 Welcome to the September 16, 2019 special meeting of the town of Essex Select Board. Would you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. There's plenty of space up front. For those of you who are still coming in, there's lots of seats up front. Our first order of business is agenda additions and changes. Greg, are there any? I do have one thing in front of you. It's just a clarification. There was some information that went out late on Friday afternoon. So this is that, along with some clarification between some discrepancies between those there and Monday. This is the updated form. OK. Anything else? Annie, can you see that? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think she's missing a. Oh, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Thanks. I'm sorry I didn't do it, too. OK. Would anybody like to make a motion to accept the agenda as changed? I move we add the updated notification form to business item 5A. Is there a second? Second. So it's not just the notification form. It's the ordinance itself. And the ordinance. OK. It's just the ordinance. That's in the packet. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. The next agenda item is public to be heard. This is for anyone who is here from the public who would like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. If there's anybody here who wants to speak on items that are not on the agenda, microphones in the center of the room, please tell us your name and street. Hi, my name is Ken Signorello. I live at 166 Brigham Hill Road. I've just started meeting many of my neighbors for the first time, actually. And based on these brief encounters, I can tell that there's probably a lot of tension in the room for the agenda item tonight. I'm sure you're going to hear plenty. But I think I have a somewhat unique perspective. I have a business in the village, and I live in rural Essex. But to better help express my opinion, maybe lighten the mood a little bit, I've invited some friends to help. Maybe. Excuse me, Ken, but can you give us the topic of what you're discussing? This would be about the merger. OK. Is there a presentation of some kind? Very one minute. A one minute presentation. Maybe. Come right up. Irene Renner, 15th Rush Lane. I would ask the board to revise merger survey number two before it is deployed. Right now, you're marketing a merger that is essentially the same plan that was rejected by the voters in 2007. It looks the same. It costs the same. Instead, I would ask that you change your proposal so that our merged municipal board looks like the merged school district board, which has equal representation from outside the village and inside the village districts. Or you might want to consider setting up separate governing boards. These separate boards could come together and share functions that make sense, like the police. But they could also separately govern the four functions that have resisted consolidation thus far. For five years, we've been trying to merge things like fire, recreation, planning, and the libraries. I can understand why you would want to brute force merged departments that have not yet found a way to peaceably combine. More importantly, separate governing boards could provide at last the representation that the town outside the village has lacked, while maintaining the village trustees as they currently exist. Separation with sharing provides all the benefits of the special tax district alternative that you were considering, but without the legal conundrum that was posed. Would you please entertain this fresh new concept of separation and sharing, instead of telling us that the same old merger concept must not go away? There is something new under the sun, and it doesn't repeat the insanity and the waste of money that another top-down merger study already is all over again. You have lots of time before November 2020. Would you please stop rushing to ram that same old merger plan down voters' throats? Thank you. I've invited some friends to help. The life for me takes a village, but keep my taxes low. Father's day has trails, I'm scared. There's shit above the stride, it's not worth the price. Anyone else who has anything to say that is not on the agenda? I should sing like that also. We're going to have to work on that. Thank you. OK, let's bring my ukulele next to here. Ken, come to the mic if you have another comment. We're going to need credit where credit is due. That was Anika and Sino. I believe both students at ADL school, is that correct? At the high school, excellent. Thank you very much. All right, we are going to move on on the agenda. The business item, the first business item is pass new and revised provisions to municipal ordinance chapter 6.08, firearms and chapter 9.04, parks. So in our packet, the staff has itemized each section of the ordinances. And so I'd like us to go through each one of them. Greg is going to walk us through what the amendments are to remind us where we've been in this conversation. And then after each amendment is reviewed, we'll have a discussion. And I will like to get the consensus of the board as to what to do with each section. And then we'll go through each of them. Does that sound good to everybody? Pat? If just a comment, I was in a car accident yesterday. I'm a little stiff, so apologies if I get up and move around or stretch. I'm not listening to anybody. I just won't be able to sit in the seat for an extended period of time. Thank you, Pat. OK, so first section, section 6.08.000 in the firearms discharge ordinance. Greg, would you walk us through the changes that we've discussed so far? Sure. If you don't mind, I'd like to just do a quick summary of what I'm going to touch on the highlights based on the last meeting first. Sure. So after the last meeting on August 19th, the select board is looking for clarification on a few items. First is whether or not to allow target shooting on public land or whether or not that would be allowed. So there's some language in the proposed ordinances that would specify that target shooting is not allowed on public land. There are some questions about the dates of deer hunting seasons. So that's information that has been added to your packet. The question there for the board will be if you want to restrict discharge within Indian Brook and Saxon Hill as you've discussed based on deer seasons or if you just want to pick some dates as to when to allow hunting in those areas. There's a question about how to handle violations and enforcement of ranges that have not completed the notification form. There's some language in the ordinance that was added that within seven days of a violation being the town becoming aware of it. There'd be seven days to rectify that. Each subsequent day would then be considered a separate offense. There are some questions about liability. If the town does not take action on a known unsafe range, there's some information in there from Passive, which is the town's insurance provider. And lastly, after the information went out on Friday, realized some clarification in the notification form talking about perimeter. So making sure the perimeter language matched up with the ordinance language on posting a perimeter around a shooting range. And another question came in to me this morning. So to clarify that, the current ordinance talks about posting 500 feet within the perimeter of a range of property lines, or less than that, it would be posting of the property lines. So just some language to clarify that. That's what was handed out tonight. So with that, I'll jump into the actual ordinance language there with me. Section 6.08000, there's been no change to this. Since it was added, it's the definition of a firearm. And nothing has changed since the last time you looked at this. Floyd members, do you have any questions or comments on this particular section of the ordinance? It's good to me. I do not. Andy? No. OK, thank you. All right, so hearing that, let's move on to the next section. Discharging firearms prohibited area designated. In here, there is an old change. This is not new, but I'll just point it out. Just clarifying the discharge zone over by Old Colchester Road, the map, current map in the current ordinance language did not match up, so this just clarifies that. Down to the bottom of that section, we get into the parks, focusing specifically on the Essex Tree Farm, Indian Brook Park, and Saxon Hill Park, the 90-acre school parcel. The tree farm has been excluded. No discharge within the tree farm. That's what we've been discussing all along. For Indian Brook and Saxon Hill, there's been talk about when to allow hunting within those parks. We had talked about November 1st through December 15th. There's some new language in there specifying that hunting with firearms should be permitted within those parks by licensed hunters. That's to kind of allude to the no target shooting. It's only for hunting purposes of discharge to be allowed. Deer seasons change, and there's information in your packet, both in the reading file and in the agenda item for this or the packet item for this agenda topic. The state is looking at changing some of the deer season dates, making some of them earlier in November. Long story short, the dates change whether they change throughout the year. It's generally in the fall. It's typically been November through mid-December with some variations. Those seasons might be expanded. The question for the select board would be if you want to allow hunting within deer season dates, in which case some proposed language would be hunting with firearms should be permitted by licensed hunters. During the dates of rifle and muzzle load or deer hunting weekends, including youth and novice year weekends, established by the state of Vermont. Alternatively, you could choose two dates and say that hunting is allowed within the parks within those dates, whether that's December 1st or November 1st through December 15th, October 15th or December 15th, there's some other alternative dates. Thank you, Greg. OK, board members, questions, comments, observations? Max? The hunting dates seem to change year to year. To make it clear to the public, I would propose the board select dates, such as, for example, November 1st to December 15th, as opposed to making that a variable so that the general public, I know the hunters will know those variable dates, but the general public may not. But I think if we're consistent with dates, it will make communication to the public easier. I agree. Pat or Andy or Annie, any thoughts? Yeah, I think since we're talking about public park areas, which are used for recreation, such a consistent year round basis, I agree with Max. I think it's a good idea for us to just make sure the public knows year to year that those are always going to be the same dates. OK. Andy? I think from an enforcement standpoint, it would be much easier for an education standpoint so, right, folks, know when that aren't hunters, what dates, you know, hunting would be allowed. I would though entertain the question of whether we would do it October 15th or November 1st. I agree that for someone who wouldn't be able to keep up with the dates, it's much more clear to keep it at a set point. OK. So it sounds like all of us want to have a consistent date in the ordinance. And the question now is currently November 1st through December 15th. There's a question as to whether we should expand that to October 15th through December 15th. So that would be an additional approximately two weeks to the window. What is your pleasure? Question about that, though. Just want to make sure, and maybe I could find the answer myself, but I just want to make sure that if we move the date to October 15th, there's language in there that says that Vermont hunting regulations apply and that it is an open season from the 15th. It's based on Vermont established season. You know, only the things that are done on certain dates can be certain dates within the park also. So we're not just going to make sure that we're, I don't know, staff could comment about whether we have, if we move it to October 15th, there's sufficient language to say, you can still have to follow Vermont hunting season dates, even if we've opened it up to the 15th. Yeah, even if you do November 1st, that's not a bad idea to clarify which seasons. Licensed hunters, I think, helps, but we could say something permitted by licensed hunters from such and such date to such and such date for valid seasons established by the state of Vermont. Sort of why the set dates is an easier way to administer it and keep it consistent year round, year after year after year with signage. Right, but if we move the date from November 1st to October 15th, rifle season doesn't start on October 15th, right? So you still have to follow the, we just want to make sure that this doesn't make somebody think, and I'm sure nobody would think that, but you could try to interpret it to say, well, hey, the ordinance says I can hunt on October 15th, so I'm hunting on October 15th. Do we need to have language in there, and maybe I'm, I don't, I hope I'm not insulting anybody by saying that we need to put it in there explicitly. So Greg just recommended a good phrase for valid seasons established by the state of Vermont. Do you feel that covers that? Yeah, I have a hard time hearing Greg at the other end of the stage. Oh, sorry. So, so, so the, yes, we follow Vermont established seasons, even though we've opened hunting up earlier, we need to make sure that the language is there to cover that. I'm just gonna re, I'm just gonna reframe the same thing that you're saying, so I feel good. Oh, okay. Okay, so. The parameters being set so that people are aware that hunting can be occurring within this timeframe, and we want it to be consistent. However, for those who are doing the hunting, there's an awareness and a knowledge of the season dates. Yes, exactly. Right. Yeah. From what I read, you know, just of the expand, the reason why the hunting season is expanding in the first place with the control of the deer population, I would be amenable to making it the 15, just as long as it's consistent. It seems like if they're looking for deer control, you know, which was the whole reason for expanding it out in the first place, that would be my first gut instinct, just to keep it there, and then we have those designated two months, but. I had the, the same idea as Patrick. I think October 15th allows for the Anterlis season to happen, which as we know is an important added to help control the deer population, and it also would encompass the youth novice folks, because we also know the number of hunters is dwindling. They're been helping to control the deer population if we want to ensure a pipeline of hunters to help maintain that in our community. I think it's wise to open that up just a little bit more to October 15th to ensure that we can capture the youth novice and the Anterlis. The Anterlis. Season. I don't think I heard from Andy or Annie on the date, or if I did, I've already forgotten. Can you remind me? Did you have any thoughts about the date, October 15th or November 1st? I'm in favor of going to the October 15th, yeah. Sorry, asking then if Andy and Annie, if they're what they think about the October 15th date. I'm in favor of expanding to the October 15th. Okay. Annie? I'm a little shy, but I hear that it's appropriate, and maybe I'm in agreement as well. I'm just still mulling a little bit. Okay. From what we understand, the state is expanding the dates into October. So then we'd have to really, to be respectful of what we're trying to do overall. Yes, we don't have to. No, we don't have to. Other public parcels that are not affected by this, that people could still hunt on whenever they want to, but so October 15th sounds to be the consensus of the board. And if we add the phrase for valid seasons established by the state of Vermont, so that it clarifies specifically what you're allowed to hunt during those dates, that sounds like everyone's happy with that. Works for me. Okay. All right. So, next section, 6.08.045, outdoor shooting range conditions. Greg, would you walk us through? So this is the section that is looking to define an outdoor shooting range, and was looking at creating a notification form system for anyone who wants an outdoor shooting range. Changes since the last time we looked at this, defining that the ranges should have warning signs that meet NRA standards, posted around the perimeter of the range, defining the perimeter as 500 feet, 500 foot setback from the range facility or the property line, whichever is the shorter distance, and then clarifying the violation. Any person who fails to submit a completed notification form or otherwise fails to meet the conditions of this outdoor shooting range ordinance after seven days of receipt of written notice of such failure from the town shall be subject to penalties set forth in section 6.087.0 of the ordinances. Each day that passes after the seven day notice period without the submission of a notification form or curing the failure to meet the conditions of this ordinance, shall constitute a separate offense. And that is what has been added since the last time you saw this. And then there's the form. Yes, I can jump to that if you like. Might as well. So here's the form based on some feedback from Passif, the town's insurance provider. They were concerned that if the town was aware of an unsafe range and did nothing to do about it, the town would be at greater liability. So the proposal for the form is to remove the site plan requirements. And it would strictly be looking at getting the address of the range, the property order, parcel ID number, date of establishment, intended use of the range. Still debate over the proof of liability insurance. If you read it closely, Passif recommended that that be set even higher. I know the board was going back and forth on what that should be, so I left it as is. And clarification, talks about the posting and just clarifying that the 100 foot interval is along the perimeter of the shooting range facility to match the ordinance language. And lastly, taking note of some language about the certification, so it just says that the property owner shall defend and identify and hold harmless the town from any claims for damages or personal injuries resulting from the projectile leaving the bounds of the property. That's not a change, but that's what's left in there. Thank you, Greg. So I'm gonna jump right in here. We've discussed this a great deal and we've done a ton of research. We've had extensive public input on this. After all of that, and particularly after the public input, I don't think the outdoor shooting range conditions section should be included in the ordinance. I don't think that it provides a sound enough legal ground for the town to enforce it, and I agree with the concerns that Andy has brought forth multiple meetings in a row regarding liability. I think there are other ways to address safety that are on more solid legal ground and that have precedent, which we'll talk about in a little while, but I do not support this section remaining in the ordinance. Yes, I was gonna make the same recommendation that we strike section 6.08.045 from the ordinance tonight. I think where we ended up isn't really doing what we had hoped. And I think there's other ways that we can explore public safety about these areas at a future meeting, but for tonight, for the ordinance that I'm hoping that we could pass a version of tonight without that shooting range section. Anyone else, Annie? It's a difficult thing to really clearly help all angles of the emotional feelings about all of this. And after deep thought and deep looking, I agree, Elaine, that this is not a path and also from listening, this is not a path that's going to get us the result that even though I know a lot of people want us to agree to this, this isn't the path. I would agree that it should be a waiver. Thank you. Thank you. Pat or Andy? I mean, the advice that we got from our insurance provider as well, it gets really to the heart of what had concerned me with this in particular along the whole time, which is they want not 500,000, I'm not sure if anyone has read the packet through, but they suggested a $5 million policy. So I mean, it's just, we're just all over the map as far as whether or not the legality of this would hold through and with a $5 million recommendation, I mean, that's just, it's too much for the town's provider to take on and for us to, I think, stand behind. Okay. Andy, any thoughts? Oh, my position hasn't changed. Could you reiterate it for me, please? That I'm concerned about liability for the town for having the, and that the what this has devolved to is inadequate for providing any public safety. Okay. Andy. I'm sorry, I didn't fully articulate what I meant to say. Attempting to do this would be challenging for all parties in a way that would not be effective at all. And I just want to be clear, because I know that there's a lot of people that wanted this to get passed. But I think deep down listening to all the people that advocated for not this, and just imagining it being enforced or how to, it's just, it's just, we've absolutely looked in depth at both sides of this, and I just want to be clear to those that wish that we would say yes to this, that this would not be a healthy yes for this piece. Thank you. So I have the sense of the board on that as well. And, oops, I went too far. And the next section is 6.08.070, violation and penalty. Take it away, Greg. No change here. I do still recommend, or as we've talked about, higher penalties. Just jump to it. Increasing the penalties for offenses. It's still relevant, even if you take out the section 6.08.045 with the shooting ranges, there's still other penalties and violations that may occur. So no changes since you saw this last, but there are proposed changes for the ordinance. Thank you, Greg. Once again, board members, thoughts on this section? I'm okay with it. Insane. I'm fine. Yep, Annie, okay. And last section, this is a different ordinance, 9.04.100 prohibited activities designated. Greg. Just jumping to that section. So previously this had talked about clarifying town parks, with the exception of Indian Brook and some others where shooting would be allowed. What was added since the last time you saw this was section 9.04, I forget the number. 100 letter L discharge of firearms for the purposes of target shooting within park boundaries is prohibited. So that's clarifying that. In case you didn't notice it, at the beginning of this section, there's a definition of parks. Nothing has changed there, but it specifies what the definition of a park is and basically captures public land, town on land, excuse me. And Andy, I believe that addresses your question about target shooting. Yes, thank you. Okay. Any questions or comments on this section, board? Nope, no. No, okay. All right, so before we move to a vote on approving this amended ordinance, we'd like to welcome some public input if you have it. The same procedure as has applied in the past. Many meetings still applies today. If you'd like to speak, please come. Patty, you were welcome to go to the mic when it's time. Thank you. No. Yeah, we're gonna do it. Well, see how many people would like to speak to the ordinance tonight, okay. Could you keep your hand up? Keep it up, yep. Way up. Whoa, okay. All right, we're gonna use the standard minute 30. We have a lot of folks here tonight. Come to the mic, tell us your name and your street. And if you are agreeing with a fellow resident, please just let us know you agree with them and let's keep it moving. And yes, everybody gets a chance to speak once. Thank you. Mike's all yours. Brad Kenneson, Bixby Hill Road. I came to speak on a variety of issues tonight, but I don't think there's any need. I wanna thank the board for finally listening to the majority of the residents and using some common sense approach to this ordinance. Thank you. I too wanna thank you. I believe this board has legitimate interest in controlling unsafe or disruptive behavior on its property. I really thank you for that. You are responsible for managing and overseeing the recreational activities of all persons, two or four-legged residents here or out of towners so that they may enjoy both our parks, greenways, roadways and trails without question, ensuring the safety of all visitors. It's an important consideration and it means a lot. Firearms are on lots of land. Which we own in Callis are designed to kill. There's lots of animals there. Permitting unregulated firearms in Saxon Hill Park or near the road would heighten the potential of injury or death to our visitors. I was going to say, is your goal to permit all visitors to enjoy our heavily used Saxon Hill Park in public greenways without undue risk of harm? That was the question, but you've done a great job answering that. Thank you very much. Patty, could you state your name and your address for the record? I'm sorry. Thank you. Patty Davis, nine hillside circle, Essex. Thank you. Thanks Patty. Mike, Katie, Lost Nation Road. Since Jim Weston's not here, I don't think I see him. He's on Towers Road so I just want to relay something for him. I talked to him a little while ago. He can't make it. I think he's at his son's football game or grandson's football game. Either way, he has talked to at least one of his neighbors. He's been trying to get a hold of the other one. But he has said that it's been very amenable and I just want to point this out as a success story that talking to your neighbor solves a lot. He is moving his backstop to a different portion of his property that is further away from both of his neighbors that he's kind of been involved in this conversation. And he's at least one neighbor he's talked to. He's very happy about that and pleased with that. So I just want to highlight that to everyone that we're all living the same town. We're all neighbors and hopefully friends here. So just take that time to just talk to your neighbors. Talk to your friends and you may be surprised at how well they react if you just approach them nicely. And hopefully they'll return that same respect to you. So I think it's a success story for just this whole topic. I want to get that out. And I also want to say that I'm very happy to stand up here and say I agree with everything you all have talked about tonight and the decisions that you're going to vote on. And I appreciate you listening to the facts, all the data, and putting that all collectively together to make some well informed decisions. Thank you. Don't forget to state your name and street. Brian Murphy, 187 Towers Road extension. With respect to the Jim Weston comment, I'm his neighbor. And I've called him and we talk. And actually Jim and I have a good relationship. And when I stood up here, first of all, I never named him individually. And on any occasion we would have differences of opinion. We've talked and we've had good outcomes. Just so people outside the discussion know, I have good conversations with Jim. I'm very fond of his family. My concerns from the get go were if you don't have an objective standard, I said at many meetings, what if I can't talk to my neighbor? I have a neighbor that just tells me to pound sand. And I never put Jim in that category. So I hope people who have heard bits and parts of this understand that on the two occasions where he had problems, I picked up the phone. And one day I walked over and we talked to him. And we had good outcomes. But I do fear that the relationship I have may be unique and not everyone gets to talk to the neighbor. Separate, just a question. You mentioned that the path forward is not this notification form. And you mentioned another path in safety alternatives. I'm simply curious of what those are if at some point in this meeting you could allude to those. Thank you. My name is Mia Watson. I live at 8 South Street. I'm the granddaughter of John Rice. You've heard this story, but I'll tell it again. He died 11 years ago when his neighbor shot a bullet through my grandparents' window while he was target shooting. My grandfather died in his own house at his own dining room table while my grandmother was sitting right next to him and watched it happen. This is a debate between people wanting to target shoot for recreation and people wanting to be able to enjoy their parks and their backyards without worrying that they or their children will be shot and killed. I understand that there is nuance that needs to be considered in this debate, and there are things like insurance and legal requirements. But to act that these two desires are completely equivalent is absurd. Again, it's been 11 years since my grandfather died. Years and years of meetings and committees and public outreach. And I appreciate all the work that it took to bring us this far and the courage that's been shown by the select board. But in the end, after 11 years, nothing has been done to make this town safer for people in their own homes. Thank you. Nils Giddens, Whitcombe Meadows Lane. Previous comments speak for themselves. I think it's reasonable to remember that the whole initial discharge ordinance task force started after the event that involved a shooting range. And you have done, as I see it, nothing to help with that. So I know where you stand. Maybe we have to think about other approaches, thinking laterally, maybe an education section that would entail the signage that also you were committed to that I don't see anything about other than in Elaine Haney's introduction. Nothing about signage of the boundaries in the proposed document or the timing other than in the introductory letter. I would urge anybody with a shooting range, if you see somebody with a for sale sign anywhere near your property, maybe it would be the nicest thing as a prospective neighborly duty to let them know that a shooting range is there. Otherwise, how will people know what they're getting into? That was one of the reasons for the notification form. Thank you. That is all. Linda Costello, I live near the fairgrounds. I couldn't shoot a deer if it walked across my dining room table. But I'm gonna tell you that I know it's hunting is important to people and target shooting. I talked to Elaine about this on the phone and suggested to her that there could be a town shooting range, not a $2 million building, but an area marked out by the town where people could shoot. Now we have pools for people who wanna swim and we have a nice rink for people who wanna skate. And if somebody wants to do target shooting, it would seem to me that we ought to be able to set up an outdoor facility that's safe, well marked and people would shoot there and it simply would be against the law to shoot anywhere else. I don't think private ranges in somebody's property is a good idea. But I think if we had an area where everybody knew it was going on and it was marked off, that might be a solution. Thank you. Thank you for having this hearing. Hi, Ben Brough. My family owns 54 Lost Nation Road. I'd just like to tell the board that I agree with the direction that you're taking tonight and thank you for doing that. I also would like to see, I think both sides, since the beginning of this have brought up the signage, especially around the town properties. So I would definitely like to see that happen both directions, something like you're now entering a no discharge zone except for these dates for hunting and also you are now entering private property. So I hope that the board would pursue that. Thank you. My name is Kelly Adams and I live at Kings Court. I appreciate the thoughtful process that has gone on. I think we are at a time in our national dialogue around guns and gun safety that is very, very heightened and I appreciate the opportunity for civil discourse and thoughtful input and I'm grateful to live in a community that values that. I hope this, I'm sure there's a desire that a bow be put on this as this passes or doesn't pass but I hope it's a conversation that will continue as if these ordinances are put into place, what changes, what doesn't change, what concerns linger. As I drove here tonight, I stopped at many stop signs. I observed speed limits. There's many, many things that we agree to do as a community that help us all stay safe together. 30 seconds if you would. And I hope that this will be part of that dialogue as we go forward because I think we've come a long way and I still think there's some ground to be covered. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Hi, John Bourbon, 348 Browns River Road. I'd like to thank the board for your change in direction. I think it's a wise move and I appreciate it but I'd also like to point out one possible problem when your definition of firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifies guns made before 1898 and their facsimiles are not considered firearms and they can be shipped through to mail. So I'm not sure if that changes your thinking at all but if you look at talking about defining a firearm the same way the feds do, I'm not sure you're exactly on the mark. So I just thought I'd like to point that out. Alan Packard from Essex 123 Indian Brook Road. I would actually like to see the whole park closed down. I've lost two dogs and within two years for the traffic going up and down. I'd like to see that place closed down and I oppose your gun stuff. That's what I'd like to say. Chris Adams, 178 Browns River Road. I'd also like to thank the board for your work, for the time that you put into it and for the opportunity for the community members to come together to provide an input. I definitely agree with the kind of this change in tact, this new direction. And I'd also want to just kind of follow up on what Mr. Katie said. I think that as folks in this town who value hunting and shooting sports, the onus is on us to make good choices, to be good neighbors. That is really what will hopefully preserve our rights as long as we possibly can, knowing the changing fabric of Vermont. As someone who grew up in the kingdom and now lives in Essex. So thank you again, appreciate it. Ed Wilbur, Browns River Road. I would like to thank the board for their thoughtful consideration in changing direction. I think after the last meeting, I think a few of us were a little put off that we were somewhat getting chastised that we were making comments and threatening lawsuits. To me, there was a failure to understand that portions of the ordinance were a direct threat to our civil liberties as private property owners. It was a threat to our recreation. It was a threat to our hobbies. It was a threat to our traditions. It was a threat to our financial burden. And greatest of all, it was a threat to our privacy. Again, I'd like to thank the board for changing direction on this and reconsidering. What I would like to emphasize is that I think moving forward, we need to think about education. And I think we've got a lot of people in the room representatives from the NRA, from the Sportsman's Association in terms of how to educate the public, but also how to educate gun owners and range owners in how to operate more safely. And I would really like to see, again, an emphasis on education moving forward. Thank you very much. Eric Bailey, 55 Wilkinson Drive. Just more of the same. I actually ended this process with fairly low expectations that movement and consideration would happen and thank you for proving me wrong. I think the board looked at hard facts and the winners will be both the public and the ecosystem in our parks. Thank you. Mitch Allen, 161 Laws Nation Road. I too would like to thank you for moderating the initial start of this search for an answer. And when we speak of safety in the parks or people enjoying parks, we are all citizens. We all have equal rights. And you can't say some should be able to enjoy the parks or their own property. Sometimes people forget that and they look at things from their own perspective. You can't shut some people out because you don't like what they do or you look at them as redheaded stepchildren of society. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Hi, I'm Sarah Salatino. I live up on Brigham Hill Road. I'm sorry I missed the first part of the meeting. I just got out of work. I do understand that you're no longer requiring the form. You're no longer going to register shooting ranges. I think my feeling about all of this is that I'm really tired of the constant noise that's in my neighborhood. I'm tired of the fact that on Brigham Hill Road, the Planning Commission is allowing all kinds of variances for homes to be built and pushed into either side of our road. And we're turning into suburbia. I'm very frightened that something is gonna happen sooner than later. I'm not against shooting. I'm not against responsible gun ownership. I am against the totally uncivil constant noise that it produces. And in my line of work, I have a plant nursery where people come to decompress. It is very disconcerting to listen to AR-15 weapons going off for four hours at a blast. And I know all of you have your right to have your guns. I have a right to hike and ski and to have my place too. But it's quite diff, I know it's probably time. No, no, you're telling me. Okay, but I just want people who are shooters to take into consideration the fact that it's loud. And education isn't gonna do it civility well. And I do support you, your right to hunt and shoot. Does anyone else wish to speak? Going once? Okay, thank you for your input. Thank you for your attention throughout this entire process. We're gonna bring the discussion back to the board. And we've gone through all of the sections of the amendments, amended ordinance that we need to consider for voting. Before we begin to vote, I want to answer the question from one of you about an additional step that we could take. We did change course on the shooting range notification form because it did not address public safety. But there are other things that we still plan to consider. One of which is a density based zoning ordinance or an aspect of this ordinance that would address density. The city, the town of Colchester and the town of Williston both have this in their firearms discharge ordinances. It's a density based system that dictates where you can and where you cannot discharge weapons. And it also talks about what kinds of weapons can be discharged depending upon where it's located. There are links to these ordinances in our packet today. You can find them on the Williston and Colchester websites. My understanding is that in both towns these ordinances were developed with the assistance of the police and with the assistance of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. So we're gonna look at that because it is something that stands on solid legal ground that is a precedence in abutting neighbors and does address public safety. The other thing we're going to discuss is when our chief of police comes to us with an updated ordinance for noise. There are aspects of the noise ordinance that we can address firearms discharged through such as frequency and duration. So while we are planning to work on this part of the ordinance that we've amended and agreed to so far this evening, our work is not done. However, considering the fact that our budget season is approaching, we are deep in merger discussions and there's a lot of other business to go through. I'm not gonna put a timeframe on it, a schedule or anything, but we assure you that when we do bring it back up again, you will all be told and you all know about it and have an opportunity to weigh in. So I just want you to know that public safety is still something we're going to continue to look at. It is still a significant concern of a lot of people and we're not looking to trample on anybody's personal rights or traditions, but we do have to do everything we can to improve public safety. So we appreciate your contributions to the conversation and it will continue. So we've reviewed all of the ordinance amendments. Sorry. We've reviewed all the ordinance amendments. Are there any further questions or discussions about what we're gonna vote on? Max. So the bit about the signs, that doesn't necessarily need to be in the ordinance, does it? Nope. In order to enable the signs to go up? We also got some guidance from VLCT, which is passive about signage and making sure that it's at the main entrances and maybe even some secondary entrances to make sure to all of it, to our parks, to make the public more aware. Indian Brooks is a large place. So. A lot of entrances. But we're not gonna be able to maybe do them all, but we will do the main ones and maybe some of the secondary ones that are larger in size. Okay, but though it's not pointed to in the ordinance, it's still. That's just a board directive. Yes. And do you think the signage that we're gonna need to make sure this is very clear to the public is something that we can implement right away? We won't put up permanent signage, but we can get up something temporarily, certainly for October 15th. For October 15th. And then we'll just get permanent signage. Okay. And will we have staff that will check and make sure the signage is visible? Like just checking on that signage, making sure it's still standing and making sure that it's visible at all times. Checking on it over the course of the year. A park screw can look into that. Great. We'd also appreciate if the public sees that the signs that they passed once before isn't there. We have email, we have phones. C-click fix. C-click fix on the website. That would be great. It's a big 36 square mile town. If there aren't any further questions or comments from board members, I'll accept a motion that there's a sample motion on page three of this section of our packet. Anyone would like to make that motion? Or I could make the motion. Andy? I didn't do it, I guess. I moved at the select board of the town of Essex hereby ordain the passage of new and revised provisions as amended to municipal ordinance sections six dot zero eight dot zero zero zero definition of firearm six dot zero eight dot zero one zero discharge firearms prohibited area designated six dot zero eight dot zero seven zero violation penalty and nine dot zero four dot one zero zero prohibitive activities designated. Second that. Thank you, Andy. Thank you, Max. Is there any further discussion? Andy? Can you clarify what the next steps are? This is where we're ordaining the ordinance and there's another public hearing. Is that true or what's the? That's our next step on the agenda. So our next step, if we approve this amended ordinance is to warn a public hearing on the amended ordinance to be held at a later date, which I believe will be October 7th. So that's our next step on the agenda. Okay. Okay? Yep, thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of amending the ordinance as specified by Andy, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. You've passed the ordinance amendments unanimously. Our next order of business is item five B, warning a public hearing to consider final passage of new and revised provisions to municipal ordinance chapter six point zero eight firearms and chapter nine point zero four parks. Greg? So now that you have passed the ordinance, as you just said, the next step is to warn a public hearing for the ordinance. Suggest, staff suggests October 7th, which is your next regularly scheduled meeting. After the public hearing, if you choose to adopt or choose to adopt the ordinance, it's called final passage. So you would move to make final passage of the ordinance at which point it would take effect immediately. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions about that process? We have been through it before and at the time of a public hearing, we made some changes and so we had to delay and start over basically. So that's what we're doing here. If anybody doesn't, if you don't have any questions or comments, we'll accept a motion to warn the public hearing. I move the select board, warn a public hearing for Monday, October 7th to consider final passage of new and revised provisions to municipal ordinance chapter 6.08, firearms and chapter 9.04, parks. Thank you, Max. Is there a second? Second? All right, Annie. Any further discussion? All those in favor of warning the public hearing, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, we will have a final passage, public hearing on the ordinance on October 7th. That concludes our business items for this special meeting and we'll move on to the consent agenda. Yes, please, let's put it on the table. All right. I move approval of the consent items with select board comments. Do you want to leave? Yeah, we're gonna recess for a moment while everyone clears the room. So I had made a motion to approve the consent items with select board comments. Is there a second? Second. Okay, is there any discussion? I just want to make a comment. Andy. I had asked a question about there was a $60 charge for Green Mountain Messenger for a book delivery and I questioned why we were spending $60 to deliver a book and turns out it's $60 to deliver 60 or 70 books. It's part of the exchange program, the interlibrary exchange. I wanted to thank staff for getting that answer for me efficiently and it's a good answer too. Thanks, Andy. Are there any questions or comments regarding the consent agenda? All right. All those in favor of approving the consent agenda signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. I will bring the check warrants to your next meeting because I just realized I forgot them. What's that? I forgot to bring the check warrants so I'll bring them to your next meeting. Thanks. We now have the reading file. Select board comments. None. None to be had. All right. Then having nothing else on the agenda, I will accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Congratulations. It's 808.