 So we'll just go ahead and get started and Thank you all for coming on the third What we thought is the final public hearing for the public for the planning Commission Do you want me to go through our song and dance since you've all seen it before or do you want it? Basically I just want to hear what you already told me what changes are from the last round so I'm going to Report here the the Reminder on this I can't find my report anyway Yeah, we've had three hearings and The first hearing was a year ago in September of 2022 and I think We all Realized that we there were some issues So between September and May of 2023 we worked with members of the lakes and streams and the conservation Commission to affect some Different language changes, especially in the shoreland overlay We went ahead and made those changes And the highlights of those changes in the April In that public hearing then was keeping the impervious surface at 10% Putting out some more specifics as to what could be done in the upland area of the shoreland or the shod Like we don't like to call it And trying to unite things with all of the other natural resources from that from that Natural resources and water in 3.12 and 3.13 and 3.14 so That's what we did and we passed all of that in May or Yeah, in May and we took it over and turned it over to the select board and Said we're ready to go the select board did have a hearing and they voted to Move it over to a vote and we were scheduled to start having a vote on these in early in on August 10th the Ballots were going to go out on July 10th, which was the day of our floods so I think it was kind of fortuitous in many ways that we didn't have the vote because but in the ensuing time between when the select board had their Public hearing we heard firmly from the people in river in the river from Ned Swanberg DEC river management that we were not up to par in our NFIP flood management Conditions nor did we meet quite the river corridor standards for improved era and since It was a point of all of this to get to that point that we would pass floodplain management and river corridor management We decided that we would pull a boat. I mean that's was decision that we had made right before the flood And work solely on trying to get To that point where we would pass river corridor and flood management. So that's what we did And the new there was some minor changes on What's the word I want substantive important My mate my mind went you know when you We're making all kinds of corrections to people to the houses Substantive Well, anyway, I should have found it So when we went to Flood management What we do have Basically in river quarter. There is no new Development in river quarter We put together a grid that Spells out specifically what can be in conditional uses both in flood hazard overlay and in the recorder Put together a chart of what exactly can go in Substantial improvements is the word I want What constitutes of substantial improvements? And That always goes to DRB in the flood hazard area So there's a new chart that's laying that out. We've got pretty specific Language as to what you can do to buildings in the flood hazard overlay and in the river quarter The thing that they wanted us to be sure of is that there are some Little streams that look like little red lines They are really considered part of rate recorder and we had to spell out for sure in our language That there is a 50-foot buffer on those streams. So those were some of the things that we added in What we learned in in early September is that with those changes we now Comply with both the flood hazard or the NFIP the national flood insurance program and with the They're part of river quarter it's a stream that has a receiving area between 0.5 and 2 square miles and those are considered Like river corridor though. They're they're so small. They don't put them on the river corner map. So there's this big Orange spider and then little little red lines following it So those were the basic changes that we made and that's where we are Because I confess I didn't do very much with your river corridor and flood control regulations in the It's three point Where it's talking about Buffers for streams, it's 35 feet. That's right, which I assume it's 35 feet on each side But what I'm hearing now is if you're in the river corridor, it's Certain streams are 50 feet. That's 50 feet and not very far And if I could there's a difference between the riparian buffer for the 35 feet has to be vegetated, right naturally vegetated Where's the river quarter defines the river? This is of applying the zoning. Does that make sense? It defines the district That 50 feet defines the river corridor the arse the river quarter overlay district is defined by that 50 feet Where a and r hasn't gone and done a river study and mapped out where it goes It's one of the smaller streams that John was talking about Doesn't have to be vegetated There's a no build zone Yeah, you can't you can't build in it, but but it can you know if you're if it's a hayfield you can still Cut the hay in By hanging within like 10 feet of a string that's fine Under Well, if they if they if they're doing it now and they do it consistently they can keep doing it The this doesn't interfere with the grandfathered nature of that. I'm not supposed to use Yeah, I'm not supposed to use grandfathered anymore the pre-existing use Will go away if they if they stop doing it for a period of time I'm not even using them. So I mean I They said that they've they've seen it before so we're not even all the people all the people that are here Are the ones who helped us write this song And they didn't write the recorder, but yeah, anyway, so okay Any other questions Continue to be The actual reading on that pre-existing mowing is a landowner who is mowed in a buffer of surface water other than wetlands once within two years of The effective date of these regular of those regulations may continue to mow the same area following adoption of this bylaw However, the area mode shall not be expanded and failure to mow at least once every two years Show me that the provisions of this section apply and the area may no longer be mowed So we're grant granting them the ability to keep doing what they're doing Every two years, but once they stop mowing they can no longer mow I Don't remember what we had in We have in shod Well in shod in fact, there's no no new development that that Which that increase it increases the footprint of any structure that's there that's not allowed so I'm sorry Anything that happens in there we want it to happen in a way that moves things away from the pond And allows the pond to be cut the edge of the pond to become better in the shrod Have to get to a point what we say in the shrod. It's in sec in K number nine Lawns within the shore our land vegetative buffer zone Legally in existence on January 3rd 2005 and which are mowed at least once every two years may be maintained if no new development takes place And the key word there no new development takes place Following new development or failure to mow at least once every two years the area may no longer be mowed Yeah, that's what Maureen said. All right, and effective July 6th 2025 where we came up with that date no permit shall authorize mowing within the shoreland vegetated buffer zone The use of fertilizers herbicides and pesticides is prohibited. So Moving down to section L number five I'm not sure how or whatever went along, you know so much things so many things go on when we review things I talked with John. Let me pack up a little bit. Noreen sent me an email Commenting that we had changed no pollution to the word limited amount of pollution in section L5 but in 3.12 we kept it at no pollution and so I Talked with John and he did a quick search and he found that we have eight places In our regulations where we have no pollution and this was the only place where we have Limited amount so we will probably change everything to be consistent to no pollution As a consistency from one place to another We will have some discussion in our meeting after this but after the hearing, but that's what's proposing and Furthermore, I guess I should just say that we've had an editor doing the looking at formatting punctuation and Minor language editing And this particular phrase L5 She's recommended a different way of stating this so if I can just share with you her recommendation and see what you think about it Section for L5 starts development shall be planned to prevent or mitigate the discharge of pollutants and erosion into groundwater surface waters and other Protected natural resources you want that protected there? Well in the second reading Okay, well we have another natural resources to the extent practicable Where appropriate mitigation measures Utilizing best management practices BMP as currently available under the Department of Energy Conservation And we have the link may be used to ensure That that I wonder how that that pollution or eroded material shall not reach ground or surface waters or other protected natural resources Just a better grammatical way of maybe saying it Right so that was her recommendation for that and then it goes to see sections 312 313 and 315 There's no way to put that up on the screen John's probably got it. I don't know Do I have that exact language? I can bring up I can bring up her recommendation, but yeah, you can bring you just bring it up I recopied it on mine. That's all right But she but her note if you bring it up. You'll see her note on the comment section 2.4 L5 That's you're in 7 go back to 4 Yeah, but we know no we're in we're in 2.4 we're in shrod Yeah, right there so Tegan her her Where appropriate mitigation measures utilizing blah blah blah blah is how she puts it and and we Thought that it would be better than to say that it can be used to ensure that Pollution or eroded material shall not reach ground or surface waters This is a different way of putting it Yeah, I was trying to get Tegan's comments So she found a couple other Areas well good questions that she found and and English changes or grammatical changes that will probably be reviewing before we turn it over to the select board That area that's highlighted is the area that she is recommending to change And in the comment section is what she is suggesting to be the change So to ensure that no Well, could I just ask the question? You know we were comparing This provision this section 2.4 L5 with 3.12 a6 Which both of us pretty much exactly the same thing but have what seems to us pretty significant What's gonna happen to two three point 12 a6 which I personally think is the best version of any of these Well, okay, as I thought I Which one are you on three point Well, we're gonna keep it I think what I said and I introduced this that we would change limited to know or not Having any pollution going in and we would keep it that way. So there's consistency in all of the document So what we have here is that no pollution or eroded material shall reach ground or surface waters and we're keeping it I think Yes, we are agreeing with that Yes, and that's why we're changing it that's why we're changing L5 back to know It's a just a matter of semantics what what are the aspects It's whether or not you would look to the mitigation I'm not sure I'm understanding you well But 2.4 L5 starts off by saying development in the zone It's an option for them or mitigate and and we've seen how mitigation has been used to allow developments to happen in other aspects in other aspects when If you said well, you can't do it But in some extremist situations you can you can mitigate things as opposed to mitigation Possible options But I guess my question then to you is If you want no pollution, you cannot have any development period. I Mean what what this is just my way of thinking and we can't we're we've got people in the shoreland here that are going to develop and in I Personally, I mean, this is my personal thing and I'm not speaking for the rest of the members of the planning commission I find it very difficult to enforce a no And I write a language in here that says there's going to be no pollution And I have no way in hell to figure out how John or any other select Zoning administrator is going to administer that so it's a good language I agree, but I don't know how to enforce it And so in the shrod and in some of the areas and that are within rural residential that have streams There is probably going to be some development. I don't know how else to write it We can there's going to be mitigation. We want people to do best management practices as outlined by the state as best as possible and I don't know how we do it And so that's just my Okay, personal Thanks, sorry Actions to prevent it from reaching surface water or or around water How do you do that say someone's to say someone's got a Fire pit and they use charcoal starter and then the cam tips over and they're they're about 150 feet from the water and then it rains and you know that that is going to actually get into the lake eventually That is pollution. What was supposed to happen in that case? And what is expected of the town? Are we supposed to chase someone down because we know that the surface or that the waters are being polluted? Well, what was the town supposed to do? Accidental discharges Something different So I think these are really important policy questions But what I'm hearing that is also resonating is that there is different languages in different sections So we already got your email about the no pollution versus the other language And there's a desire to make things uniform here We have a difference between two two point four L five and three point twelve Be to whatever the other one is well that I think you point it out instead of designed to prevent discharge It's mitigation is used in one place along with prevent So in two point four L five it's Planned to prevent or mitigate the discharge of pollutants and then the other one Designed to prevent discharge That's all I think I see that and I'm reading that first sentence and it says Development shall be planned to prevent or mitigate the discharge of pollutants and erosion into groundwater surface water and other natural Sources to the extent practicable You know if you take mitigate out of that sentence It it doesn't become draconian because it says to the extent practical And then it goes on to say this is how you can this is you know, we're appropriate Or down here where appropriate mitigation measures utilizing best managers practices currently available from the DEC May be used to ensure that pollutants blah blah blah. I think that's fine I don't see any need to have the word mitigate in the first sentence because we go on to expand on Best management practices, which is all about mitigation So so it it says right up front Says right up front that the intent is To not have any discharge of pollutants and then it goes on to say We Understand that this is an impossible goal, but we're going to we're going to Hue as close as possible to that goal as as we can so here are you suggesting we take I might I think we can take the word mitigate out of that first sentence without giving up without giving up any of the Capacity To do it in a smart way I don't you know, it's all of our all of our all of our sections start out with a Statement of intent and that's a I think that's a good statement of intent, you know that what we want is To not have it and then we go on to say we understand that that's that that there's going to have to be some shenanigans in order to do the best job we can possibly do but This is okay, I think we get rid of I think we get rid of the word mitigate without losing any of the Flexibility that it's going to take in order to do the best job we can do on that. I think that's all right. You agree John Okay. Yes. All right Mitigates out But you still have to deal with 312 a 6 which has different language applying to exactly well And I personally think that's the far better language and just cutting and pasting it and putting it into 4l 5 Who'd be the simplest and easiest solution consistent with what you say you want to do which is no pollution if if you just change 2.4l 5 Sort of add hot and all you still likely to have conflicts or Confusion between what it says. Yeah, I get you we did we did do a cutting pace We'll just do a cutting paste Without the shoreline language, right or is that I Likeable in both. Yeah, I think the second half of that sentence. It does exactly the same job and it clear and it clears up the The the necessity of having to compare one with the other to see which one So what this year would be changed to where it copied? Yeah? Yeah, I'm just going to highlight it for now No, I I agree with Larry. I think that that language. I think that language is fine. And if we're going to Delete one or the other. This is no, we're just copy. This is fine And then I think the other thing is John you found the other places where we had no pollution up in Highland and a few Other places should we just copy and paste put it everywhere else? It's all the same thing But only one instance of limited so we can change that to know A good catch that's a good catch I mean consistency is important But I'm highly inconsistent most of the time I I do I do think that we I Mean this one doesn't doesn't say it quite the way the other one does so if we enlist this wording, that's fine. I have a little bit of concern when we say When we just blanketly say We have to keep this stuff out of all natural resources because all natural resources include Includes my paved driveway. You know, that's a natural resource. I mean, I do think that we should zero in on protected or Sensitive or something we should use some other word there to qualify the natural resources that we're going to Yeah, because my natural resource might be different from yours and we need to put it We need to pick a pick a list that we're going to apply this to and Stick with it With a little editorial I would hope so Low impact make sure development There's a permanent doc It's not a temporary doc on the cover of the low impact development standards No, we don't allow permanent docs That's funny. I'm sorry new new we don't allow new permanent. Okay. Um, are there any other concerns? And any questions do you think That you can think of? Okay. Well with that, I guess we can say this public hearing is over