's are crossed and eyes are dotted and get the Outside Agency Reviews satisfactorily then you think the project can meet and will meet those standards so then the so that's the heavy lifting and you spent a lot of time talking about a lot of issues Last Summer the stream crossing the drainage on the neighbors the wetlands the you know the survey accuracy went through all of those issues Last Summer and resolve them in a set of preliminary approval conditions so those preliminary approval conditions are in your packet and so the final plan in my estimation

and understanding is that this is really just to make sure that the the decision that you make is legally valid and enforceable by the the construct the construction reviewers which will include will Haskell and uh and also the code officer on various aspects of the project so the purpose of this final stage is to get all of the documentation clearly established in the record to say this is the project design that is approved by the board that the board has determined to meet all of the criteria of the ordinance so you will ultimately have to go through the whole checklist again but you've already done that so I find that the most effective way to use your time in this process is to focus on the big issues so there are five that I've identified and then you can feel free if there are other issues that you've identified in your review that you think the board should fully discuss to get it policy

Direction on this determination then those you should also discuss so the five that I've identified which I think are the key parts of this approval decision include first of all obviously the stream Crossing and you know that the board made a preliminary plan decision that said if they get the State Environmental permits based on their expertise the board will consider they they've met the standard of the of the local ordinance you were going to rely upon those agency expertise in those reviews uh you made that decision as part of the preliminary approval uh however sorry we've done with that one no okay oh sorry keep going I was just going to say and also that included the removal of all right the uh the existing Crossing which was put in without permits they say they don't didn't require permits but it's creating a dam in the Stream at this point and they agreed to remove it we want to make sure that that's done in

keeping with the State Environmental permit uh permit requirements and their expertise as well so let me just list the five and then we can discuss some individuals just to get it all on the table the second to me key issue is the fire fund the fire chief has communicated to me

and to the to the board his concern based on other fire Pawns in town that this Pond actually have water when they need it and obviously the drought conditions are the are the major concern so the applicant has submitted additional information Nation documenting what they estimate the recharge rate of the pawn is going to be and the evaporation rate and they are their position is and you can discuss that at length with them that this Pawn will have water year round adequate for firefighting purposes so to me that's the second key issue the third key issue which I've pointed out for at least two packets is that they are proposing a storm water treatment basin close to the stream on land designated to be owned by the current property owner not by the Association if that is the proposal then there needs to be an easement on the survey plan which I haven't seen uh to say that the homeowners association has

the rights to have that base in there and go and maintain it that is not on the survey plan and again I've pointed that out at least for a couple of months and then a separate from a fire department that's right they do show an easement to the town for the fire Pond and in my agenda notes I also indicated that should be clarified that the town is not going to be maintaining that fire Pawn it's going to be the homeowners association the easement to the town gives the town the authority the fire department to go in there and use it if they aren't maintaining it and take steps to have it fixed and then charge the homeowners association and that really needs to be pretty clearly spelled out in the homeowners association doc minutes

easement or was that number four did I just miss number four I haven't done four yet that was the uh three I I just was explaining how there is an easement on the fire Pond yeah gotcha okay four is they have requested a conditional agreement and under the the recently revised uh land use ordinance amendments uh which adopted the procedure that most towns use to give flexibility to developers applicants uh on the performance guarantee because the estimate the original estimate they submitted was about 300 000 uh and will Haskell's peer review ramp that up to six hundred thousand for the all the infrastructure improvements and so they proposed rather than posting either a cash deposit or a letter of credit for six hundred thousand dollars what they proposed was to use the mechanism in the ordinance which says they will proceed with construction of all of the infrastructure improvements with a

condition approved by the planning board on the subdivision plan that says they cannot sell any lots and none of those lots will be granted a building permit until all of the infrastructure is completed so that anybody buying a lot in the subdivision will understand they're going to have to wait till all the infrastructure improvements are done before they can start building and they can decide whether to buy on that basis or not if at any point in the construction they like say they put in all the road base uh the water line they've got enough where they're down to say two hundred thousand dollars worth of improvements then they can come back to the board and say we would now like to post a performance guarantee for the remaining improvements get an amended plan that takes off that restriction and then they can start selling lots and building houses in the subdivision so that's a flexible mechanism that many

towns use and it works particularly well for the developer the town is protected and with the caveat that just to protect in case a project goes belly up for a recession or any other reason they are required to post a performance guarantee for site stabilization so all of the storm water erosion controls everything like that they should provide say uh sixty thousand dollars for site stabilization uh that would be part of the condition and under which you would approve it so I think that's a key issue or you can say we think they need to have the full performance guarantee of six hundred thousand whatever the amount is that the engineer has has confirmed and then finally George on that item are you saying that there's a scenario where they could do some of the site prep and start selling Health slots well they would have to come in with a full performance guarantee for whatever improvements are remaining if they want

to get the restriction on lot sales and building permits listed they have proposed to do it under that arrangement but with the design you pretty much have to have the whole Road in to in the fire pond that's the majority of it well we were going to say if they came in and said yeah we built 100 feet of the road and we want to start issuing you know get permits I mean I would Envision it perhaps as something like we're done and we it's we don't have

time to do asphalt winners settling in or whatever yeah would would we be willing to accept a performance guarantee on on asphalt yeah I'd imagine I'd imagine you'd hold off on like final surface coat until all the construction is done so we might have to bond this the final inch and a half but in order to save money they may want to get half of it in then come in and get a performance guarantee for the remainder because they can't they can't build houses in there anyway until they get the road base in so it's a flexible mechanism to help developers uh make the project succeed because once you approve it it's in it's in the town's interest to make sure that it succeeds and not tipping my hand but I'm not we'll see when you come in um on that one but that but that's what it would be that would be some um yeah so they are proposing that and I just wanted to explain it yeah but since we're still talking about this um what

have we done what do we typically do this is new in the past the town has accepted a developer posting a personal performance bond which is only a guarantee for a lawsuit uh and so under the new ordinance it specifies either cash deposit in the in the accounts of the Town released upon approval of the road commissioner that's one option second option is to say uh an

irrevocable letter of credit which is a contract between a lending institution and the town that in the event of a developer default then the town goes to the bank and the bank agrees to give the town the remaining money for the improvements which is by the cost of developer a monthly fee to have that Arrangement and then the third option is a conditional agreement uh that the boy they they agree we're not going to sell any lots and we're not going to get any building permits until all the infrastructure is done and there is a fourth option if they want to propose a bond or anything else it goes to the town attorney for a review to make sure it protects the town's interests they pay for the legal review of that and if the town attorney which has approved these other methods if they agree with what they're proposing then that could be approved by the board based on the legal opinion so what if this does worst

case goes belly up can we hold the discussion I think I'd like to get but let's get through all five okay this application has been submitted in five different packages and and changes have been made throughout the process so as you all know I've seen Julia at your pile you know they're like lots of different versions of the plan and it's really important that we have one set that says final approval the date of the last change the complete packet with all of the submissions and then you have that that pile is the official basis on which you're approving the subdivision and everything else that went before that doesn't count other than to say that's how you got there right now we are not going to compile their final application that's their responsibility so you need to have the final plan set with all the supporting documentation in one package for your decision those are the five issue key issues for

me anyway and you may have others are there any you know there'll be an opportunity to go if there's a particular line or whatever um what I think we've we've had a good review by um girl Palmer thank you um so I think a lot of the technical issues have been have been resolved uh but I Ron has a good point about the the design of the the Culvert are there any others like that which may be part of the stream costing discussion but there are any other and if there's some a particular thing we also this is not the only night we we're going to go through this so there's another opportunity but would like to at least get them out there because if we're going to ask the petitioner to change the design you

know say hey we are concerned about the Culvert we are concerned about the fire pod we do want to we do want to see the easement around the detention Pond the earlier we tell them the faster they can meet our requirements or requests

um comments back before the one we just got tonight number six in the packet can you give this the page number um page 17. talks about and you mentioned it too um in your comments uh George talking about the runoff the roadway and

um Grange did is lumped in the roadway with the uh uh the wooded area hsga um and uh um Granger's response is pretty much saying that they took an extremely conservative approach um pretty much disagreeing with Gloria Palmer on that I am not an engineer but I defer to the engineers and so I would

like to hear what others think about that but I I would like to side with Goro Palmer and ask them to can we before before we get that because this is maybe more of a general question there are a whole bunch of issues technical issues they come out of the girl Palmers I think 22 December report to you yeah then correct me if I'm wrong you went back to him and said we're going to do this that or the other thing or we don't want to do this and here's why and then we need to confirm since we just got girl Palmer's thing that they either agreed with your third round of changes or fourth or tenth round whatever it was that questions like yours have been resolved because I've got a whole bunch of the same kinds of questions or uh so that would be a question I would have is you've you know in your response that you gave Mr DeBarge you said we disagree did you work with goral Palmer and say do they now agree with

you yeah in the comments from the first round and there's a second round in which we just we added a no I believe that one number what page of response 17 you said I think this was from February the responses right talking about the ditches yeah we're talking about ditches here right that's this is the one about the ditches yeah you didn't want to count the uh Lots in the forested area uh I didn't want to split those out into a separate sub catchment yeah because I came up a couple two or three times yes and his his point there was in terms of stabilizing those ditches and that was his concern with the ditch sizing there wasn't it wasn't the volume of runoff it was are those ditches sized appropriately for the amount of runoff he did have a concern about volume of runoff too but from from a stability standpoint not like making to the pond or and and so in response to that we've added notes that follow the dep's best

management practice for all contractors that when you have over five percent slope or whatever it is that are catching larger than five acres you put down an erosion control mat and that's how you stabilize that ditch otherwise you can grass line them like it's just kind of generic that's that's it's that's part of it but this comment specifically I mean flow from the roadway um with the large wooded hsga

which I don't think so in addition John and and George mentioned this there are some things that were not worked out completely between coral and Grange well my question is that there was a there was a you submitted something girl responded you responded to girls response and they responded to that and and now

the third response were down to one thing so the question I want to be sure of is did you satisfy girl Palmer's where you did there were things you agreed with and you made changes there were things you disagreed with you threw a political comment in there that we'll talk about later um but is girl Palmer satisfied with all of that they've done except for what they put in the letter we got today if that makes sense because we've gone through several iterations as I read girl Palmer's letter they're saying we're down to one issue which you guys have just seen tonight if that's the case a lot of my concerns and Julie Juliet your concerns would go away and that's so my question is did you after you sent you responded did you then follow up what you said yes we're going to do that and Paul Palmer said yes we looked at what you did and it's good or you said no we're not going to do it and they said okay we understand your

reasoning why you're not going to do it and but we think you've you may be more conservative and so therefore it's okay just and then are we down to just one issue or is that that's what I we need to know before we we go a heck a lot further right my only experience with the process so far is I send in a response he's like just like for that question six that was a response to my response so I think if you had another response you would have included on this but otherwise like that's all I can speak to if that's just something just as far as we just need to confirm yeah and I would I would also assume but we he issued this today in order to be ready for your meeting tonight so I don't think he had time to go through an analysis of all the changes that they've made and they've satisfactorily addressed I can certainly follow up with will I'll be talking to him about another subdivision probably tomorrow

and can make sure that this indicates that they have addressed everything else yeah I would appreciate that and that's like I would love to hear what you guys think about that this comment specifically um that is the one biggest one where I see that um the applicant is agreeing with the Professional Engineers response and so we you know we're using the professional engineer as a good reference right but we also um can make our own decisions too so

so I've added that to the list not to in so you know we've got these things to discuss I think it'd be very useful to have girl Palmer just say oh no that was a new one I came up with and they I don't like I don't think the others are correct or I'm sad I've got their response I've looked at their response I agree with that well assuming you're going to be making your final decision what we can do is he'll review uh their

the submission that they that they provide in response to this last comment and then they can give a final letter saying they've met all the concerns that we've expressed or not or these are the ones yeah yeah that's easy

it's a good time to to get feedback to goral Palmer as well the other things that we're interested in then again we're going to take another shot at this next month so you know we want to get as much done as we can tonight and then keep going yes so I will get a letter from will Haskell verifying acceptance of all proposed changes please

that we can't ask them to do you know the original thing anyway right Okay then if we're ready then we'll give you some more time to think we've got six issues stream Crossing fire Pond sizing detention Pond easement uh the completion uh issue and then a

complete package and I guess I'd like to start with complete package because to me that's a no-brainer that you all should do that I don't know that I'm open to discussion but that's just something that I think we should get as as Mr tabar said um five years from now hopefully you are much more successful than that but two years from now um 30 days from now c205 is not the same

you know as kind of dealing with all the all the uh change dates on it and all that other kind of stuff is that just something yeah we're going to expect that so before we get final approval is there any other one of these that we want to take um and and again I outline the issues and obviously you want to have to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to those I just yeah I feel like with the plan set this one has gone on a few more Renditions than most so typically I I do just provide one large plan set and if three plans change yes here's your three new plans and carry on but I feel like this one has gotten a little more convoluted that one full package yeah that would be good what's another 800 bucks so I've taken that concern if everyone agrees that concern is gone I want to talk screen Crossings fire pond detention Pond easement which that one's easy that one I just got the survey plan

today with the new easement around the under drain soil filter so so before next meeting we'll see that complete package yeah what about the fire chief approval this is detention Pond plan we can check that concern off it is gone fire Pond seems to be the next topic talk about the design on that and how you're going to meet the requirements to maintain that water level yeah I feel like that's an easy thing to take care of with a um even a note saying you know it's on the subdivision to keep that thing full I feel like the fire chiefs concerns are valid in the standpoint of last summer our drought was absurd but those droughts those pawns I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money are not lined right that they're groundwater fed because the groundwater did drop a good six feet last year but people's pools didn't go empty right and every wet Pond didn't go empty because that's how

they're designed to hold water yeah I think the chief would disagree with you he and I have that car if they're lined right if they're online if they're lined if it's functioning as a pool rather than a a ground-fed pond the groundwater did drop significantly my well went dry right that I know it dropped nine feet in my backyard so yeah fire ponds that are groundwater fed what are you using for lining we're doing about 18 inches of play I think is what I put in there okay so we've we've lined this thing and people's pools didn't run empty out last year right so that's that's how ponds pools function they don't they don't run dry okay following up with that is there you did a study to say that yeah well so yeah there's a very generic not generic but it's a um conservative assumptions there when you say you know the amount of rain we get every year as state of Maine we get about 40 I think six inches and then if

you look back at actually New Gloucester has one of the few uh evaporation logs and they average about 26 inches of evaporation every year obviously the vast majority of the Year nothing's evaporating the other nice thing about these fire ponds is um if you look at the way those volumes are analyzed the top four feet doesn't count because of freezing so even in a drought of all droughts if our Pawn dropped three feet the water level that the water volume that will require that 120 000 gallons is four feet below the top of that berm anyways it's two feet off the ground and four feet above that that counts as our storage volume so we have a hun and I think I've been oversized it by 60 000 gallons so we're 180 000 gallons of proposed storage four feet below the top of surface two feet up off the bottom so no matter what the drought when that summer and that when that fall rain winter melt spring

rain comes around I'm confident that we're gonna get 46 inches of rain to fill up no matter what throughout we have that summer so by putting in this fire Pond it allows you to not have the expense of the pious oppression system well the priority here is that we originally provided we we said we wanted to fire sprinklers but there's a a sentence in the ordinance that does say that you can reduce the volume of the fire Pond but you can't get rid of it so we could argue that it could be reduced down to zero but you still have to provide some kind of you can't just go and stick a fire hydrant in the ground and say yep there's our zero nobody's going to approve that so now we weren't really given a choice in the matter if we either had to do a fire pond or underground storage system so we scratched the sprinklers because why would you do both but I think the irony is is that I think every fire

chief would agree the sprinkles are safer than a fire pond we would have preferred the previous but that option was taken from us well because the reason I asked that question is because the liability on the homeowner that it's going to be purchasing they're they're going to want to really have the insurance that that buy a pawn is going to protect my property sure yeah my question is aside from your betting on that it'll never go run dry is there a way to

um scientifically well what I'd like to get the Chiefs sign off on this before you know before the next meeting so that he at least he knows what's going to be in the ground out there and that he's okay with that and he's not a hydrologist is there a way to a girl

well I was going to ask have girl Palmer look well Palmer did point out this issue and suggested that they get you get calculations they've provided the calculations I'm assuming they submitted those to will Haskell and I will make sure in the follow-up letter that that has been addressed I will ask okay I like that and I've spoken with geologists who and they're like this isn't a thing that's it is it a thing but yeah exactly don't I it's a lined Pond what do you want us to say and just to Alan's comment about you know this is an ISO rating of 120 000 gallons for a fire

pond so if they design it according to ISO standards theoretically that should address any concerns okay yeah because in those standards they even address droughts and freezing right but we freeze more than we we evaporate I just think it having girl Palmer say that I looked at it and I agree and the Chiefs say we know that there will be a fire pond at the end of that drive and we're okay with it um I mean I we've been very good about including the chief and um Road commissioner and these kinds of things and I think and I know he's worked with you and you've worked with him and we have submitted to the fire chief and the road Commissioner of these most updates we have it's been good but just make sure that I would be very comfortable if he would email or something that just said look at I if the hydrology is correct I'm okay with that fire upon it where it is yeah yeah I feel like we would even

take I mean because again hydrology doesn't really apply in aligned pond I think the the uh catch-all I mean we have we have those water trucks that you can fill up pools with with so if there's a season and a lot of these things actually have rulers in them that once the water level hits a certain point you can go and fill it up is that in your HOA doc that says when it reaches a certain point no that's what I'm saying this is something that could be if this is really a concern that we want to say this has to be locked in at a certain elevation like that's something that can be varied it's not those studies aren't going to tell you anything I think if we get the engineer to say that he which also he would bet with you on that to choose with it and if the chief would like to have a ruler in there you know again we were there are pawns

that aren't working in town uh and so we just want to make sure that we don't put 13 homes yeah and then there's nothing there there's I don't know the subdivision next door has it but yeah okay so did the cows get submitted to they're in the back of your most recent fact it's just uh it's literally this big it's the area not a runoff volume of that pond how much is available how much is evaporating and throughout a year rather because it's kind of a tricky model at this not like usually all these 2 25 and 100 Year storms that's just those single storm event we're talking about how much water is making into that pond over the course of a year right and how much water is leaving that pond over the course of a year [Music] okay does that answer the concern if we Chief is okay and the well ask it will ask is okay with the calcs we're okay yeah okay um I guess completion dollars maybe stream Crossing seems like a more

complicated issue so you want to keep that for last I was going to say let's punt that to next month we we could just go you want to discuss this right oh yes maybe generally at least this is the last okay the grand finale uh so I don't think it's fair to them if if we come up with new stuff next month yeah right I know that makes sense

so completion uh conditional agreement additional agreement um the request or the thought is to allow this conditional agreement that would say at some point in time the petitioner at Deer Creek could come in and say we're done with this this work and we have X thousands of dollars left we will put in a guarantee that is matches what the town requires for whatever is left and so um and that would be approved by the former planning board well it it we would agree to a conditional um whatever it is agreement today that we could do that they would come in and say we're 10 done and we want it or we're 90 all we have left is a Surface coat of asphalt that's going to cost us x amount of money and that's what will will bond or a letter of credit or personal guarantee or whatever we want are we okay with that or do we want them to complete a hundred percent interesting historically the one that comes to mind is Ruby Lane that's still

being developed and they uh had the amount of money was put in escrow to finish that road because right now it's still it is not built to the specs but the money is in Esco to uh so that's you know that that is an option but there it sounds like they're submitting a different option yeah so right now we are considering that they don't provide any sort of bond or Esco or anything can I read you the language of the ordinance sure it's just one paragraph it says conditional agreement this is 6.34 c a conditional agreement if acceptable in lieu of a performance guarantee shall be endorsed by the planning board on the final plan and shall provide that no lot or parcel of land may be conveyed and that no permit may be issued by the court officer for any building on any lot in the subdivision until until the completion of all required improvements unless a performance guarantee is approved by the

planing board for all remaining work needed to complete the improvements under a conditional agreement the applicant shall submit a performance guarantee meeting the requirements of the ordinance to cover erosion and sedimentation controls and site stabilization prior to release of the recording my alarm okay so they need to submit um something for the stormwater piece yes and they would give an estimate the engineered peer review engineer inspecting engineer would approve that amount and then they would be good to go so the risk is the rest of the project if something happens is there anything we're at being asked to do right now or we're just on notice that they may want to they're you they're asking you to approve a conditional agreement for this project we have to do that as their final plan we don't necessarily have to say it's come in at 50 or come in at surface code only correct or should we

initial agreement is no performance guarantee other than erosion and sedimentation control and site stabilization with a condition on the plan that no lot can be sold and no building permits issued until the world is completed can I just kind of explain the thought process behind that because I I used to be will for Scarborough the idea is because the whole performance release the whole bond is to say that especially if it's gonna be a town owned road that we can't just abandon you at the half on the road half done Road this is gonna be a private road so it's kind of a little different I think the barrier concerns are when you start selling lots you've got a resident stuck on that first lot or in the back that's just got a dirt road and somebody walks away what is that guys what's his recourse to get that road finished and get his subdivision properly done this takes care of that in terms of you

can't even sell those lots until you get back there and get the road done and if you are going to say we want to sell these Lots you then Bond what's left to get them their final product but that road will not be 100 complete before you so it really is well as a developer I don't think you want it that way that's what I'm saying so we'll do the deteriorate that right right so we'll do the heavy lifting they'll do they'll do the sub they'll do the sub Bass the storm water ponds do all the Excavating and I'd imagine they'll put down that base coat and then they're gonna come and say all right we want to sell some Lots or even before the pavement they might say we want to sell some Lots can we Bond the pavement right so that if these houses get sold and we walk away they can then come and say give us that money to pave our road exactly so what yeah likely it would move just a pavement that if you ever if

we if anything they could just say let's just go ahead and do it the surface code I'd imagine they'd have to because again that gives them a better product at the end because if there's construction balls driving over it excavators getting loaded now it's going to beat up that road so odds are they'll save that final surface coat until they've got some house slots sold yeah and mostly built and I'd like to Define at some point in time so that we know what that's going to be if that's it binder then that's one thing yeah but you know you drive on Bowie Hill subdivision now it's still Stone and houses must be getting pretty close to being finished right so I don't know and I I heard about a subdivision today where the code enforcement officer was Slip Sliding all over because houses are being built and you know we're not even there yeah right sand sure it's not gravel so I guess I would if we do this I'd

like to kind of say okay what what point don't come in before this point so if whatever that may be um because we also have before my time but I think quite a while ago you have Granite Ridge which is defunct it's default but there's houses back there you know that road and so you haven't driven back there lately you're you know those Jeep advertisements where they go up over because you're driving on that road so I wanted

as whatever defining wherever that may be [Music] two phases one that you get a permit at this stage you get all you have to prove at this point is a conditional agreement that says they can't sell any Lots or may get any building permits until all the uh improvements are completed that'd be the only decision that you make at this point when and if they want to start selling lots that's when you have the discussion okay how much is remaining has that all been inspected and certified by the inspecting engineer and how much are you proposing to bond with us before we release the restriction and that would be the CEO that could be it would be the road commissioner and the uh in in goral Palmer right so right now we would do what you said and if they built everything yep and then sold Lots they're good to go and no one's going to come back but if you want if they want to do anything different they come back

and say to you we want to now it's right in that language yeah this just gives them permission to come back later yeah that's all yeah the other protection the other protection just to highlight is the erosion control thing so again if these guys went in there Blaze the road through there and walked away you have the money to go in there and stabilize the thing right so worst case scenario it looks better than it does now okay but more importantly that's more importantly it doesn't cause environmental damage yeah from an environmental standpoint not aesthetically it'd be very similar to what it looks like are we we don't really need we don't we don't need a motion on that at this point you ask a question do we need to Define all improvements or is that

we wouldn't have that on the plan but in the notice of decision you will you can put the conditional agreement requires completion of all improvements parentheses that's the that's the language of the ordinance then we need to specify in the decision exactly what it includes so for example a performance guarantee a letter of credit typically we list these are the components that have to be completed including the fire Pawn because you want to make you know that's not a typical Improvement right but you would put that in there okay

required we've just indicated to the to the network today can you understand that's what they're proposing okay you will consider it okay so the answer is yes we will consider it they should prepare a final plan that has that as a condition exactly I can include that right as a condition on the spinal subdivision plot that's what the ordinance says yeah yeah it must be on the plan okay one last question just because there's a there's an ounce of flush less than the source do we give them guidance and say we don't want you to come back until you have binder down no and not tonight they may not come back at all but okay yeah we just wait till they come back and they they say no we just want to put sand down can we start selling home slots and we're going to say no more we've done everything but to buy you know except for the final coat is that okay we're gonna say yes and and again if they come back in and it's like the

other side like that back in and the expecting engineer cut officer go out and it's like the road that you just subscribed wow you say no you can't start selling lots yeah right fix the road then come back and talk to us I got you I'm good we've learned from our past experience yeah it's a good it's a good teacher yes it is as long as we're paying attention and if you approve Glenn Ridge I'm not mad at you um okay so I think that takes us to

uh stream Crossings is the next big issue out there I'm saying that's the last that's the last of those that unless again if there's other things that you all have uh have well so while you're looking on the screen Crossing I think I finally got my head wrapped around this and I understand it looks like we're putting a 60 inch foot cover in the bottom of the that ravine and that stream will just be going through the 60 inch culvert and then it's in its lawn and then the rest of it's getting just filled in yeah so we're just so technical we're just like kind of filling in the Ravine and and I think that's why it's taking me a while to understand the design because it's not what I was anticipating and so I guess I have a question the rest of the board is that what you guys were anticipating and if the uh not the D is it the dep

says yeah that's fine um is that fine in your mind for what we when we walk the site and solve one of the strings that you cross is you okay with that excuse me I am uh why am I going to be well some people would say why would we be questioning the dep they are the professional yes but I actually wanted to see did you include the nerpa permit you say in here that it was included I don't have originally that was like two submissions ago or three that was just the the permit by rule application correct yeah yeah it was in an earlier but with all of these things we talked about like the updated one um the Culvert change and all that stuff it really hasn't changed I mean I think I bumped it up I think it started out as a 60 inch brought it down to a 48 because we went and measured the stream bottom and the rules it's supposed to be one and a half times the width of the Stream 30 inch stream right so that's a you're

talking 48 because it meanters a little bit we bumped it up a bit um and then the rest of those notes and design standards are pretty much taken right from the Army Corps saying how you redo the bottom you strip out what's in the bottom of the stream put it aside once you've remade the channel bed throw that stream back in and it's an open bottom Culvert right so if that stream it's not a full 60 inch Culver it's just an arch that goes over the top so it'll be a natural looking stream through the bottom of that with the Footers outside the I mean that that stream right now is a fairy defined like your typical seasonal stream that's got a nice swath right through the middle of it and 18 inches deep 30 inches wide so we're going to go up and over all of that obviously we're going to rebuild a section of it because making a call over sway like that's an interesting construction project but this is essentially a cover it's a big

culvert so from a design standpoint it's not like it's a structural once you backfill that thing like you said the fill is it's a significant amount of fill right so if it shows up on the um grading plan yeah the first plane in this new set yeah yeah I know but what what I want you to look at is the plan so you know this Ravine drops from 176

feet foot Contour down to 160. like you know yeah a little teeny yeah in it so it's 60 inch covert that long and then the rest of this is just filled in to get to cut those top bangs a little bit to minimize just the slope obviously cut a little yeah see the ridge is at like 176 and the road does go down yeah we had to cut it in I mean that the whole the whole premise there is to help with the existing drainage problems right we had to cut that road down so they can create at least a half a percent to fix the problem that was happening in those folks backyard what is the depth of fill it's like six feet five feet above the Culvert yeah six feet yes well

it's a maybe five the road the road surface appears to bottom out about 172. what's the top of the road at comes contact streams at 160 so 12 12 feet no the stream is that oh I thought you're looking at here yeah about 10 feet up yep

of a 170 in the middle of that I think that's a 170 I see in the middle covert's only like you got a 36 foot 36 inch radius if it's a six foot so anyway thoughts rolling on this like I don't know but I guess it is done all the time but it just it makes it well we did that we did the walk we [Music] when we did the walk we think we were there and discussed that we wanted something that created less disturbance in that Ravine and I think when you look at it from a like a five years from now standpoint when you walk back in there right now there's a a dam that the loggers built across that thing right there's that 12-inch Rusty culverts and that's that that's there and as part of this project we're removing that so from from a just a big picture standpoint what we're proposing is an improvement upon what is there we are environmentally and functionally improving the the that stream and that it's it's an intermittent stream that

I mean I guess what is your environmental concern that we're losing Ravine volume just the impact probably to what the existing well you have to have something though correct existing what what would be an alternative you have to have that bigger bigger Culvert I guess well I think my thought would be just to jump in here is that if girl Palmer has reviewed all I mean we've Dave had an engineer design it we've paid an engine they would pay an engineer to review it uh uh my thought is you know I'm not the engineer who can say it should be an 80 inch Culvert or you know whatever it may be what a girl Palmer how did they number two yeah they had asked to like clarify the elevations on those Footers because the Army Corps says it's got to be two feet below so I strip the actual inverts off of the detailed drawing and made it a little more generic and saying you just got to have it two feet this footer has

got to extend two feet below the bottom of the surface at the bottom of that stream in my general comment continues which is girl the things that were there was a disagreement yeah we still have a disagreement because I've got a lot of comments sure that you know if girl Palmer has looked at him and they're okay with it there might be questions better but it's yeah like you talk about we don't have any berms or but you then you say we have minimal Burns wait hold on but yeah I like where you were going um because I am also about this question so could we add number two the stream to the list of goral specific questions have you we'll also have the Army Corps and the deps have they adequately responded to girls concerns

okay yeah and then we still we also have the core and deps come in DP says it's all we're they're good with it so we also did you know need to see the cores and then you know if they're happy girls happy and the core typically gets excited about vernal pools but stream Crossings I haven't really seen much of a problem um but going back to the nerpa permit so when um sorry when did you submit that the final to nerpa to DP

just an updated form I think I included like eight months ago in the original and literally all I did was change my cover letter and a note I forwarded my email their submissions when they came in and then posted it on the website so you should have it in one of your emails okay and so I'm assuming it was the December 7th sounds about right so if you search your email December 7th you probably haven't actually that email print that I sent you in this recent package has my original correspondence with them what I saw in listening the last thing we just saw it just says from DP it says something about riprap one line that's it did you guys get more than that again they originally submitted a dep permit by rule application for the stream Crossing that was submitted in one of the many packets a long time ago I'm thinking probably for the December meeting and then they submitted most

recently an email from dep commenting on that application right but what Charlie is saying is that he updated the nerpa permit and submitted the nerpa permit per girls comments that that you guys needed to add the um you're taking out the existing Culvert those impacts and I haven't seen that and that's what I'm asking for I'm not sure

updated your your you filed an original dep permit by rule for the stream in the interest of time you've we've heard the request that we need could you if you've said it before please resend it and that should be part of the final packet yeah sure so please if there's other things and I was but please just resend it yeah and then also um you said the response from the dep that we just got had your submittal with it I didn't see that so no I didn't say that I said oh their response acknowledged hey we've gotten your submittal they don't send you anything formal they just say so it's literally a printout of the email she sent me back saying we've made the changes to your permit you're good so just include all that correspondence with the EP and when you get the course off all of that

some other topics is there anything else we need there are a lot of comments that have I said that I have and I if if we don't if girl comes back says nope I didn't cover everything then uh we'll send Mr to barge and planning board a list of all my concerns and you'll have them advance in the next meeting but if if they're satisfied that I guess that's the question I I agree with you on that oh yeah are we ready to move on to the can we send these guys home yeah all right you got an idea of what we yeah I don't want to do it myself

that was his joke thank you that was a joke just waiting for the opportunity to open the Eagles and I gave it to him so uh what were you thinking I don't know need somebody to sit close to me and kick me okay so again we've got next and longer if we don't get what we need next month and we'll we'll keep going until we do so uh but I think this was a good start all my little comments I will just send them to you know if if you come back and girl promises nope we're not I'm not you didn't look at all that stuff or didn't comment on it and I'm sure others have the same so if you have comments that were not covered uh please give them to them okay so before us keeping this thing moving our next thing item six it was a discussion on uh what we're gonna do next with land use article so we started with five and we

will take I guess the easy ones first or whatever it may be and and we had that public meeting back a couple of weeks ago uh we elected to drop uh the articles on affordable housing uh as you recall so uh just a quick discussion about that I would like we'd probably need to continue doing something uh we've missed the opportunity obviously with this town meeting but I would I recommend we do is that we take at the next meeting or April we could take some time figure out how we want to get there from here uh we got some guidance from the state that probably in Georgia did you want to speak first am I taking I don't want you to have to repeat everything I said no I was just going to quickly recap how we get here and where we are if it would be helpful if you want to Dive Right In you're no I wanna okay so first let me just point out that you did conduct a public hearing you referred to on February 15th

and the purpose of that meeting was to solicit additional public input and consider whether any final changes should be made you had reviewed the new draft rule from decd about the affordable housing which you also referred to John and you heard uh proposed revisions support for the proposed revisions uh to the resource Protection District criteria and boundaries but at the public hearing that occurred at Eureka on February 15th you did hear concerns about beginning with habitat six plus as a Criterion the board you heard questioning the need for to amend the ordinance to state that a town meeting vote is needed for a street acceptance some people question why do you even need to do that it's in the state law as a result of public input and your discussion you voted to recommend the following changes to the select board amend drafts for part 1A and 1B to delete the word errors and uh leaving

the language describing needed changes to the zoning map as being based on inaccurate mapping what I just handed out to you tonight includes those wording revisions uh in 1A and 1B that you discussed discussed and decided that you're meeting on February 15th um you also we're going to recommend to the select board holding off on submitting proposed Parts 2A and 2B for town meeting consideration until the rules for administration of LD 2003 also known as chapter 672 are finalized by the state uh we uh then thought that the select

board was make going to make a decision on the Warren articles on February 28th which was last night uh in a second public hearing has been scheduled for March 22nd at 6 30 pm at the Eureka Center again and the purpose of that public hearing is not to consider changes but to just simply give the public the opportunity to dive into any questions they have about what they're going to be voting on and the purpose of the public hearing as I said will be in if solely for informational purposes and that public hearing will also satisfy the legal requirements for Amendment of the ordinance and finally we did have been sending out the last couple of days uh a letter on the resource protection changes to 480 individual landowners affected by the proposed changes uh and so I would just clarify for tonight's purposes of discussion as I understand uh it's not that you are going to review and make any changes in anything tonight it's

just simply to give you an update in preparation for the public hearing on uh March 22nd so you don't need to approve anything tonight you don't need to consider any changes and then finally I would say in John uh I think indicated or that last night at the select board meeting they asked us to make one change to this and that is to drop the beginning with habitat Criterion six plus on part 1B

and and the select board members who are here tonight uh I think are here to just simply answer any questions that you might have on that decision so that decision last night was that a consensus or was it an actual motion by the board I would defer to the chairman of the of the select board to close

didn't when I walked away and voted his consensus right so that means everybody there was an awful lot of discussion is we are recommending it's being submitted to the select men for articles and the final decision for an article to be presented to the townspeople is the responsibility of the selectment correct yep yes we make a we make a recommendation right so um are you all finished yep um good well I guess what I'd like to do is we need to get to Resource protection what I'd like to do is George recap before we get to that is recap where we are in affordable housing and kind of get a consensus here going forward that we probably need to do something what we had planned to do or maybe not uh but

what we plan to do may not work even the guidance probably doesn't work even the guidance we've been getting from the state uh and that was as you would recall we're going to do a 1A excuse me 2A and a 2B uh to a being closely aligned with the comp plan uh but the guidance we've gotten from them and and we voted not to go forward last time basically said that uh you know you have to allow single families that are Standalone house versus an apartment so we can get into the details of that but what I'd like to do is is kind of talk through going forward with that how do we get it to an election

of got to at the end but we had to kind of put a table at um I thought Ian especially like with like the information we've gotten back that George has passed on but uh what Ian had kind of come up with at the end I thought was a really good foundation for just like one worn article because it allowed for like two accessory dwellings on a single family house um or one on a duplex which a lot we feel I think aligns with the comp plan but then it also protects us from the state requirements to allow three full houses on a lot by requiring that type

of situation the launch to get bigger basically if you want two full houses you have to have four acres if you want three full houses you have to have six and I think that was a start and my concern the reason I voted no at that point no I agree with it shouldn't have yeah we weren't getting to a point where we could have it at the town meeting yeah oh I think you know trying to reformulate something for uh like maybe the budget hearing would be uh doable and and it would meet

the state um time frame but I think that would be you know where I'd like to see us head would be maybe try to formally one question that would address all those concerns um and then also not leave us kind of hanging where all of a sudden we don't do anything and we have to follow the state law so now we can have three full houses on two weeks when is the budget hearing

idea is to push it to June have a plan to put in front of the voters well uh yeah the idea would be to get a worn article approved to vote on when we vote on the school budget it in my cons my concern is I will quit talking about another stock is that's basically two months from now right April May three months so put it into the price and you know we we did a great job I think of public hearings public meetings surveys you know we got the word out there I not to say that we have to spend another year doing it but if we're going to make changes I mean that's a significant change from what we've been planning to do I think we probably ought to take some time to develop that I guess what I'm saying is don't rush to a June a June election and if you go to an

election it's a paper ballot and you don't have a chance to really explain it and that that's my concern about an election so so no it uh so if we didn't meet that time frame we could be we could go a couple of months having to just follow the state law with

no protections that is that is a possibility I just purely a timeline contribution because that would be a paper ballot that's a ref uge the final wording of whatever question has to be to the town clerk 60 days before the vote so really we have one month exactly I just wanted to point that I appreciate that that's uh I I just Alan I'm keeping you from talking yeah well there's a time constraint there and I don't think that we have the option to have public meetings to educate the town residents about it I just don't think that we can do it for June I really don't and then the question is do we shoot for do we because the argument all along is when we have to do something or we follow the state law now do we not do anything until the November election until the April town meeting of next year and then well when we had we have had public hearings on it and some of how we're changing this is based on

what we've heard at public hearings you know I feel like we're making progress and honing in on it maybe the June meeting is aggressive but um I don't know I don't know if it's ready to throw in the towel yet or maybe it is

ASAP time frame than uh wait for a year time frame well I think November might work right yes November might we'll be a couple months past when the state has a law out but we've been there before and I would bet we're not the only town no no I'm going to miss it there's no way yeah I think I would be okay with that and because I think we do and gave some good ideas and on the Fly and did a great job but I do think we need to have that discussion and get some get some public input to uh you know because what is the right number of acreages is it three acres is it four acres yeah maybe for two or you know this but I think we need discussion today yeah probably not tonight but we need to have that that discussion so that puts us on a different time that we can talk about at April going forward is like we did last time we laid out a calendar we're gonna have a informal meeting and then just kind of go and also quite truthfully my

concern is we don't even get the even close to the final State guidance until end of April yeah and it also whatever we come up with you know hopefully will come up with something really good but we need to um it needs to be appropriate time to educate the public so we can get it passed yes exactly especially if you only have one option yeah and that's what if paper ballot it has to be one option because I you know you can't vote on Two And and I would think dude I think that would be the goal is to not confuse things with multiple options either just to give one option that works and covers everything but take your time to get it done right and have time to educate the

vote in public on it in November time frame probably would work okay so we can shoot for that and get into more detail uh you know going down the road we can work up a schedule and all that stuff so okay so private roads that we we okay

with we made a recommendation can we put the final nail on that coffin I think so okay and so then George explained uh the conversation we had with the selectman last night and they're here to answer any questions we may have um I think the discussion was that 1A and as you recall 1A was um take out that which shouldn't be in there and then add everything else up to and including six plus um and so that map we've kind of discussed there's no changes being I don't think we're here to discuss any changes about 1A so if you vote for 1A

then you you know that that wins then we don't even go on to 1B and then the question is on 1B um uh what what do we want to do with that and I probably the one of the Selectmen can do a better job of explaining their concerns but I'll take answers real quick I just want to confirm um the select board made their decision last night right so we're not no there was no decision there was a record there was a recommendation so it's back to us yes oh maybe yes

the town we vote on things and as things develop we may reconsider our vote just like we did tonight and I just because we had voted on it before it doesn't mean that we can't reconsider it I mean some people would say well you can't reconsider it because you borrow we have new information that is more that is clarifying or certainly identifying some concerns so I honestly believe that if we do need to reconsider it we should and tonight would be the night to do that exactly so I think and I won't put words in in their mouth but I'll take a shot at I think the concern of the Selectmen was 1A fails and this is this discussion

is only if 1A fails so if one a passes uh then would the you know the discussion we're about to have is is muted um so on 1B the concern was that 1B took things out but it also added 6A 6 plus 6 plus uh issues and the concern was would that pass the town are we going to have the situation 1A fails one B fails and if the belief is at 1A fails because six plus is in there then one B could also fail and I will then pass the selectman to say if I've said that well or if you'd like to yeah

always seen your front captains right on the back is probably a better view so um so I want to uh you know back up a little bit to you know last year's town meeting when we we had the vote just the one vote on on uh removing things from resource protection that uh didn't meet any of the criteria identified in the comprehend or listed in the comprehensive plan the intention was a two-step process to you know fix that part and then this year would have been the okay what are the criteria what would be added to Resource protection so that failed a town meeting last year and what we heard was that you know people they didn't want the vote separated they wanted it together and so fine and so uh the board though in uh was still very concerned that if if the TA if we put it all in one question in the town rejects that that you still have a lot of property owners you know burdened with um property identified as resource

protection that doesn't that really shouldn't be based upon the criteria in the comprehensive plan so uh during a uh a hearing that the Conservation Commission um you know kind of LED at the Eureka Center you know there was a lot of discussion about that aspect of it and um it offered I offered a uh a compromise idea I said okay let's go ahead and ask the combined question first you know the 1A question but that if that failed have a contingency question that would then say

um would the town vote to remove from resource protection any lands that don't meet any of those six criteria but when I read the language of the um of 1B and I and I guess you know uh I only read it a short time ago so this is that I apologize for the lateness of bringing this up I was trying to stay out of the Ordnance stuff as much as possible this year the um the language to me it doesn't just remove the land

that doesn't meet the criteria it actually is asked the town as part of voting yes on that you would be approving the resource protection criteria that was just rejected in question 1A and so the the ask the the most of the conversation last night was about changing 1B completely and just really asking this a simplified question with no criteria going into ordinance taxes would to see if the town will vote to remove from resource protection any lands that don't meet any of the criteria then John offered a uh a slightly different approach which makes sense because according to George you know the first five criteria are already in ordinance text anyway so uh the concern as long as I can look a citizen in the eye and say if you vote assuming 1A failed if if you vote Yes on 1B then we're not adding any

new criteria we're not adding anything but we are correcting the um the misrepresentation on the map for things so that's if you know if if one B is going to go on the warrant the board would look for some sort of language change that accomplishes what I just said I do think though and I will acknowledge you know that Joe Roy and I from the Conservation Commission had a great conversation for about an hour going you know we had our own little debate and the town manager's office it was a great conversation and he raised several really good points and that leads me to wonder whether 1B should go on the warrant at all um so I think that will be a board discussion at our meeting on March 14th but if if 1B does go on the warrant it

needs to be in in our opinion in the language that meets the original intent and not doesn't have a secondary effect of adding language to the text that you know make that is not really intended as part of that question would it be possible to have the questions worded such like one a

would be about what it is now but just the first five points so hopefully we can at least get that passed in in them 1B would add in six no sorry I'm going to stop Ron I we're not changing 1A we are not changing we're changing we're changing one B we're talking about 1B but I I'm sorry I we have gone through this so many times yeah and I think what Ron is getting at is is actually in the conversation Joe and I had is like what if if we didn't put 1B out and 1A failed you know we'd basically be right right where we are now and that then maybe you know an approach in the future is like okay take things at a little bit more granular level and like Steps up like ask about the criteria individually you know I mean that's but that's for another day that's like you know I think the the question tonight is I think the ask from the board and and granted yes it's the board's decision but these things always

go better if everybody's kind of on the same page when we go in so you know if the if the planning board was on board with you know the language change so that one the one being accomplished what was in the original intent and nothing more um can yeah sorry can we ask Joe to step up here and talk about it just because I I have been deferring to the conservation we can but I just I do want to well keep him up here you know let's have a conversation we're going to do with John's great idea was exactly what you started with on 1A which is there are six criteria I think six items that would show up on the map and so one the the first five are

wetlands and Shoreland and all those other things that are required so 1B would eliminate the six plus six so you'd have if well again if one a passes it includes everything if the wool of the town is six plus be included in that we never get Toyota but the way that's the way it's worded though is that even though it would add the first five criteria to ordinance text but it wouldn't apply it to any new land the way one B is written yeah that's I think that's the problem is like we have planned right now that's in resource protection that shouldn't be and we have some that should based on

these other criteria um and I'm afraid we're not wouldn't be correcting that I think I mean I think that's the most critical thing what 1A would well 1A wouldn't add a lot um but it would be you know I think if like John said if this fails when a fails I think we really gotta make one b

so 1 8 so the and then there's two and you know I'm not going to put words in Joe's mouth because he make he makes a good argument I'll see if I can represent it here but you know if if one be if one a fails so then then the choice point of whether you put 1B on is like because if even if one B pass you're still left with a misalignment between the map and the um ordinance text you have less of a misalignment than you had before you've at least addressed some of the um issues of people that are shown in resource protection but shouldn't be but you potentially create other issues by not applying those criteria to other lands that would be added to

um resource protection you were in essence applying the criteria not in a uniform way across the town did I get yeah Joe sorry before you go I'm sorry I'm just going to State and I maybe you guys are going to talk about this but what my issue with this is that years we've been doing this since we developed the comp plan we've been talking about this and trying to develop this and we're at this point we've come so far this failed last year or two whatever it was the whole idea was to fix the data right together 1A is you keep sites in

or property in that covers all of it you take it out that's not supposed to be there 1B is now completely different than one age so I can tell about one I just I wanna I wanna keep that focus of how we got here and don't lose that we all of these items we didn't just pull number six out of thin air that was part of the comp plan we talked about this for a long time so it's part of it yeah

you know the thing about 1B is when B if 1A fails one B passes we would go to the second part of 1B next year right which would be to add properties in perhaps I mean ultimately that was the whole idea of this whole thing at the end of the day no matter what the comp plan says if voters don't approve it it doesn't happen so you know and so then the question is if you if you can't get voters to approve what the comp plan says and they and they're not consistent then perhaps it's the comp plan that needs to change if if voters have changed and aren't where they were in 2018 on on the issue to me the first four maybe five are law in it would be good to at least get the zoning ordinance in a line with the law that was John's good idea yeah and then not everybody agrees that's already important of 1A to be you know to at least take that step and hopefully we could get that passed hopefully we can get them both fast but

then if 1A passes maybe five and hopefully we can get that passed and that 1B would just add more to it yeah hopefully we can get that passed soon it's in line with the comprehensive plan but if we couldn't at least we could get the first four path and be aligned with the law it would be the other way around the 1A should be all of it one B would be the four that you just 100 I disagree 100 it's it's confusing

to go out with this big one that's 1A and then say if you don't want to like that vote for one bitty well enjoy you're gonna get your chance I promise I think the concern is to what you're saying is what seemed and what I've heard in you know various things and a couple people spoke to it last night a couple of people spoke to it at our meeting the concern is six is the six plus and that's that is the the killer deal in this with the town and so if it with 1A passes then John you know that I'm wrong and it's not an issue and the six plus is in there if it doesn't you know but if it doesn't pass then you take away the poison pill of six and you get something that takes stuff out uh that shouldn't be there and oh by the way there may very well be new Wetlands new floodplain that are you know it may not be just taking things out so that I think six my in my opinion six plus may be the Killer and and Joe's

been waiting patiently yeah I'll clarify my statement Kevin was articulating it accurately so my thought process is 1A is essentially saying do you adopt the comprehensive plan recommendations and that includes applying all six criteria across the entire town of Durham so that at the end of the day if 1A is passed the new resource Protection District would be drawn that means some land would be added in some land that is currently in Reverse protection would be removed and some land would remain the same so that is what the nature of 1A is is it can functionally be listed do you want to adopt the recommendations from the comprehensive plan related to Resource protection so that adds and subtracts with 1A where we were talking about the confusion with 1B and the select board talked about it last night was then you get into if you're saying 1B would only apply these criteria where

resource protection already exists because that's what's correct that also kind of implies that you're adopting all of the criteria but then only applying them within the current resource protection which could create inequity because then someone who is in a resource that should be protected isn't being put with the Restriction of resource protection while someone else who is in the same resource is receiving that so it would be inequal um application across it so what Kevin and I had just mentioned was if the last year's meeting was let's remove things and then come back next year and add things and the feedback the select board got was no let's do it all at once this year's 1A is fine we heard you let's do it all at once if that fails then what the voters are saying is we do not agree with the comprehensive plan which would then require more work to say well then what do the voters want

that is in line with the comprehensive plan so if that fails my thought process is moving forward like Kevin said later moving forward would be okay now let's have these discussions is it one of these criteria in the future maybe at a future time meeting let's go through and adopt criteria one at a time because we don't know what the poison pill is for some people they like six plus for some people they don't some people might not like the Inland waiting Runner waterfowl habitat so but it seems like what is most in line with trying to push forward the comprehensive plan is to give everyone this opportunity now to vote on it in one Fell Swoop so that's what I was so you're suggesting that we just have one I mean that's my suggestion we just have 1A and then I feel yeah regrouping but I

feel that when you include a 1B it's hard to just think about 1A because you're thinking about what the next vote possibly could be makes it confusing and I think that 1B is where some of the confusion comes into place um and ultimately if one a goes in and fails everyone who went in and went out is leaving with the same exact restrictions as they started with so no one's if one a fails no one's leaving with additional restrictions so they are dealing with the property as they purchased it and as it was when they got it and I feel that that's a little bit more Equitable and then when it comes time to say okay if the town doesn't want the comp plan and we need to go through and go line by line that is when you start dealing with accept this criteria for everyone or no one and then move on to the next criteria so that's a big if but because when you talk about the ifs it doesn't pass it complicates

the current conversation yeah I would just advocate for 1A only know the the question of a language is one question the question of whether it goes on the warrant at all is a separate question and and you know I am def I'm I'm swayed uh by the conversation Joe that I've had over the last hour or so here and um and uh and both in terms of the equity but in terms of the simplification um of the process and the clarity and uh yeah and I think you know the a a point that um you know we've been and I think rightly you know the board has been you know trying to correct uh issues where property owners are shown in resource protection but they're but they really shouldn't be based on the criteria so I think you know two points to that one is um they actually even today have remedy on that and we've actually seen it happen like they can they can go to the board of appeals and say you know we don't meet any of the criteria for

resource protection and and the board of appeals has at least in one case already has said yeah you're right so you're not you're not subject to the to that and then you know I think Joe made an excellent point it's like you know they knew or should have known that the property was in resource protection when they bought it exactly um so um I think those things you know um I think it speaks to the power of two people sitting down and talking to each other versus the Facebook Warriors to try to pollute the waters out there so Kevin so you agree or you you're you're leaning towards a 1A and then no 1B is

that I mean I think that's a fair statement um but you know again I'm just one of five board members ultimately the board has to make that decision like I know there are board members that um have pretty strong feelings about resource protection anyway you know in any form um but ultimately it's up to um uh you know up to the board when we when we vote on the 14th but yeah personally I think that's where I'm leading well the the big argument lasts at the last annual town meeting was why aren't you combining this so now we combine it where because I mean Joe was argument arguing that at Town floor saying we need to combine both of these and now this is It's been done and he agrees with it it's almost like well if we have one B there we're opening it back up to the same problem we had last year yeah and it's like it's clean 1A like you said it's the comp plan right and that is what I was thinking when this changed

so we have that in there if the town votes for it great if the town doesn't vote for it great but we're back at the drawing table and we have to understand what the concerns are which gives us more time to do that but we don't know what the concern we'll have to figure it out we'll figure it out what if next and sometimes I think like how much of our conversation last time at the town meeting was talking about the potential for the next years and then the moderator is like well let's talk about things that are on the ballot and it's like so if we start off with a conversation where it's like all right I want to talk about 1A by telling you why 1B is really bad right there may never be that so actually there's no one A or B it's actually one and I think that the benefits is that if one Aid goes alone the thing is is each one of those criteria are discrete measurable they're backed by the most available data and they were

put in that document by the town so it's a great measurable scientifically supported set of criteria developed by people in the town term they've changed their mind since then that's a conversation for next year but we're not talking about it right now yeah in my in my mind I love I I it leaves are the discussions of those folks who are who are negatively impacted by a voted at the town I mean now they think they just have to get enough people it's a democracy enough people who are new or not people who are yes one one more on each side wins so uh thoughts on the on the uh the board about 1A 1B well I

honestly I mean I think that we certainly should support 1A I think we should change it to one and I think that we should get rid of the B it's confusing the issue okay I agree yeah I agree that to the two questions to confuse it the the only sticking point for me but I think you've kind of addressed that is that the you know there is land that we are saying is in which sort of protection currently that doesn't meet any criteria it would be nice to correct that but I guess like you said people do have a course um so it probably doesn't really affect too many people yeah I mean not all you remember the Centennial went before the appeals board and got rejected because they wanted they well yeah they would Centennial Farms whatever whatever it is wanted to um celebration

got rejected now fortunately for them they had enough land that they could do something different so my concern would be the folks who 99 of their their land is covered with resource protection and if we just say no and again that you have to rely upon the appeals board saying yes we agree with you but part part of the reason the main reason that the board of appeals which I attended that meeting with celebration Tree Farm decided not to Grant the appeal was because of the pending map changes

celebrate the earlier Equestrian Center there had not been any discussion of actually changing the maps yeah at that point officially I had done a report that outlined it but no action had been taken and so the board of appeals said we just feel it's inappropriate for us to circumvent the legislative process so you're you are relying upon a board to say yep you know you shouldn't be there but you know we're not going to change it so but I hear a consensus we can continue to beat this dead horse no one seems to like John's great idea so I would draw that and uh do we have a consensus do we want to vote on eliminating Juan Bravo can I point out I think it would be important to have a vote because we just sent out a letter to 480 Property Owners telling them part one and part two or excuse me one eight two eight one a and one B so there's going to be a change at this public hearing coming up on the 22nd to say so

what decision has been made to just put one question on the ballot so then then do we need to reissue those letters well because because the board the board and this is why I think you know it still might be important to clean up the language of 1B because the board could still vote to put a 1B question out there well let's let's discuss that how would we if we kept one bee how would we clean that language so the draft that you have tonight incorporates the change requested suggested by the select board last night this is on the article uh two this is on part 1B

on the first page of text Amendment this page and all it did was just eliminate uh Criterion F which was the beginning with habitat six plus brought it that was a good point about the letters that had been sent out that makes me change my mind about not having two questions there if those letters we don't want to we've sent Letters Out to the people that are going to be affected and we it wouldn't make me feel very good about it if I received that letter and I said okay where's the second question it's not even on the article it's not those people are still going to be affected well that's not changing yes they are it's just there's going to be one question instead of two but no but they're but somebody says I just can't I can't agree with six plus then they vote no on question one one eight but then but they may also want to help out their neighbors or themselves and getting things withdrawn that is

we have been um you know promised is probably too strong but we have we have been given every giving every indication that there would be that second question um in fact I've I sent somebody an email this morning telling them there was going to be a second question because they're um because there is concern about the land that's misidentified uh based on the comp plan criteria and so and I guess John here are your concerns about if if 1A loses and we only get to one b or

whatever we're going to call it that doesn't mean that you don't then do exactly what you're saying which is okay which of the six criteria can you live with you know in the meetings and say okay here they are and some of it is a lack of so it is a lack of knowledge what the six are some of it is a real concern on on landowners that I have lost 70 of my 90 acres to do anything with and uh so I will go back and we changed our consensus I am concerned that people are going to show up that we've put something out we've had a bunch of meetings we've sent out a letter uh I mean it's still up to the selectment to decide if they want to polls 1B or whatever it may be so then so this we're kind of talking about this would be what 1B would be yes right and then one a would look just like this except it would have that six you know so my initial objection my initial objection to that was that it listed the criteria in it and it was

basically it was kind of in it well it was putting the criteria into the ordinance text and and setting up a situation where okay now you put this in you've adopted the criteria that was just rejected in the question before and you're um also going into ordinance text but not having the corresponding map adjustment to go with it you've established a new misalignment with now you have Ordnance text criteria but the part about adjusting the map to match it is not part of 1B so that's why I was initially looking to take all of the criteria out of 1B and simply ask the question you know like I've said a few times before remove the land it's shown as resource protection on the map but doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in the comprehensive plan that like simple clean um but the the downside of that and and quite honestly anything other than a 1A approval is going to be messy in one way or another it's like pick your mess

right we have we have sent out the letters to how many people 380 or 480 but we we basically sent that letter out said that's going to be two questions and I think that we're obligated to have two questions you said you are changing regardless the what the second question is the letter says a question now that isn't going to be the question there regardless if you drop one B the letter is inaccurate to what is going to be on the ballot if you don't drop one b and you drastically change the description of 1B the letter is still wrong so no matter what the letter does but I don't think we'd be drastically changing 1B we we're just correcting it so that it's actually doing what was originally intended and what we told people it was going to do my only concern is the meaning is in 30 days so at this point the change to the draft language in 1D

is different than what we have been talking about at the last few weeks so that's you know exactly where it's kind of like the housing thing got complicated so dropped it my advocation is that since 1B is getting a bit more complicated the recommendation to drop it the select word can write yeah and decide as a whole anyways and that can happen we just you know we just have to be ready with an explanation well I do have one more selectment is I wouldn't like the input my question not having seen the letter doesn't the letter just say there's a meeting on the 22nd here are the questions no it actually describes the changes that it includes the criteria but it doesn't say this is what's going to be voted on tell me this is it says this is what the planning board is recommending foreign

and they have also recommended a second morning article designated as 1B that will only apply to criteria to land within which is not a final decision it's not a final decision which means which the expectation is that it could still be changed so I to me that concerned yeah I mean I I think there's a there's a greater concern because there are I think people who a lot of people who don't want six plus I don't want their land impacted and they're going to get their friends but and they also want to help their buddies out who are on land that that should not be so to me it's a whole lot easier to explain on the 22nd of March Durham blast the whole nine yards that we've modified 1B to say this and the

six the criteria six is out and see if if people want to do that they may still say no I mean maybe somebody we don't want you to tell us to do anything but so I but again if 1A passes this is a move discussion if it doesn't 1B may or may not pass or maybe enough people said I wanted 1A and I won't vote for 1B and my point with 1B is that it would not necessarily align very well with the account plan in that if we just did 1A and then everyone voted it down then you could go through the process of saying where do we align with the comp plan line by line next year whereas right now why can't you do that now you don't have time an assumption that what is holding people up is the one six plus criteria that is something that one person has talked about so I don't think there's necessarily a fair assumption to say that is what holds everyone in the town up because there are several people who are going to say I don't want any

resource protection there are several people are going to say I like six plus but I don't necessarily like this other thing so I think we're kind of if we propose a 1B that just removes one criteria um we're kind of making the Assumption for the time that this is what was holding you up which I don't think is an essay or Fair assessment without a more robust public participation to assess what is the hang up there I still keep coming back to the that I feel that people at least there's certain people that want the map to be corrected so that land

that doesn't meet the criteria that's in the zoning ordinance right now get taken out and stuff that is in the zoning ordinance right now get put in and it's not as big of a shift as 1A would be but that is why you just describe that this one it's exactly one yeah but that's no he's talking about that I'm talking about in the zone military state federal oh that doesn't include the six plus but all the other criteria is already in the ordinance right I see what you're saying okay but yes right now we our math has some inaccuracies in it where there's some land that should be in there and it's not based on the zoning owners right now in some way and that is in resource protection based on the map but it doesn't meet the criteria that's in the zone you want to train now yeah it'd be nice at least be nice to be able to correct that and I feel like that was a sticking point well for some people yeah I mean there

is people who want it to be right so I mean again I'm trying to say well this is what I think people are going to vote for but I mean people are going to vote for if there's enough people who support 1A you know if it's 51 and there's only 50 that you know vote against it and one a is the thing but I do have trouble with now making I don't consider dropping at the after whatever it was as big a deal as dropping 1B and I think Joe to your point about if one a fails and 1B passes or it doesn't pass we you need we need to go as a town go back and say okay what are the six criteria should we not be looking at and if you don't do blank the only one I can remember is Blanding turtles so if you don't do Blanding turtle this is what it what they look like if you don't do Bald Eagle habitat this is what uh it's more like a comprehensive planning process so that has gone through in the town has said these are the six criteria we want

so one 1A simply just gives them the opportunity to vote on their six credits and you can sell it I think that it's necessarily the without a more robust participation the purview of us to then say well we are now deciding what we think are the ones you actually care about and then trying it again on 1B and I think the inclusion no no not that complicates the discussion around 1A because inevitably right now the only reason we're talking about this is because we're like well if one a doesn't what's 1B whereas we could just vote on 1A and if it doesn't go through then have the robust public participation and really key out those important things and ultimately then the Democratic process can go through and say yes no yes no yes yes yes or something I just some people show the problem with that is I feel like people asked us to correct the problems and instead of just doing that we're going one step

further in adding in new criteria I have an option where we correct those problems and then if people do want to add in the other criteria too yes they can do that so I just again go back to where we were the this whole thing was from the 2018 comp plan that's what this whole thing was born from well I think there's two things there's a comp plan and there's also the the met the mapping yeah exactly so the comp plan with the mapping errors is where this came from from the beginning the comp plan was a very robust public opinion thing this was before you were on the board but a long time ago and we asked multiple questions we a lot

of things were on the board we got to this point and that was what this whole thing is about so to me let's take it to the voters if they want that they'll vote for it if they don't want it they won't vote for it then we'll be back and I think we're still taking it to them I think whoever gets up and presents it says this is the comp plan this is what we all talked about for two years in 2016 to 2018 here's why it's in there uh

here's the map and the impact and there will be lots of people who will say yes I want to follow the comp plan and but just because it's in the comp plan if the voters say we don't want to do that at least at the end of the day we have taken people who are incorrectly uh

impacted I guess I mean I I just see you got to sell 1A is is how this is is going to pass I mean we've you've you've done a good job of the Conservation Commission has done a great job of doing that we've had lots of meetings to say this is what 1A is but I think it's up to the voters to say we want 1A or we don't want and they may very well say we don't want 1B either right but we this whole reason why we're here talking about this is because the select board voted last night I'm sorry not you your consensus was a takeout f the consent yeah so there's is in the taking out of f is is really has nothing to do with f per se well what it's about is taking out anything that would add something new to the ordinance text and that happens to be that it's only F that is that so again like I said when I started I was like you know take all the criteria out and just ask a very a very simple question and

um I can't remember the conversation but there were some some issues with that um and John suggested well you know if you just take out F the other stuff's already in the ordinance anyway so you're not adding anything new and and I said as long as I can look somebody in the eye and not be lying to them and tell them that you know we're not adding anything new we're all all this the end result of 1B is that we're

taking out um land shown as resource protection but it doesn't meet any of the criteria in the comp plan and that's it period period we're not adding anything else um you know and I think that uh that's been the original intent of that question from the beginning and the language didn't match that intent and that's why I raised the issue yeah I I agree with that wholeheartedly I think that's what 1B was supposed to be all along well somehow it didn't quite get yes but also it was the inaccurate mapping including F like we like that's one a not one B well no the whole thing taking it was only keeping property in and taking property out of this whole thing which included f right that was that was that's the 1A question to do it all yeah no no I know but like the the second half of it was just to take originally originally but when we were when the original plan when we were talking about like what we tried

to do last year to start like the last year was about taking this misidentified stuff out and this year was going to be about okay what's the criteria what are we adding and people didn't like that approach that's fine so you know what the board was looking for was um if the if the combined question didn't pass it's like you know like John's reference we you know we can at least fix the um issue of the misidentified property and acknowledging that that doesn't completely fix everything but at least it's an incremental step towards getting us there and then it takes that piece off the table potentially if it passed when you do start talking about you know what it's going to go in because if if part of the reason 1A fails is because you got stuff coming and going and I don't know and I'm confused in this criteria that criteria you know if you take the stuff that's coming out you know resolve that

and then then focus on okay what's the criteria what's going in that was like kind of the original plan and um but and that's why I think it's important not to muddy the waters in a 1B by you know adding criteria it's just about simple ask and when Kevin and I were talking earlier one thing that I did raise and that's for consideration from the slide board is that in a scenario where there is a 1A and a 1B and if let's say 1A were to fail and one B were to pass for example let's look at um FEMA floodplain mapping we would then be saying apply the FEMA floodplain map to areas where it is already in resource protection but the updated FEMA floodplain map actually also extend goes outside of the current resource protection boundary and pulls in new landowners so if you adopt one B what you could run into is I am someone who is in a map flood plain but the town says that I don't have to follow

resource protection but Kevin lives next door to me and he's in the same match flood plain and he does have to follow resource protection so by adopting 1B in this manner you do get to the point where you're saying we have adopted this criteria but it is not applied everywhere it truly occurs it's only applying where we used to have resource protection so it definitely scratches on people if 1A fails that's the case anyway well I guess I'm not sure why that is if if what we're saying is resource protection is defined as female Wetlands Shoreline protection all those kinds of things it doesn't matter that my land is now in there and it shows as a resource protection and Allen's is not in there as of one April if if one bee passes he's now in resources I think what they're saying is the Way 1B is written right now that what he's the scenario he mentioned would happen and that's what we need

people living along [Music] any map his resource protection so that's where all data versus inequity yeah and that's where I say any sort of change in ordinance should be adopted black and white this is the map and it either impacts everyone or we say it doesn't impact anyone and that's why I would Advocate against the 1B if 1A doesn't pass then you can go through and say line by line do we want to apply this to every landowner equally yes no yes yes no or whatever people vote and then that also shows that we attempt it as a town to push forward the outlined material in the comprehensive plan in one Fell Swoop that didn't go through then the time that it's best to go through at a later date and go line by line and at that point if things fail that's just the town saying we don't like this element of the comprehensive plan but you that to me passes the straight face of being in line because then you let people vote

and I think at least what you're saying indicates that 1B needs to work if we're going to keep it you can make an argument to just get rid of it but it's also an argument if we're going to keep him and I think I'm not sure I understand why it doesn't because they both say exactly the same verbiage and it refers to a zoning map so if we go 1A we have change the zoning map that's part of this discussion right well like if we go 1B we have to change the zoning map but the 1B would only make changes like for example the areas that are completely gray um are currently resource Protection One B would say only apply criteria one through five in the town of Durham if that also overlaps with an area that is currently resource protection so all this green area that is not currently within resource protection would not be applied now some of this could be like oh we're not going to apply it to this 10 acre Wetland but we

are applying it to this one because it's our in resource protection where it really is difficult to pass a straight face test is on the FEMA floodplain mapping so if the onus of this is that the floodplain mapping is inaccurate and we need to correct it 1B would say we're correcting the floodplain mapping except where the flood plain mapping exists current resource protection and then you get into the scenario to somebody who owns a property in a flood plain but because

to follow and that's where I think we went through at a later date line by line that's more Equitable for people and if we don't pass 1A no one's leaving with additional restrictions on their property that day like Kevin and I were saying the people who own the property that's resource protection know that already right so this isn't like we're adding in resource protection at 1am makes it equal across the board one B would not make it equal across the board right oh and there's a policy you could say well I think it's more important to pull people out and let people get away with not following the rules in certain areas because it protects people who are having rules pushed on them and others like that's a policy question so don't send the guilty to prison don't send the innocent to prison even if some of the guilty Go free it's kind of bad but what I'm just advocating for is that there is

a framework to say if 1A doesn't pass then at a later date we go through and just go through them individually and that makes it more Equitable because you just get to the point where someone's like John and I live in the same flood plain but I'm across the imaginary line and I can't develop my how I can't build a house so I think we hear you loud and clearly The Way 1B is written but is it because are you referring to the the statement in the note that says it only applies to that within the current okay well because that's not part of the article I'm looking at like the February 15th page 13. and it clearly says article 1B will

apply the same comprehensive plan resource criteria but only to land currently within the resource protection and those are the summary talking points that came with the original budget if that's not actually part of the article then so where it says yeah in the article it brings it but that brings it even further away from what the original intent was was because you're because then it because the intent was that we're only taking stuff out we're not adding anything in and the way it's written it would add stuff in but I guess the one you know one thing I was a kind of a summary of this like I think um sitting in this room are probably the eight to ten people that know this issue as well as anybody in town and look at this conversation can you imagine what this conversation will be like on Town floor and that is that's kind of why I'm coming around to the simple keep it simple argument 1A up or

down and then Ron I think you're on the right track for the next approach to you know whether it's you know uh take just the first five or have we even talked about do you take them individually or how do you present the criteria to the town down the road should 1A not pass um but um but I also think you know it's Juliet's point that you know we did go through this comprehensive plan process and somewhere along the line we ought to give people a chance to actually vote whether to put it into ordinance or not exactly you know thank you I think that where we we Kevin talks about like we probably pay attention this more than everyone our confusion is lying in well what if 1A doesn't what does 180 exactly do and when you put that on the ballot if you're saying you either get one eight or one B there's no way people can separate those we saw those when we were going to split them up year to year last year half the

discussion was on something that is never going to end up being on the ballot now because we decided not to do that and we all spent six hours at the meeting probably an hour worth talking about a vote that's going to happen this is never going to happen yeah I have no problem um ex if if this if this is where the board goes um I have no problem at town meeting explaining why we're only at one question yeah I think that's a pretty that can be a pretty straightforward explanation Joe Joe yeah I think what Joe just says why I was kind of to the point where like 1A should be like the what's in the

zone yards and changing the map and then 1B adding it in um because then you do you you know deal with that kind of question level but I think that would be too confusing to yeah we were talking about so I think you know just going to 1A wouldn't be that confusing yeah we were talking about how conversation like the one percent most important part is the nuance and sometimes in a public setting that's very hard to talk about the Nuance there and whereas 1A will just be a simple yes or no you know so procedurally what could happen is that on March 14th yep you're going to make a decision what to put on for Warren article for all the Articles yeah and at that point the select board could decide not to put one B on that's right we will have sent out a letter as of March 1st

the planning board was recommending to and UK I got no problem saying yeah and at the public hearing we went a different direction and here's the select board has said only one question is going to be on the ballot do is there do we need to discuss 1B and see if there are any corrections that need to be made to that well I think the questions are we going to recommend that one be to be I know that but what if the

select board says no we want 1B on the ballot do we need to look at that language and make sure if that ended up going that way and I continue I don't think the article says what you guys are saying I think the note on the the bottom of the page that says note says that's the only place that I see where it says it only applies to this right as as it's written right now uh and if you actually as it's written 1B is no different than one a it's the same question would we drop death though no well uh if we follow your idea I mean as it's written right now today it's the same question yeah we would have to vote on the draft that that George gave us no because that part's not actually in the question it's a note so we would have to drop so it's an app but the map so it's actually even worse

can I make a motion to to vote oh just one second so if we don't do anything tonight if we just leave it as is or we vote to not send one before it either one if the Selectmen want to change the verbiage you could they could do that I my recommendation would be if if this is the way if this is your consensus if you don't if you if you don't feel that the 1B question should go then then just change a recommendation to that and not mess with the language and because the language isn't even close anyway and you think that would pass muster with the slack board they'd be on board with that I I honestly it's a tough call my sense if I had to predict right now um I think it's a 3-2 vote and I'm not sure which way it goes

anyways uh technically yes um actually it it um what could happen is that the board could decide this isn't ready to go to voters at all and not send 1A or 1B is the way I see it is right now is we're 14 days or 22 days before the hearing or saying 1B is very confusing and either needs a total rehaul or needs to be gotten rid of yeah and I I continue to disagree if you delete the note because I don't see any difference I don't think one total reason yeah one a and one B If you eliminate the notes it just says resource Protection District shall be those designated on the official zoning map of the town for those as at the meeting as me the following then it lists five on B and then the note goes it doesn't say this only applies to existing or it only applies that's what I mean so like as written before you take out the F the two questions are the same right before I'm taking out F okay but even if

you take out F without the note 1B is 1A without the six plus criteria basically what you were talking about so yeah I say we my my suggestion or motion would be that we send notice to the slack board that we recommend just going with one a

this is what we think it should say if they vote to go with one B yeah honestly but we recommend not at first I like the let's one is on the ballot one B is off that is our recommendation if if they choose 1B I whatever you guys want to throw on 1B we don't have time they have the option of putting whatever articles they want on there but we are the planning board and we we would be submitting one article I don't think they are going to submit a second article on their own recommendation not ours right that we need if because any chance of one B going on there now is our chance to have a say what it says and they're not going to spend a lot of time rewording I mean I in my opinion I I disagree with our there's respected gentleman at the end of the table I don't see that it would If you eliminate F if that's the only change we make to one B then um it it puts all that other stuff it you know it puts all that other stuff on

takes out what isn't official Wetlands takes out all that stuff that's not Shoreland protection but it also adds any lands like to the floodplain Point Jose it would also add land that is not currently on the map identified as resource protection but with the adoption of the new floodplain criteria would be added to and I said that last night there are people who are going to right and that's where I said the end you know going back to the original intent was that we were the the 1B question would only be dealing with taking stuff out it wouldn't be about adding anything new that might be and I'm not necessarily saying that's the way it should you know it should go now but that was the original one we need to get one yeah do we have a make the motion I'll make the motion that we keep we recommend to the select board um 1A change it to one we scrap one b

second uh any further discussion let's see can you please sorry uh motion is to um keep 1A recommend to the board but change it to one and scrap 1B there's one question are you making a motion we're gonna we're making that motion all right yeah and we have a second from Alan any further discussion if not raise a hand if you're in favor three to one can we make a motion to revise one B we

just haste it because we just now well no that would be not to present it well we voted to make a recommendation that they only send one a all right but I'm saying that if the three to two vote goes with one B on ballot it'd be nice to have a saying with that you can make a motion and then you can vote on it but what I'm what I'm saying is usually with with ordinance changes they're submitted by the planning board they are not submitted by the selectment so there has to be a recommendation from the planning board to put an ordinance change out there it's not going to be the selectment that's making that recommendation and we have recommended not to do that you can put another motion out there but I'll vote against it yeah all right

you said yes Kevin said that they they're going to vote on this whether they keep one B on there and it's going to go three to two and he doesn't know which way that's going to go so if they keep 1B I don't like the way it's written right now it'd be nice to but what I'm saying I don't think the select board they don't have the authority to go over the planning yeah we do yeah yeah when it comes to the select board has absolute final say on the wording of any article but you know that goes but you're saying you're going to create an article that hasn't been presented to you I'm not saying I would do that I'm just saying that this whiteboard has the authority these have already been presented to them okay make a motion

you can first discussed it how it's going to change I would hope you wouldn't um I don't want to make a motion yet I want to discuss how it should change I I don't feel like we have enough time it's 905. how many days 22. the Furbies here drop the F's already dropped all right I make a motion that one B just drops f in that that's that's how it's written and how in is that going to be presented to the select board how we're going to present it becomes the question we've already sent them a recommendation we don't want one B okay but if they insist on having one be we make a recommendation that it just drops out okay do we have a second

um fails for lack of a second I think so I mean my feeling is we've made a decision we're telling you know my feelings about that we're you we've told them it's 1A or nothing and they may go with with nothing all right make it with one just one a and I just heard it was a recommendation to happen yeah just one but I didn't hear it but if they if they certain three of the five have certainly said well we want to have a way to do 1B

they have some language certainly yeah so I'd like to Alice Point what you know just because something is legal or you have the authority to do it doesn't mean it's a good idea um in fact it could be a horrible idea my recommend yeah that'll be my recommendation to follow the planning boards recommendation because I think what we one of the objectives we had from the beginning was if if there's going to be any prayer of moving this forward then the select board the planning board and in this case the Conservation Commission need to go in in alignment and that doesn't mean that what we're going in an alignment on is what everybody would have preferred to have is like plan a but given all the considerations and the potential for confusion at Town floor like I said imagine this multiplied by ten you know

that's us there is one more clock the town clerk is looking for the Warren articles to for the town report that needs to be in by Friday as in the day after tomorrow yeah so do we go with one and two in that Warren article language which I can prepare well it's what initially was presented to the slug board what do you mean one two last night right you've just said drop you've recommended to the scoreboard to drop two will now be the road one will be what is has been known as 1A and two will be the road acceptance is that what I write for the Warren articles to go into the town report can you just do it as a put a note in there you know these to be to follow well they will say draft we'll say draft what happens if Kevin says vote that they don't send it at all I mean I think we've punted the ball into the select when you decide what goes in there but I'm just letting everybody yeah we don't meet again before the

but it has to go in let me noodle that one and I'll talk to Jessica tomorrow okay draft language okay because I'm not going to be working again until next week and you can yeah decide what you want to do with Jessica yeah and I'm I'll be offline as of like noon tomorrow okay because I'll be I'll be um well you have a Facebook will be live