Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record. Home addresses that residents give are left out of this page.
Unfinished Business
[0:39] Matthew LaChance: Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Town Council Workshop of October 13th, 2026. We don't have any planning in CED. I don't see any. No. We have no unfinished business. If no one has any objection, I'd like to add an agenda. The Town Manager would like to add an agenda item. Does anyone have any issue with it? No. Pretty simple. It's a council consideration of appointing three of its members to act as fair hearing authority for general assistance appeal. And I'd take it away if you would.
[1:18] Eric Jarvi: So the town of Hamden doesn't have a stand-alone fair hearing authority for appeals through general assistance. State law says that you can either have your own appeals board for general assistance, the minimum municipal officers may act as the fair hearing authorities or you can also if you've written your Board of Appeals ordinance in a manner that allows them to heal hear an appeal through GA they can they could hear it our Board of Appeals ordinance isn't written specifically to hear appeals for general assistance decisions, and we don't have a standalone. So I'm looking for consideration. I would like three, at least three members from the council to act as the fair hearing authority for an appeal that will be upcoming within the next couple of weeks or so. So I know this would have to be something you guys would actually appoint and not you know nominate amongst yourself and appoint and then vote on at the next meeting so I wanted to get it in front of you tonight because time is of the essence where we have a very limited time in order to hold that appeals process so everybody's good with having
[2:51] Matthew LaChance: that on the agenda item next agenda very good question paula
[3:00] Dennis Marble: would there be with the town welfare clerk i'm not giving the
[3:05] Eric Jarvi: right title be in attendance at this as well yes the general assistance administrator would be in attendance as well as legal i kind of would like some names because we would actually have it on the agenda as an appointment for next week for the next meeting i don't know if anybody wants to volunteer if you want to discuss it or if someone you know might have an idea
[3:46] Dennis Marble: i'll volunteer can
[3:54] John Swalec: i
[3:58] Mark Cormier: Make a suggestion before we start the volunteering. We did this one other time with another issue where we needed access to three counselors for signatures for releasing funds in certain situations. But is this something where all of us, if we were all willing, could be on this appeals board and then, and then you're likely to get the minimum of three that you need at any given time to act on things, if it's
[4:32] John Swalec: Can you pull your microphone a little bit closer, John? Yes, just for the sake
[4:37] Mark Cormier: sake of the public, thank you. This mic is not my friend, I'm just going to say that, so
[4:46] Eric Jarvi: I don't know the answer to that question. I know that if it was going to be done, handled through an appeals board or board of appeals, however you want to term that, those are typically five to seven members. So I think it could be appropriate for all seven members of the council to be the authority. I just, I just want to make sure that I have at least three people there so that I could have some, someone to actually hear the appeal, so [Matthew LaChance: So I'll make] sure that we have some appointment papers, or some like we do for like all the other boards, for our next meeting for everyone, just because you guys actually will have to be sworn in, take the oath just like you would, planning board members, all boards and committees would have to be sworn in to make it official. So I will make sure that we have those for the next meeting.
[5:54] Mark Cormier: This is technically a separate town board or committee or whatever we want to call it, but it's an entity unto itself.
[6:04] Eric Jarvi: Yes,, under statute we have to have one. I didn't realize that we've never had one in Hamden. We don't have a lot of general assistance applications or cases anyways, which is probably why it sort of, you know, sort of slid under the radar. There is some terminology in the Board of Appeals ordinance that allows them to oversee, to hear other grievances from other, I can't remember how it's worded, ordinances, boards, or laws that have provisions for appeal, something to that effect. There's one tenet in the Board of Appeals ordinance, but there's nothing that elaborates. So I don't think anybody has ever realized that it could be used for general assistance as well.
[7:00] John Swalec: I have two questions. I don't know if they can be answered or not. Excuse me. First one is, do these Board members need to be actively sitting Counselors, or can they be any? residents of town, and when would this Board meet? Would it be during a council meeting, or would there be a separate? appeals board hearing process time
[7:32] Eric Jarvi: In the best case scenario, you would probably have a separate board, or you would empower your board of appeals to do this, but we don't have time. I have a very short window in which I have to hear this appeal, and I have no appeals board to do so. But statute says that the municipal officers may act as the appeal authority, so that's why I'm desperately asking for someone to impanel this.
[8:02] Mark Cormier: Yep, absolutely. Will you be able to wait until next week, Paula, or do we need to do something tonight?
[8:13] Eric Jarvi: No, I can get the vote next week. There is a provision in the law that says that arrangements for the date, time, place of the hearing will take into consideration the convenience of the claimant and the hearing authority. authority. So I'm hanging my hat on that convenience clause so that I can get a board and paneled and get the materials to that board to hear it in time for the appeal.
[8:46] Christine Cubberley: Yes, sir. So I believe we can handle it then under next week's council business under the policy agenda item three, which is elections, nominations, appointments. So it would be appropriate at that time to handle it yep agreed very
New Business
[9:06] Matthew LaChance: good the second item of new business is council consideration to waive the four percent cap on environmental trust expenditures and request amount not to exceed five hundred thousand dollars trust income of the environmental trust to contribute towards proposed access road from the emerson mill road to the northwest side of the manning mill bridge i've asked the town manager to explain this for the public so that we can so the public has comment they'll have some information to comment on or
[9:41] Eric Jarvi: ask questions about thank you very much so agenda item da and DB go together in which they the trustees need the council to give them direction so I have requested that the council waive the 4% requirement, which is a cap on the expenditures of the environmental trust. And then you would also then be authorizing the environmental trust to waive the 4% cap on the expenditures. And the back story is basically back in 2022, we had as a council and as the individual trustees of the environmental trust agreed to change the institutional trustee from bangor savings bank to the first because we were able to get a better interest rate but at the same time counselor jarvie who is the council representative on that trust made a motion to approve this that the trust would have, that we would impose a spending limit on the trust so that we could not spend any more than 4% Of the market value of that trust each time there's a request, because the market, the value of the trust goes up and down. So every time we have to make a request, we have to make sure that request does not go over that 4%, put us over that 4%, and we've never gone over that 4%. So we had a meeting of the Environmental Trust Committee. I think it was September 29th was our meeting, and we brought to the trustees the idea that we may, would they consider utilizing $500,000 out of that trust for the purpose of building that road from the Emerson Mill Road into the backside of Manning Mill Road, and they had no great concerns about doing that except that they wanted the council to waive the 4% first as the council, and then request it back to them to for their consideration to waive the 4%. Does any of that make sense?
[12:13] Mark Cormier: It does, Paula. Okay.
[12:18] Eric Jarvi: And just as a side note, when we put the funds from Bangor Savings into the first, we had about $3.2 million in that trust. And since then, we've made up over 14%, even after taking up to the 4% cap that we put on it. So the value of that fund is now about $3.7 million. Million, so we have increased our return on investment, and we do have the funds. There's going to be a lot of wetland mitigation when that road goes in, so there is that environmental piece there as well. Thank
[13:02] Matthew LaChance: you. Public comment, go ahead please.
[13:18] Public Commenter: The two, I have two questions. Your name, sir, for the two, I'm sorry, your name. Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting to do that. Tim Ross, 141. Thank you. Thank you. The two questions pertain to the access road that I have. The first one is, neither one of these have to do with the four percent, but it does have to do with the, you know, has the actual road been mapped out, or is that still waiting on environmental protection? And the second question I have is, how is that going to, how is that new road going to be available for delivery in the sense that GPS is going to make them come down the old way, not the new way, and somehow they're going to have to know that from house 101 to 141 is down the new extension, and that whatever the first house is on the old Manning Mill down to the bridge, which I believe the last one is 95, that there would be some, so like maybe a sign on top saying, you know, one through 95, and then on the new road it'd be 101 to 141 or 101 to 999, whatever, so you don't have to make another sign if something else goes up in there. Those are the two questions I have.
[14:45] Matthew LaChance: I guess I don't think I don't think we I don't think I don't think we can discuss that, okay.
[14:52] Public Commenter: I figured that the environmental was probably keeping the road from being done, and as far as the actual sign was going to go up is also part of that plan as well, so I can
[15:07] Eric Jarvi: touch on that briefly because that is slightly different than what this agenda item is, but I can I can let you know. I didn't want to be out of line. No, I understand. Just briefly, myself, the public works director, and the economic development director, and the engineer that we're going to be talking about later on in this agenda, met with the DEP in Bangor on October 2nd, and they are going to walk it to mitigate to delineate the store the wetlands I can't
[15:45] Public Commenter: even talk tonight I figured that would be also with the restriction on where the road actually
[15:51] Eric Jarvi: goes yes and they're they we've been in contact with the army corps of engineer engineers who also have to do their own delineation because of the size of it the as far as the GPS coordinates go we do have a an engineer that will be walking with the or surveyor I should say walking with the DEP who's going to be getting the GPS coordinates for the layout of the road there is a preliminary layout of that road we're working out some kinks and I understand that there is a an issue that has come to light with regard to your property line and there's a couple of other issues that we're still working through right now as far as addressing goes miles block our code officer is our addressing officer and so he will be working with them on all of that okay thank you so we're not there yet but it's in the works and that's about all I
[16:54] Public Commenter: can tell you for tonight okay thank you yeah and sorry for getting out of off topic
[17:01] Eric Jarvi: as it were that's okay thank you do I shut this off yes thank you do we have any further
[17:07] Matthew LaChance: public comment there's nobody watching on tv do we know apparently not oh
[17:19] Christine Cubberley: go ahead please mr vice chair to add what our town manager described I was on a trustee on the on the environmental trust at the time we did this and just for the benefit of the public and the audience here I want to remind them that the trustees enacted this because one of the things that a previous council did many years ago was essentially spend down the chevron trust that this town had over a very short order and the trustees of the environmental trust felt it was it was prudent to set some Limits so that the environmental trust would hopefully. We also, however, recognize that while we established a 40% cap and it was approved by council, there would occasionally be what we at the time termed exceptional circumstances, which would require, essentially would allow for going over that cap to address these exceptional circumstances. Certainly, this meets that by every measure, and we've discussed previously as a council that the shear project in and of itself, no matter which way we go, is clearly environmentally related because of the impact on the sow adapts cook. I think the one, and so again, I'm very supportive of this, and I will certainly be a champion for it. I think the one thing I would ask staff to consider, this is a considerable hit to the principal, and I think it's worth it, don't get me wrong, but I think it might be worth the trustees having numbers to look at their next meeting with this going through that would impact whether the 4% moving forward might in fact be a little too high for one year or two and maybe make an appropriate adjustment. So, you know, Councilor Swalik, I would ask that maybe you champion this as our council representative. What is the impact on half a million dollars to that $3.7 million principle? Because obviously the annual income goes down when the principle goes down. And so is that 4 percent still realistic? It may have to be adjusted downward for some short period of time, and I think everybody would understand that was a reasonable accommodation considering what we have to take out of that fund at this point to address the exceptional circumstance so thank you Mr. Vice Chair I
[19:50] Matthew LaChance: guess we're in I guess we're into council discussion now so I just I just have a question and I don't know if it needs to be answered here or not but are we are we there yet as far as I mean do we have the proper easements and all that for the road and Can you discuss that, or are we getting ahead of ourselves?
[20:14] Eric Jarvi: I cannot discuss that in open meeting.
[20:16] Matthew LaChance: Okay. So we don't know if we're going to have a road, basically. We'll talk about it when the time comes.
[20:27] Christine Cubberley: Mr. Vice Chair, I would suggest that the motion next time is simply to waive the cap to allow $500,000 towards the Manning Mill project in whatever it takes, in whatever it takes. I mean, I think I know why it was done the way it was for council discussion, but I think where you're going may be absolutely right. And all we're asking as a council for staff or for the trustees to do is allow that $500,000 to go towards whatever the ultimate project may be. And I would certainly work to make sure that was the intent of the motion as opposed to limiting it to one of the three projects. That's where I was going. Thank you.
[21:10] Eric Jarvi: So and I also think it needs to be clearly stated that we are building a road. We're not fixing the bridge. We don't have the money to fix a bridge and no I just I know that there's been some confusion about out there because there was a the presentation by the engineer, and he gave two alternatives for the Bailey Bridge and then one for the other bridge that needs a whole new superstructure. And I just want to remind everybody that those cost estimates that he gave us that night were for construction only. They had nothing to do with design work. They had nothing to do with lay down yards and getting a crane in there. You know the what this council voted on was to obtain easements to build a road. There's a clear vote on the record. Your attorney was here and that is the direction that this council is moving in. So I just want to make sure that is clear and so I can't talk about where we're at with obtaining easements but we our the focus is a road and that's where that's the direction that we are moving in. Anybody
[22:28] Matthew LaChance: else? Okay so the question so Councillor Jarvi has pretty much summed up the way it's going to going to be on the agenda next time. The next item is just request to the read it crest council requested environmental trustees requesting a waiver of 4% cap on expenditures in order to authorize the amount not to exceed $500,000 trust income to contribute towards the proposed access road from the Emerson Mill Road to the northwest side of Manning Mill Bridge. So this is just asking the council to ask the environmental trustees for a waiver. Do you want to add anything to that?
[23:18] Eric Jarvi: No. No, I think that's fine. The first one was for the council to waive four percent. The second one was for you to ask the trustees to waive the four percent, and I think the way Council or Jarvee summarized it for the next meeting will be fine. Do we have any public comment on that?
[23:37] Matthew LaChance: And we basically we don't have any council comment.
[23:43] Mark Cormier: I think the way this is written might be a little a little confusing. The way I'm reading it is that is that the environmental trust trustees are requesting the town to make these changes this waiver and stuff, and I don't think that's what's intended maybe.
[24:12] Eric Jarvi: I'm reading it wrong, but counselor Swalik at the environmental trust meeting trustee white said he would feel better he has full support of this, but he would feel better if the council would waive it, so the trustees were asking everyone there agreed that the counts that the trustees would ask would ask the council to waive it to start with the council's the town's money, yeah, but then the council also there's that tenant within the indenture that says that the trustee trustees have some authority over the funds and the expenditures that come out of it, and so that's why the council would then request the trustees to waive the 4%. It's like a joint checks and balances.
[25:03] Mark Cormier: Oh okay, interesting, yeah, I'm not trying to stand in the way of anything. I think I know what it is we're trying to do here. I'm just it's just the intersection of all the language, but it wasn't my understanding that we were requesting. See, this says council request to the environmental trustees requesting a waiver of the four percent cap, which I guess is kind of what you just said, you know, quid pro quo,, quo, I'm fine with it if our attorneys, whoever, look at it and they feel it's okay. I mean, the goal is to waive the 4% cap per annum cap this one time for this one problem. That's my understanding of what we're trying to do, and I think we're doing that here. It's just not quite as well I remember that this is not
[26:27] Christine Cubberley: a motion, this is simply wording as to facilitate discussion in a sense. I got you, I got you, so you got conceptually what needs to be done, and I think that's that's where I want to go, okay.
[26:43] Mark Cormier: Well good, so we're going to clean this all up for next week.
[26:49] Matthew LaChance: All right, MC Council discussion on ratifying the manager's decision to waive the bid policy and directly contract with Carpenter Associates for design, permitting, and associated engineering services for the access road from MSN Railroad to the northwest side of Manny Mill. Manny Mill
[27:06] Eric Jarvi: bridge, could you please comment on that? So prior to the meeting with the DEP that I spoke of that we held on October 2nd, attorney Pease requested a meeting with them because he wanted to make sure that we were doing everything that we needed to do with regard to wetlands and how this whole process needed to be played out with the DEP and with the Army Corps. And so after his meeting, his meeting was actually on September 29th, he called me, wasted no time, and said that it's time to get an engineer on board and that we needed to do it fairly quickly. We don't have a lot of time and this is the time that they would need to get out there and to walk the lines and all of that. And so I met with staff, John Chief Bailey, Jason and Amy, we had our Manning Mill update meeting to see where we were all at and we started brainstorming engineering firms that we could reach out to find out whether or not they had availability and the experience to do this. And out of the four that we contacted, Carpenter Associates did have availability and their workload was such that they could handle this. They're well experienced in all facets of civil engineering and we've actually worked with Randy before on other projects. So I'm just in the interest of time asking to waive the bid policy and allow me to work directly with Mr. Bragg on this project. Public
[29:05] Matthew LaChance: comment please. Hi
[29:17] Public Commenter: Linda Balcourt from Hamden. I understand that they haven't, you can't talk about the property in the easements at this point, but I was just wondering if they're going to be designing this road and isn't it going to be rather difficult for this agency to do that if they don't have a designated area? I mean, I know that you have property there that you want to use for the road, but they, in order for them to have the other agencies in the EP and whoever else, don't they have to have some idea where the road is going to go before they can decide how they're going to do that? And if that's the case, do they have, do you have any idea when that information will be as far as it, if they've gotten the proper easement so they have the property at that, at that point? Do you have any information?
[30:11] Eric Jarvi: Regarding that, I can speak briefly to that, and I know that's probably not, but because of this situation, I want to keep the record clear out in the public. We have a layout. We have a rough layout. We've had it surveyed by a surveyor that we contacted. It was the surveyor who came back to us and said, there's some wetlands in there. And he said, I'm doing my due diligence to let you know that I think you need to contact the DEP and start the process to take a look at these wetlands. So we do know where the road is going. It's going to be. Yes.
[30:47] Public Commenter: So, you know, it's not going to be, there's not any possibilities of it being moved. This is where you'd like to keep it. Right. Right. At this point. We're just waiting for the finalization of it. Right.
[30:58] Eric Jarvi: And the DEP and the Army Corps will walk the property themselves. They have authority granted to them through the state. They don't need anyone's permission to walk the properties if there was any type of pushback. So, they will be doing that as soon as we can arrange it. Okay.
[31:17] Public Commenter: And you have no idea about the finalization of when the property or the easements will be completed? No. Okay. Just wondering. Okay.
[31:37] Matthew LaChance: So we have a pretty good idea how that's going to be on the agenda item next week. Very good. Yes, please go ahead. I
[31:53] Christine Cubberley: don't mind having this as an agenda item, as if it needs to be a matter of record to make you feel comfortable. But I believe council has already acted on the necessity for sole source justification at the discretion of the town manager. I mean, councillors, if I have missed the point here, I'm more than willing to admit it. But I thought this has been addressed previously. We argued the point that waiving the bid procedure was really not the correct term, that really what we were seeking was sole source, and when it was the opinion of our staff that a project had to be sole sourced, we had already previously granted that authority. So if the town manager feels comfortable us reendorsing that, I don't mind seeing it next week, but I would argue that you already have that authority. Paula, well, I would ask if I think didn't we just discuss that at the last council meeting? Yeah, I believe, I mean, it's been very recently that we've done this, and the issue was waiving the bid versus sole source, and when we agreed that it was sole source that you had that authority based on that. So I really think it's it's a moot point, but again that's just my opinion. I
[33:16] Dennis Marble: Just want to comment in support of that fact, and I'm glad you pointed it out. And a more blanket, wider comment is that this whole event has caused the town to have to react in specific ways, specifically town staff, and we need to be supportive and guidance about that. So whether it's on the agenda next week, I don't personally care, but I agree with Councillor Jarvi's comments right now. I
[33:44] John Swalec: don't write the agenda, so yeah, I don't, I don't see that this needs to be a stumbling block or add any delayed time to this project. As Councillor Jarvi laid out, we've already empowered the manager to make these arrangements.
[34:08] Christine Cubberley: Quite frankly, that gives you the balance of this week to enact it before waiting for a week for the council meeting. So I think to your point, yes, you can actually act
[34:18] John Swalec: tomorrow. Yeah, if she needed to, yeah, absolutely. And I think
[34:25] Mark Cormier: absolutely, I have, I absolutely agree with all the comments and made that was my understanding. So
[34:42] Matthew LaChance: shall we move on item D, request for the town council to review the 217, 2026 amendments to the shoreline zoning ordinance pursuant to section 8 of said ordinance, requested by Jim, resident Jim Kaiser. Mr. Kaiser, would you like to start this discussion?
[35:10] Public Commenter: Good evening, my name is Jim Kaiser, I live in [address], we also own property on Kennebec Road on the southerly side as you approach Monroe Road from going out of town. The council and staff had gone through a large map amendment on shoreland zoning that was adopted back in February. There were some other changes made to the written ordinance also. And there was, and I apologize because maybe I should have looked at it, but my land was rezoned through the ZBA back in 2012-2013 range, and it went from resource protection to limited residential, specifically because none of the criteria within the ordinance required that to be zoned resource protection. And as I got into this, I happened to take the updated Sherlin zoning map and tried to get a hold of the most recent map that it replaced. I could not get that. I was able to get from the P the 2010, which is several iterations before that, in 2010. Like I said, my land was owned resource protection. I go back into the old GIS system and my land is shown as being limited residential. Now I know, and I've been told by Miles, that there's nothing requiring him to do notification of residents for shoreland zoning changes. However, I do think that once you get a zone change by the ZBA, you can't go back and reverse that unless there's overriding factors that weren't presented to the ZBA originally. So I asked to have the ZBA information researched. I was told they couldn't find it. Two planners ago, Karen found it and updated the map at that point in time because there was another map error done in the meantime, and Miles couldn't find it this time. So, and I think that's what gets Paula into her recap of it, saying that I was wasting a bunch of time for staff to define this information. I gave approximate dates. It was found once, wasn't found a second time. So I kind of got to the point where it is, well, what do I need to do to get this rectified? And that's when Paula suggested that we basically come to a workshop meeting and talk to council about it, but and I got plenty of these if council's interested in seeing him, but just
[39:02] John Swalec: and usually not for the sir, if you just want to wait till you're back at the podium to speak, that way it's on public record. Thank you sir. Most
[39:20] Public Commenter: of the changes that I circled on there were not to the advantage of the landowner. I have two other properties that I know that went through the channels to get zone changes, one through the ZBA and one through administrative amendments because the criteria, and if you're familiar with your shoreline zoning ordinance, there are set criteria for establishing when a resource protection should be applied. Those items consist of flood plains along rivers and lakes, two or more acres of sustained slopes of greater than 20%, two or more continuous acres supporting wetland, vegetation, and hydric soils, which are part of the freshwater or coastal wetland defined, and then land areas with severe bank erosions. So if and those are the four criteria that were approached to the ZBA and staff when they made changes to that, those properties that went from resource protection into limited residential and Including mine, all three parcels are now back in resource protection, so I don't know kind of what transpired. I don't know if the consultant used a incorrect map to start with to come up with the base map that kind of led them in the direction, if they were applying things that were not under these criteria and just went in and changed things because I don't know why, just because it was undeveloped and bordered a freshwater wetland or a lake from that matter, but they shouldn't be making those changes or putting land in resource protection that don't fall into one of these four categories. And to do that basically severely restricts a landowner with what they can do with the property. In my instance, I have a pinch point between the wetland and the road frontage and back land, so that means with resource protection I really can't do anything to get to the back land. So that's why we went in and had that rezoned a limited residential. Now it allows us to put a road going back there. 's not a lot you can do in that space, but it allows us to get through that area where there's a pinch point and get back into some usable land out back. So you know there's usually a motive by you know for why people want these changes and seek them out, but the real big thing is that they shouldn't be in resource protection if they don't meet these criteria in the first place. So I don't know what the answer is to this. I really like to just see my property get addressed. I could tell you the landowner that we that the staff changed on probably would really like to see his property or her property get changed also back, and the other property was a client and I know he wants his property basically to where it was supposed to be. So I guess I'm here to kind of make some get some direction from the council on this and see where we go from here I guess. Overall I don't know if it means starting over. I know we spent a lot of money on probably the consultant put together a map, but in my professional opinion over all the years I've been doing this, I throw that right in the trash can and just go back to the one that you had you know a year ago from that standpoint. Now I know with the zone change is that Miles was making and the intent that he was going after was because of the urban impaired streams and several versions of the shoreline zoning, we had a local stream protection category in the zoning. And then staff, I think the comprehensive plan and council determined that wasn't necessary because streams are already protected by the state. Now Miles wrote in his memo to me or to the council that indicated that we're mandated to protect urban impaired streams. I've talked with a former DEP stormwater person and he was unaware of any mandate that puts a town under protection of those streams. DEP already protects them under the stormwater management law and also under Natural Resource Protection Act. So there's already two legislative actions that protect urban impaired streams. And our 75 foot setback that we're putting on them through the local stream protection really is about that much of what the other laws already cover from that standpoint. So I think there was some good intent in there from the standpoint of trying to protect the urban impaired streams. They certainly need some help. The ones we have in Hamden, unfortunately, probably are impaired before they even get to town. They're impaired through Bangor and Herman, mostly through the airport development and the interstate, and not through what we have in our corridor. But doing our best to help out is always good. So I understand some of the motives on it, and that could have been done and taken the old map and just simply addressed the two urban impaired streams that we have in the town, and that's Soccer Brook and Shawbrook that comes in the sourdabs cook so and kind of held it at that but the ordinances and the maps had all been reviewed and approved by DEP DPS basic regulation chapter 1000 which gives the guidelines for ordinance development hasn't changed since 2015. So there hasn't been anything that changed in the development of our ordinances since 2015 requirements that DEP put out. So other than wanting to be a good steward as a town, I don't even believe we had to go in and do anything on urban impaired streams. Now when I asked about that it said all the communications was verbal on the phone and talking with the DEP individual it was like they would always write a letter if they're requiring you to do something there would always be written communications on it so I'm not quite sure what that transpired somebody at the ep feeling they wanted to get more action through towns and kind of push the situation a little bit i don't know but it didn't seem to me that there was a real need to do much of what We did do and unfortunately a lot of it went to the detriment of landowners in the town from that standpoint. So I'd be one happy to hear what information the council may be able to point me in on how to address this for my property and maybe the others that I know that have been put in a rough position. I'm willing bet one of them doesn't even know that they've been rezoned at this point in time. So one happy to listen to anything that council can provide me I
[48:24] Matthew LaChance: Have a question Jim, a question for you. All these circles are have been have not been necessarily been changed. You're just showing the different the legend, you're just showing the different
[48:37] Public Commenter: designations of some of them are different designations, some of them are actually changes and but most of them I was looking for was mostly that designation to go from that had been in a limited residential and then went into a resource protection, which restricts use of your property. I'm
[49:04] Matthew LaChance: looking at a big chunk of my property on here that's in a limited residential shoreline zone, I think.
[49:19] Public Commenter: The odd thing with this, too, is at some point in time they flip-flop the colors of the limited residential and the resource protection. So it got gets confusing. This map also shows a lot of areas that have no merit on a shoreline map such as freshwater or forested shrub wetlands. They're not regulated by shoreline protection shoreline zoning. So I'm not even sure why they're on the map in the first place and then there's you know the only thing that should be on this map is what is regulated and that's a 10 acre freshwater wetland and rivers and lakes all the other items except for what we put in this the new zoning classification of local stream protection shouldn't be on that map and there's a lot of areas that do some areas on that are brand new. They weren't even on the past map. I'd like to see the old map huh. I'd like to see the old map myself. This one's back 2010. If you can get me the one that this one replaced, which I haven't been able to get. Oh, I see. I'll go through and mark it up from that standpoint, too. But I can tell you on mine, there won't be a circle around my property.
[51:05] Matthew LaChance: In the past, you're saying now there is. Yeah.
[51:12] Public Commenter: Dennis, go ahead. I did go into like I said I went into the old gis system and looked at it and I have a print out here of my land and it shows it as limited residential Jim
[51:29] Dennis Marble: I got a comment or a question, but the first thing I want to say is there's an appearance, and I'm only speaking for myself, not my fellow counselors, of some kind of authority, because I'm sitting up here behind a microphone phone. But I need everybody to know this is about my pay grade in a lot of ways. It's the first thing I'm going to say. It's a lot of people's pay grades. Second thing I want to ask is a question. Who or what entity is making these definitive changes and has oversight responsibility? Is
[52:03] Public Commenter: this state or local, state over state, oversees the shoreline zoning administration? Shoreline zoning is a local authority. As long as you meet the minimum criteria that DEP has implemented, then the local
[52:24] Dennis Marble: municipalities have control over shoreline zoning. My understanding, and looking at trends over the last couple of years with this council, is that staff recommended or brought proposals to the council about being in conformance with state standards, with state law, and the council has nodded and gone, yep, that makes sense to us. My understanding from reading over the material I got a chance to see before this meeting was that this arose from a conversation between Miles and in the state, and I think you've said the same thing tonight, but ended up with the topic being brought up from the state, that these are the standards or these are the conditions, and so I'm literally just wondering what is our role in this?
[53:19] Public Commenter: Right, do you understand what I'm saying? I think so. The, if DEP came forward and took a copy of our shoreline zoning ordinance, say pre 2026, and reviewed it against their standards and said you're not in conformance, you need to make changes to come into conformance, then they would have written a doc letter to the town saying you're not in conformance, you need to come into conformance. Our shillin zoning ordinance, I believe from my understanding and recollection and knowledge and in the people that put it together and all, has been submitted to DEP when changes have been made. Instance, when we took local stream protection out of the ordinance, because it was an option for local, DEP would say, yeah, it's an option. If you don't want it, you can take it out. Same thing with the original way, and I didn't get into this because this goes back. But one version of the regulations DEP was overseeing required that any habitat for waterfowl that was documented by IFNW, that habitat plus a 250-foot buffer zone, which is the shoreland zoning area, had to go into resource protection unless it was already developed. Around 2010 or so, they got so much backlash on that they took that mandate out and put it as a local option. The town of Hamden opted out of it. That's when I proceeded in to get my land changed to limited residential because it was no longer mandated that it be resource protection. So we have a local faction that basically oversees all of shoreline zoning under our ordinance which conforms to the state ordinance and I think it has ever since it was a inception of it with the fact that sometimes DEP would change your ordinances and then towns had to kind of follow along to make those changes. I can tell you when the change was more restrictive DEP put the notice out to towns always telling them you have to do this now. When it became less restrictive like that waterfowl habitat or the local stream protection they didn't send the notice out that fast. They let the town found out about them themselves and at times there'd be locals consultants like myself or town planners that would become aware of it and then make a motion to basically reduce the impacts to landowners in their in their
[56:56] Dennis Marble: municipalities. Procedural question. I'm sensitive to anyone's use and full appropriate use of their land being affected and that's I think the key issue for you. Can you as the landowner petition the state?
[57:21] Public Commenter: MR. It's locally overseen. I come to you.
[57:25] Dennis Marble: MR. Because I'm feeling awkward in that I don't think Miles did anything wrong. I think that we had the presentation of these changes, and again, I'm confessing you don't want me to try to relate any details about that but I know those happened at least two different meetings I think back around February and I think if and this isn't pointing a finger at you but if you had come to us at that point it would have felt more like a okay let's have a dialogue about this with the town and the state. Yep. It's it's a little less clean looking backwards now. For me anyway. Yep.
[58:13] Public Commenter: And I'm not sure what to conclude. I don't try to get into many places where we have other individuals doing the work. This one, and honestly I have no idea, Paula suggested I get a Freedom of Information Act going so I can find information, but I think most of the information is up here in somebody's head, and you can't get that out of Freedom of Information Act. I mean, I could get emails, I could get research in the files, but you can't pull something out of somebody's head as to what was a governing document. Now, I'm not saying Miles did something wrong. I think he thought he was doing what he was supposed to be doing, and it was the right move to be done, whether it was through a verbal conversation or not, I think he basically got the information that, you know, we've got to do some changes here. I'm not sure why we sent out our mapping to a consultant, and I don't know if they have a main office or not. I know they originated down in Massachusetts. I have no idea how familiar they are with Maine statutes and regulations. I don't know what guidance they got in preparing this map, if they got any. I know Paul indicated that they were supposed to be talking to DEP directly on it.
[59:51] Eric Jarvi: So I just want to interject. CAI is our mapping company that we use for everything. And one of the art their main contacts lives here in Hamden, so he's very familiar with this area. He also did work directly with the state of Maine updating their all of their floodplain FEMA data and all of the state and federal wetland guidelines, so they did work very closely. I just want to put that out there because he is a Hamden resident and he and he works directly
[1:00:26] Public Commenter: with us. Yeah, I did not know they had a individual up here, and I know they're getting very big in most of the GIS systems in the state of Maine for municipalities, and there's been a lot of changes over to them with it, so but again if they include stuff that's not supposed to be on this map I don't think that's appropriate, whether he knew what they you know his office was doing or not. I don't know what guidance they got. I guess if I had, you know, if I had the ability I'd probably ask him what map they started with. See what map they started with. If we gave him the wrong map, well and they had bad data to begin with, we didn't give them a map, then why did they change so many properties
[1:01:24] Eric Jarvi: because they utilize the information that they were given and well they didn't map these four criteria well that's I'm not gonna sit here and argue
[1:01:37] Public Commenter: With you, no, I don't expect you to. All I'm saying is that if they had the map that was on our GIS system that showed these properties as limited residential, and they changed it without checking these four categories, then they didn't do their due diligence. That's all I'm saying. And here I'm one of the people that have to pay for the price of it all. Now I can go back to the ZBA, which I don't think I should have to, because I already did that once. Same with these other individuals, they shouldn't have to do that because they've already done it once i've got a letter in here in my files from one of the landowners that the staff recommended and got the zone change on indicating it was done that way and it was approved that way from dep my other one client went through the zba i took them through zba i have the zba finding effects and approval probably my error that i didn't get a copy of the finding of facts when Karen sent them out or for some reason ZBA didn't send them to me at the time when I got it changed that's one me but with one person finding it and making a correction to the map at one point in time I know it's around somewhere but you know all we have to do is go back to the old map and look at it and they say well must be right that's what it shows limited residential so the track sounds well I've got a letter I wrote to Bob Osborne back when I started the whole process indicating that they don't have what waterfowl habitat requirement anymore can we get this changed? And that's when he suggested we go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which we did. So it's just a lot of things that doesn't, I'm not trying to, not trying to make a them out in the molehill, but it's really something that you know kind of gets in when you see so many changes on a map that really didn't need any changes because it was already met DEP criteria. So, and I know it's an outside consultant that did it, I don't know what kind of oversight. Got a resident here in town that it works for him again, I don't know what the oversight is. I know I've been involved with this for a long time, I've dealt with DEP for a long time on different shuling issues all around this area of the state, even in southern Maine, and I know for these things that there's a lot of missed zone areas out there. So do we have any
[1:04:28] Matthew LaChance: suggestions from the council on how to proceed with this? Go ahead. Go ahead.
[1:04:35] Christine Cubberley: Well, Mr. Vice Chair, I can appreciate the impact of what's been presented tonight by Mr. Kaiser. Clearly there's property owners that seem to be impacted, but I would remind Council that this process began 13 months ago in September of last year, and there were numerous public hearings, there were workshops, there was all kinds of things, and then it received council approval in February and ultimately it received DEP issued final approval in April of this year. So it's gone through a relatively arduous process, and my first question or I guess my first thought is the compelling arguments that have been presented tonight had ample opportunity to be addressed beginning 13 months ago, and I don't know if they were or weren't, but that aside, there is something that, at least in my mind, really kind of sets the framework for this, and it's in our packet, that when Miles specifically asked why Mr. Kaiser's parcel was placed in resource protection, they provided him a technical statement. It's in our document, and that technical statement says, It says, this wetland is designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife as freshwater emergent in their national wetlands inventory. This is part of the criteria outlined by the state of Maine. The area is about 22 acres, placing it above the 10-acre threshold. So there seems to be a size limit that was given to Miles that essentially probably drove the decision, not only with Mr. Kaiser's property, but probably several others. Under state of Maine criteria exceeding this 10 acre threshold of a freshwater wetland places the property under resource protection guidelines given that place it under resource protection guidelines. Sorry, I'm sorry Mr. Kaiser it does the I am simply I am simply reiterating what miss what was given. Yeah, I knew you would. Okay, go ahead. Under state of Maine criteria exceeding this 10-acre threshold of a freshwater wetland places the property under resource protection guidelines, and so Miles probably made the assumption based on this technical statement that he had to move some of those. I can't I can't speak to him, but all I'm suggesting is that he did have some technical guidance, and that's in our in our doc in our packet. I'm going
[1:07:09] Matthew LaChance: to say something's going to really make somebody mad, probably not you, but somebody. When we passed this I asked him as I asked him ask him every time is this is this more restrictive or less restrictive. He said it's you can't hear me. I don't think the
[1:07:28] John Swalec: people can hear you if you get a little closer to the microphone. I asked if it
[1:07:31] Matthew LaChance: Was more restrictive or less restrictive? And he said it was less restrictive. The whole, that was, that was for the reason for my vote. That's why I asked a acceptable every on every change in zoning, is this more restrictive or less restricted? Would you say this is more restrictive, a less restrictive? Mine is more restrictive.
[1:07:55] John Swalec: I've got, I guess, several questions, few things to try to unpack. First thing, these red circles are a layer that you placed over this map, that's okay. You mentioned something about the flip-flopping of the colors in the legend at some point during the lifespan of this map. Is that from
[1:08:19] Public Commenter: previous versions to this one, the colors changed, have changed? Do we still have
[1:08:26] John Swalec: access to those previous versions through CAI? Is that who hosts the maps?
[1:08:35] Public Commenter: And I know, I know the version online if you go on to the website. Let me start over again. This official map, previous version is somewhere within this town [John Swalec: office. Gotcha, that] map was also on the ArcGIS or whoever had our GIS system prior to CIA or CAI. That map is still accessible on our website. That's where I got the indication that my land was changed with this version and not previous to, and I'm just trying to find that. I printed this off of the previous GIS system we had. This wetland is around my property and that's this indication, which is the general or limited residential, is what's shown on the previous GIS system, okay.
[1:10:19] John Swalec: So and that's what your property was zoned at before February of 2026, was in limited residential shoreland zone, and now it's in resource protection following this action in February of this year. I'll
[1:10:39] Public Commenter: acknowledge if you got another question, I'd be more than happy, but Mr. Jarvie, I understand the statement on there and but in resource protection, the resource over 10 acre freshwater wetland, absolutely it's in your applet applicability of the of the ordinance under section 3 of the ordinance applicability, yes, talks about freshwater wetlands. By definition, freshwater wetland is 10 acres or more. That's the resource. The area around it, 250 feet, goes in the shoreline zoning. It doesn't mean it has to be resource protection, right? You have to meet the four criteria to put it in resource protection the protected resource that wetland yes that's automatically in resource protection correct just like a lake ten acre wetlands automatically are protected by the state of Maine whether we do anything to it or not they are protected by the state of Maine this is where that statement differs from what is it is the resource yes it's over 10 acres up to 22 acres that's resources definitely protected we went back in 2012 I presented this map of my land to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It outlines where the protected resource is. It goes back 250 feet, and that's where shoreland zoning covers between that resource and 250 feet back. There's none of those criteria in that 250 feet that meet the resource protection requirement. The ZBA said you're right, we're gonna rezone it. So that's where I'm saying that you can't just carte blanche say, this is 10 acres, over 10 acres, so 250 feet around it has to be resource protection. No, that's not the situation. And there's DEP evidence on another one that we got changed that supports that, when
[1:13:12] John Swalec: the ZBA changed that, as you just mentioned, was that the 2010 map that you have,
[1:13:18] Public Commenter: or was that sometime after 2010 before that in the map i found out like i said that they don't tell you when they relax things yep took me about two years to even find out that they had actually updated their minimum requirements and removed that waterfowl criteria okay and that's when i approached Bob Osborne who was a planer at that point in time and then after
[1:13:45] John Swalec: following that is when your property went from resource protection to limited residential. Previously, I don't want to minimize your testimony here, I can appreciate it. Absolutely, I'm all for landowner rights, and just like with everything, there's two sides to every story. Evidence helps. If you had some documentation from the ZBA of that previous transfer of zoning, that would be helpful to your case. Absolutely, I don't know if that's what you're seeking from the custodian of the town of Hamden for that document, or documents that would support that claim or not, and just like, you know, there's three sides to every coin. It'd be good to have more information here, but that ordinance that was passed in February is not set in stone, it could always be amended again, given a proper amount of, I don't think
[1:15:03] Public Commenter: I think the written part of it has to be amended. I'm more upset with the mapping portion of it than I am the written portion.
[1:15:08] John Swalec: So the way it's written right now is not in line with the mapping portion. Is that what you're saying?
[1:15:15] Public Commenter: I think if you look at the way Sherwin zoning is applied, the mapping that we had done is not in line with our ordinance, or is in line with the standards of the DEP now. I can tell you if I took that map to DEP and they looked at it,
[1:15:39] John Swalec: without reading our ordinance, just looking at the map,
[1:15:41] Public Commenter: just looking at the map, not knowing anything about it, because there's not enough information on this map to make some of those determinations, that they would say yep, you've got those areas all protected, it's approved.
[1:15:55] John Swalec: But based on the verbiage of our ordinance, that still limits the use of your land, or is this all based on what we're seeing from a map? This map says
[1:16:07] Public Commenter: it's resource protection, as resource protection. If I want to do anything out there, say I came to the Planning Board and said I wanted to do a development out there, and I showed a road going through that resource protection area, so you can't do that, Miles would tell me you can't do that. Isn't there a margin of error on some of these maps? Oh, a huge margin of error, that's why we always go out and map the resource. Okay, and then that basically tells where that full line is. So I guess that's where my question
[1:16:43] John Swalec: is going, is does the ordinance actually restrict the use of your land, or is it the interpretation of the map that has you feeling like your land is restricted use right now? As
[1:17:02] Public Commenter: I said, the way the ordinance is written, yep, the only thing that covers my land is that map. So when the map says resource protection, you go to the ordinance under resource protection and say what can you do with that area, and it says you can fish, you can hike, you can hunt, but
[1:17:32] John Swalec: if you put boots to the ground with a rolling tape and we're laying out a potential project on your land, would the ordinance restrict your use
[1:17:43] Public Commenter: of your land irregardless of what the current mapping that we did? Yep, and in this area is a corner of my property that resource protection zone based on actual mapping of the resource. Okay, I have wetlands, people go out and actually map the edge of that resource. You did. Okay, and it overlaps the corner of my property, so that section of my property is 100% in resource protection the way this map is drawn, or the way this map is nomenclature, and you as a council approved with that zoning. Now I know That yes, if I was paying attention and thought there was more than just, because every time somebody I asked what was being changed in a shoreline zoning ordinance, just minor things were just protecting streams. Never my consciousness did I understand that we were redoing the entire map when it didn't need to be redone. We already had a map that complied with DEP, so we then went in and changed. I know I'm taking up a lot of your time and I really apologize for that. You keep asking questions, so yeah. So it's Paula, go ahead please. I just
[1:19:20] Eric Jarvi: with all due respect find it hard to believe that someone didn't explain to you what the process was and why we were adding urban impaired streams and that they were going to be updating the map as well as the language within the ordinance. Having said that, it's my understanding that in order for us to change this, we would still have to run this by the DEP to find out whether or not we are even allowed to change it. So I think it would make more sense for us to go in that vein and get an approval a pre-approval from the state, because we did work very closely, not me personally because that is above my pay grade, but Miles did work very closely with the DEP. The lady that he spoke to is no longer there, which is why you didn't reach her, because she retired, and they did speak on the phone and nothing thing was put in a letter. So there was great communication between Miles and the DEP. So I'm suggesting that you're spinning your wheels, we're all spinning our wheels here, that we go back and talk to the DEP and find out what we are allowed to do, if we are allowed to do anything. And with regard to the former records of the ZBA, so-called, Miles did go into the vault and look through all of the minutes and found nothing with regard to a hearing that you had. So maybe there is some institutional knowledge that was lost when various people left here, but there's nothing memorialized that he could find in order for him to do a deep dive going through boxes and boxes. That would be a FOIA request. Because that's beyond the scope of his daily activities. He has no knowledge of where things may have been filed. We have boxes stored downstairs, we have boxes out in the garage, you know, so that would be a FOIA request. So to Matt's point, I agree, if you have something that you can present to us, we would gladly take a look at it, but I think sitting here tonight trying to determine whether or not staff aired so greatly that, you know, it makes it look like we're, you know, limiting at well or limiting you know what you can do because of our own designs. I think I think it's I think it's kind of wasting time here. III hear you make your comments sometimes and you've made a few tonight, you know, maybe it's just the way you come across, but i don't think that staff has done anything outside of the scope of how they always operate. We added urban impaired string for a lot of reasons, we are allowed to add them to our ordinance, there's nothing prohibiting us just because they're covered in state law, no but you sort of inferred that we did it for no apparent reason, but for us, when people come to us and they want to know all about building and development, it's easier when you have everything in one document that pertains to water resources, and that was part of the reason why we wanted to include that in the shoreline zoning ordinance, and all of this is neither here nor there. I'm just saying I don't think we're getting anywhere here tonight. I think it would make more sense for us to reach out to the DEP and ask the question first. I think that's
[1:23:07] Public Commenter: basically what I'm trying to understand is where do I go from here. Is the council is going to direct you to go back to the DEP and say if we have this information on parcels, is it all right for us to change them, or do I have to go back to the ZPA and start this whole procedure over again. The only thing with that transcript on it is that i know it was found because karen cullen sat me down and said you're right i found the record, so i know the record somewhere unless like you say it got misplaced, somehow taken home, got thrown out because they thought it was a copy and it was the original, whatever happened to be there, is always those possibilities, always, yep, but if the council sees that they, you know, certain areas and I hate to say that my own opinion would be we go back and through and look at through every one that was changed to resource protection and confirm that it meets those four for criteria, just on behalf of all those landowners.
[1:24:22] Christine Cubberley: That's valid. Mr. Vice Chair, I think we're at a point where we can probably move forward with what I deem might be an actionable item. First off, I am puzzled by purely tangential arguments arguing about the color of legends. The legend on this is very clear to me, even if it has changed from a previous one. That's why you have legends on maps so you understand how to identify the different areas, so if there's a color change it's a color change, but the legend is what it is. But I think, and that's number one. Number two, we were asked to review section 8, which apparently is the language on how to handle amendments. I reviewed it and I would suggest that the amendment process was in fact followed as defined in the shoreland zoning ordinance, and so it's a moot point. But I think what Mr. Kaiser is asking for is perhaps something more actionable on the behalf of council. I would remind council that the new rule, not only the new rules of procedure, but in fact our old rules of procedure allow members of the public to put something on the agenda that can be actionable. And given that this, our, this discussion has gone on for a significant period of time, I think we're at the point now where I would suggest that Mr. Kaiser actually submit an agenda item for a future council meeting in which we can action that motion and either approve it or not approve it. And I think what he's asking for, perhaps, well, I'm not sure. It sounds like you want a thorough review of the existing ordinance, but I may be putting words in your mouth. So I would suggest that maybe what needs to be done here is for Mr. Kaiser to submit an agenda item for a council meeting where we can take action as opposed to simply continuing debated in workshop.
[1:26:22] Matthew LaChance: Does that work for you?
[1:26:25] Public Commenter: Can you, what action do you think I'd be asking for? I have no idea. That's why I'm trying to get direction from the council on what I'm here for tonight.
[1:26:35] John Swalec: It seems like he's asking for direction that his land that he is now deemed resource protection be reverted back to limit residential, so his motion.
[1:26:49] Christine Cubberley: is to reverse the designation of his as resource protection and put it back in limited access and that would be the motion that's what he's asking for that is something council can debate and act on yeah now whether there's any legality in that going down the road is it may be a different point but council can act on that and then maybe a state agency finds it in we're in violation of state regulations, but that is something that could be actionable. At this point, we've reviewed the amendment process, and it is what it is. And I would suggest that if you read the amendment process in the shoreline zoning ordinance, it's been followed.
[1:27:24] Public Commenter: I don't know that I asked you to review the amendment process. I asked you to consider what had been transacted, but I'll put together something and talk with Paula and Miles on it and see but if it's a zone change I don't know that you can do that on individual basis without it going through all public hearing and everything else from that standpoint right so that's a another action item that way so I'll have to talk to Paula and figure out what it is like I said earlier if I had to go back through the ZBA then that's what I got to do I don't think it's right but if I have to do that because the council has no other options but seek that way then I guess that's what I have to get council can
[1:28:21] Christine Cubberley: provide direction to our boards and I think if that's ultimately what you would like council to do is consider direction to our planning board or a Board of Appeals I think we that's probably within our purview so I'm you know again it's what do you want to see that would facilitate your concerns Thank
[1:28:45] John Swalec: You mr. chair that's what you know Jim is right when the agenda item listed tonight is to review the amendments that were made February 17th 2026 following the amendment procedure in section 8 so if the result of those amendments removed his limited residential use and place them back into resource protection I think that's what he's asking for a review of yeah if there was an unintended consequence that's now affecting Hamden landowners there's based on the amendments that were passed February 17th perhaps they should be reviewed again unintended consequences and unintended consequence that's if something happened and that's the way that cookie crumbled let's bake another cookie Paula
[1:29:59] Christine Cubberley: Correct me if I'm wrong, but council can repeal an action of this council, am I correct? So in improving the amendments on from past February, if in fact all counsel ultimately found that there was some problem with those amendments, they could repeal those approved amendments by
[1:30:16] Eric Jarvi: motion. I think where this is an ordinance is still would have to go
[1:30:21] Christine Cubberley: before a public, oh yeah, I believe you're at it, still has to go through the process, but you can repeat, you can repeal an active ordinance, yes, when with when new information is right, or make the amendment, or yeah. But I think what we're looking at here is not is really going back to maybe a previous version which existed before this, which in my mind is probably repealing the amendments. Well I'm hearing that
[1:30:49] Eric Jarvi: he wants to repeal the map, you want to repeal the map, correct? That would be as I said, I mean
[1:30:58] Public Commenter: the actual ordinance the way it's written, if the if the Tom wants to shoot local stream protection, we had that once, took it out, put it back in, that is probably on the whim of the people and the council at the times on it from that standpoint, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, I think it's an unnecessary thing, okay, I understand, yeah, so feelings are not part of this ordinance itself, the written portion of the ordinance I really don't have a problem with from that standpoint, and I guess I would not necessarily say to repeal that, the map itself has a lot of issues with it, and I if anything I would ask, I mean if that was something that we could come up with, then I would probably say that we repeal the map, I don't know if you
[1:31:48] Christine Cubberley: can do it separately though. Well staff, interpret staff interpreting what an ordinance is dictating is that I'm not so sure this is really an actionable item on our part, this is simply, but I think now I hear you acting at is you want staff to go back and revisit the map based on the ordinance because you don't think the map follows the ordinance, there's a whole bunch of different things on here
[1:32:11] Public Commenter: that I think I've been trying to bring out that you can you can look at and you can debate on multiple sides of it, I don't know, I'm coming here to find out what is the options and what is the best direction to follow, that's simply what
[1:32:30] John Swalec: I'm trying to find out. Okay, so maybe what I'm hearing now is we have an action item to direct Paula to direct CAI to ensure that the map follows the outline of the ordinance as written, if we're finding that the map isn't painting an accurate picture of what the ordinance says in words. And okay, if work
[1:33:06] Christine Cubberley: if we are counselors present, we're in agreement with that particular position, it does not require coming before council because by rules of procedure, workshops are designed to provide guidance to staff on where we want them to go. And if that's truly the case, then I think you're simply suggesting out of this workshop that we're asking staff to revisit this map with the concerns that were expressed and with the existing ordinance and come back essentially with a report or a modification of the map. I don't think that required. We are allowed to give guidance the staff and I think that's what you're suggesting. I
[1:33:49] John Swalec: think so. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. Yep, Mark.
[1:33:58] Matthew LaChance: I don't think I've called for public comment, so let's let's let's have public comment and move on. All right, Ron.
[1:34:09] Walter Jakubas: How do you 85 Summer Street? I'm not taking a side on this Mr. Kaiser side or the town staff side, but just sitting here listening, it seems like there may be another actionable item. Councilor Jarvi mentioned a memo that wasn't, and read through a memo that wasn't clear to me if it was generated by DEP or what. And then Mr. Kaiser brought up the fact that shoreland zoning and resource protection are two separate things, which it seemed like that was not clear in the memo you read. So one of the potentially actionable item that the council might do is direct staff to what reach out to DEP to clarify that memo, perhaps staff misinterpreted what constituted resource protection versus what constitutes shoreland zoning. And so by reaching back out to DEP to get that clarification, we don't have to rely on Mr. Kaiser's interpretation, we can actually get a DEP ruling on that, and then maybe it would be responsible for Miles to revisit the map with the with that different designation. So that's what just sitting here I heard that it didn't seem like anybody revisited that as a potential actionable item, so I think that's a
[1:35:29] Christine Cubberley: valid point with the exception that Maine DEP issued the final approval on April 17, 2026, making the new map in the ordinance effective as of that date. That's not to say we can't go back, but clearly DEP, as of that date, said the map and the ordinance were approved.
[1:35:51] Walter Jakubas: And again, I'm not taking sides in this, but I will say from my professional background over many years, I know that if you sent a more restrictive map to DEP, they'd be unlikely to say, oh yeah, this is no good, go back and do it over. I can't imagine that they would do that, not because they had a, you know, a bias toward it, but because nobody would review it that carefully to see that if it was less restrictive than your previous versions, somebody would question it, but if it was more restrictive, I can't see them going back and doing that, not just my historic experience. Yeah, so again, I don't argue either way, but that was one kind of discontinuity that I heard sitting there, so that's all I have to say.
[1:36:41] John Swalec: Well said. Thank you. All right, let's move on. Oh,
[1:36:48] Matthew LaChance: I guess we're not going to move on.
[1:36:50] Public Commenter: Thank you for listening to my concerns on this evening. Have a good night.
[1:36:54] Matthew LaChance: Thank you. Thank you for coming out. Item II, public notice of decommission and installation of new compactors at the transfer station, information only. I think, well, I think we better have council discussion. Your us to your
[1:37:14] Eric Jarvi: statement on it. We basically just put this in there for more information on the decommissioning of the compactors, which there are no compactors at the transfer station as of today, so just continuing to put out the information for the people regarding the upcoming changes while we install the new pad, concrete pad, and do the electrical, and then get the new compactors in. So just
[1:37:50] Dennis Marble: Just to make certain, public will have access to the new limited area beginning Thursday? I think Thursday, Friday, and five hours on Saturday, if I remember right.
[1:38:02] Eric Jarvi: Yep, and that's going to take place for a four-week period going from October 15th to November 12th. Also, there's going to be no demo metal or electronics accepted during that time period, only municipal solid waste, and it has to be bagged.
[1:38:19] John Swalec: It has to be bagged. Correct. No brush, no branches, nothing inside that perimeter fence. And I guess I would like to add, anybody listening, if you would please, as you're having conversations with your neighbors and listening to each other event about the frustrations of the access of the dump, the transfer station if you will, and being able to get your trash there, I would say that just ask for you to be kind to staff as we're all rolling through this together for the improvement of the transfer station, and just spread the word that there is going to be limited access, and thank you.