Scarborough board backs land trust transfer of conservation parcels

[0:14] Steve Zamoreski: So why don't we get started at about 5 past or 7 past on the 24th of September for our September 24th meeting of the Parks and Conservation Land Board. Why don't we go around and say hello and give us your affiliation. I'm Steve Zamoreski on the land board. Jessica Sargent, PCLB. Tom Hall, town manager. [0:39] Susie Williams: Susie Williams, first on the call. There we go. Next, community services. No relation. [0:46] Beth Armstrong: I often wonder that. Thank you. Susie Williams, first off. Beth Armstrong, PCLB. Noah Perlick. Maggie Vishnow. [0:58] Steve Zamoreski: Andrew Mackey, Scarborough Land Trust. Scott Kuntler, Scarborough Land Trust. Anson Voter. [1:05] Randy Hogan: We also have Randy Hogan. [1:08] Steve Zamoreski: Hi Randy. Hi Randy, as a guest. Okay. So great, we have a quorum. We will be voting today. So on the voting, would Susie vote as an alternative if we don't need her as a quorum, or does she only vote quorum? [1:32] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, so you wouldn't give an official vote for this. [1:36] Steve Zamoreski: Yeah, absolutely. And what we're going to try to do is it has to go to the committee to get you bumped up to a full voting member. So that's on their agenda, or at least their list of things to do, I hope. Okay, super. Thank you. So we'll call the order. We need to look at the do we need to do look at the minutes from last week last time. It's not on the agenda. We probably should. Did they look at the minutes? I did. Okay. September 10th. Yes. September. Oh, it is. Okay. September 10th minutes. Sorry. I missed it. [2:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Does anybody have any comments? Would anybody like a motion to accept the minutes from September 10th? [2:21] Steve Zamoreski: Any second? I second. Any comments? Revisions? Okay. All in favor? Okay. Public comment. So, Randy, welcome. Malcolm, would you like to give us a couple of minutes, your thoughts? [2:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Hi, everyone. Thank you. Yes. And I don't hear you. I'm unmuted. [2:45] Speaker G (unidentified): Sign language. Can you hear me now? No. [2:56] Speaker F (unidentified): No. Now,, now,, now,, now,, now. [3:02] Steve Zamoreski: Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. Can you hear us? Can you hear us? I can hear you. You can't hear me. I'm unmuted. Shoot. [3:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Could I call you? Well, she's invited, it's just titles on the cell phone to call you and you can just talk. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Right. Thank you. [3:44] Speaker I (unidentified): I have [3:51] Susie Williams: it if you have it. Okay, good. Hi, this is crazy. [3:59] Beth Armstrong: You're not disturbed or something. And [6:08] Speaker F (unidentified): so that's what I'm looking for is a clear, I'm getting an echo, so I'll just keep going. Just to an assurance that it's not going to be developed for a new public access, marking, recreation trails, and any other additional infrastructure without clear review and approval. [6:30] Speaker G (unidentified): all great [6:33] Steve Zamoreski: thank you thank you very much we'll bring that up we'll talk about that okay so we're going to move on to that 's raining i've queued that up very well we're going to move on to the discussion about the parcels that we have been reviewing other oh i'm sorry public comment sorry yes I just want to call out I just came back from the National Land Use Conference in Denver and I was able to attend Jessica's session and it was very informative and she did a great job and I just wanted to thank you It was also very well attended. [7:18] Susie Williams: Attended, which was exciting, and there were other folks from Maine there, Maine Coast Heritage Trust and Maine Farm Land Trust, so it was really nice to see folks in Denver from the land trust community here. [7:33] Steve Zamoreski: Well, thank you for going and fighting the good fight, kind of on a national community level. Yeah. All right. So with that, we do have the purpose of our meeting is to review the parcels that the town is considering to transfer to, or at least ownership and in some cases, conservation rights easements to the land trust. We do have a bit of a wrinkle, and I'd like to talk about that and talk about how to move forward. After viewing and touring the land, I was very excited, as we all were, on the land at Tibbetts Road. Especially Tibbetts Road is a marvelous piece of property. In my role on the Housing Authority, or Housing Alliance, we don't have an authority, the Housing Alliance, lines I got to thinking we have a potential priority or a priority at least to look at housing in town and affordable housing and that combined with the tour and my knowledge of copper into court and what happened there I felt it was the right thing to do and to at least open up the question on that piece of private particular pivots whether there is a of opportunity to put some housing. In, a small amount, a modest amount of housing, either low-income affordable housing or potentially workforce housing or some other version of assisted, deeded assisted living property. So that being the case, if I brought that up, that last night's Housing Alliance meeting and there was unanimous consent that we should at least ask the question on Carpenter Court no this is Tibbetts Road the big is this on this list yeah it's a Tibbetts property there's the very first one the big one the big one we tore the end of the dirt road oh I'm sorry all. [9:42] Randy Hogan: I see are the roads yeah Tibbetts on the list on the last one okay sorry that's what Tibbetts. [9:50] Speaker I (unidentified): Property very first one was number 10 on number 10. Number 10 here says that's what I'm trying. [9:57] Steve Zamoreski: That's Jason the jaw so that's it that's Tibbets Road yeah so if there's a little wrinkle into this but what I would propose we do and we'll have discussion and agreement before we move forward on their approach and then we'll talk about the vote is that we go through the scoring finish the platforms for each of the properties that we've scored. And then I would recommend that we pull the TIFUS property out of the bundle. I would be recommendation to the council that we're gonna make, still score it, still vote on whether we think it's appropriate for conservation in the land, in at least in part being transferred to the land trust and then set that aside for now and we'll have to go through a process of looking at that land evaluating it maybe it's not appropriate the vision at least the potential I see and I put forward is at the end of the road build a parking lot as the land trust wanted to do, put in some version of some small amount of housing in that field area right there, or somewhere in that vicinity, preserve most of the land, I'm talking about five, 10 acres, maybe less, and then transferring the rest of that property to the land trust, so it would be 60 plus acres or whatever, in my mind far enough away from the river so we're not impacting the river taking a small piece we had multiple priorities here in town it may never happen who knows it might not be appropriate that probably have to test again for peace pass maybe somebody come up there I think it's appropriate that we have that we actually pause and ask the question and that's kind of what we're I [12:08] Susie Williams: Disagree as it's outside the purview of this body, and I think that we should review the package as the package and review it for conservation purposes only. And if that means we do recommendations separately for each of the parcels as included in the letter. I'm fine with that but I don't think we as a body should be anticipating other committees and their roles because there is a very set process from the town at who at what stages and so I want to limit our review to our charter there could be lots of other purposes for these parcels and they have their own review processes and that's appropriate for those committees but and I want to review it as is appropriate for our community that's my suggestion and opinion just didn't [13:03] Speaker H (unidentified): I totally agree with Jessica. I think it's wildly inappropriate to be applying sort of outside interests to this conversation. We have a job on this, on this group, and your job and no member's job is to do anything other than what we're charged to do. And I think I'm on the board of Maine Ottawa for me to look across and say you what I think we should consider this puzzle for made out of them, you know. There are some parts, I don't mean that particular parcel, would be equally as inappropriate and You know, I feel like this conversation is totally outside of what we're supposed to be doing in this role. We could come up with a million special interest projects for any parcel and but that's not our job. [13:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Just to be [13:59] Steve Zamoreski: When we were walking through, you already have an interest in this property, right? I mean, do you have a prior claim on this property? No, it's not, it hasn't, hasn't it hasn't. We have an adjacent property. Okay, so the ownership of this property is not insurance there's okay. [Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, I] I have to agree with no one. [14:27] Beth Armstrong: Okay, I guess I think I agree with them as well. And if the housing not authority housing group has an interest, I would imagine would be in there for you to review it. And then the deciding factor of which way it goes. So there's probably west with the council not with us so that they might then get reports from different words as to different possible uses. That's exactly what it is. Yeah, this request like that should be sent back into the news. [15:04] Speaker E (unidentified): It's not going to be. [15:08] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, there is a so-called real estate disposition policy. policy that the council's adopted that I think is probably the best thing to look back to that was created back in 2010. I don't believe it's been updated since. In that policy, it actually has a role for this board to play and I have a responsibility to seek an input and solicit input from various individuals in my staff in various other groups and provide that information to you prior to this deliberation and your recommendation. Unfortunately, the Housing Alliance is not one of those named groups, but I think it's reasonable to think that the intent of this is to make sure groups that are affiliated with Town Matters and issues are aware of a potential sale or transfer of ownership and provide an opportunity to provide their thoughts on the matter. So I think this is a bit unfortunate in that no formal request was offered to the alliance. Having said that, I think them having an opinion is entirely appropriate and I would agree with Bets that I think it's best for the council to receive that on behalf of one of their advisory committees and consider that as they consider your recommendation and of they decide for themselves so [16:35] Beth Armstrong: So just to understand, Tom, the what you're saying is that the housing alliance would also submit a recommendation if we make a recommendation to approve, let's just say, and then the housing alliance would also submit a recommendation. [16:48] Speaker I (unidentified): And then the town council would make a decision, and that appears to be way this is kind of shaking out. I think in a perfect world the vision was to solicit input, have it considered at this level, and be considered as part of your recommendation, but clearly, I think the way this is kind of fallen together, I think it's most appropriate for you to conduct your business as charged. And then the alliance, I expect we will certainly offer something on their behalf to ensure the council is aware of them expressed interest in exploring, and I think Sam was accurate in his portrayal that. It's no more than that. I think it was just interesting knowing more at this point, and I've been thinking ever since we had the conversation last night what that means, what sort of level of due diligence and understanding will it require to really know if it's viable, but that's a whole different matter. Unfortunately, you know, that just brings into question what do you do with this company in the meantime. I guess the final thing I would say, and this is really a matter that I'll have to think. Through for the council's benefit is it's not inconceivable for us to identify a portion of these 70 acres and kind of carve that up and the rest could go forward to allow time for further exploration and or simply hold it all back until this is done. If the council wishes to consider it, I'm not sure which way they go, but I'll think about how to support the council as they consider requests, so you might pull this one from the packet if. [18:22] Beth Armstrong: Say we they may for the whole to go forward with all ten. Yeah, I guess what I was just. [18:29] Speaker I (unidentified): Foreshadowing if the council's interested in pausing to explore the housing potential or not, right, there's a couple of ways I see that happening. One would be to identify a piece of the of 70 acres, pull it out of this and proceed with the conservation aspects with the balance, or simply keep it off the table until we've kind of fully exhausted that exploration. [18:59] Speaker H (unidentified): I just want to say, if I can make two points quickly, please. First, we have a public comment section in this meeting for a reason, and any group is welcome. This is an open meeting. Any group is welcome to come and make comment. That didn't happen. This instead happened from the chair of this committee, which I find very unsettling and about sort of how this conversation is happening. This feels like a very sort of special interest outside of the role of the chair and this committee. I want to be really clear on how I feel about that right now. It would be perfectly appropriate for a member of that group to come and say, speak in the public comment period. That's not what's happened here. Second, I do want to say, remember that, like, yes, we could housing, of course, like, none of us are blind to housing matters in Scarborough. None of us are blind to the cost of housing Scarborough. However, the role of conservative properties is to conserve them from their own period, and that's, that's our job, to review the role and the value of properties in concert, excuse me, in conservation. And so I guess I, it's, we should be really thoughtful about what our charge is, and our charge is to make recommendations of the town council based on conservation value. Full style, town council can do anything they want. They make all of the decisions, right, and we should follow our charge and just my [20:41] Speaker E (unidentified): my two cents, yeah. [20:45] Speaker I (unidentified): Sam and I didn't kind of coordinate how this information was to come out. I, if he wasn't going to mention, I was certainly going to, on behalf of the alliance. I served as staff support to them. I was able to catch Andrew an hour or so ago just to make him aware of the conversation last night. So I appreciate your point, Noah. I guess I would push back a little and above Steve for stepping up and putting that out there on the table immediately. If he didn't, I was going to. I'm not objecting to the conversation, I'm [21:19] Speaker H (unidentified): objecting to how the conversation is happening, which I find very uncomfortable, yes. [21:28] Steve Zamoreski: No, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm just kind of like kind of wandering around in a philosophic loader in Sierra. I'm just wondering like why this property, I mean, originally, you know, Carpenter's property, I mean, it just strikes personally, it strikes me as a really premier piece of property. [21:53] Speaker E (unidentified): I think it would be nice to maintain in a pristine state, but again, that's just the [22:06] Steve Zamoreski: Why did that thought come up versus Carpenter's Court or some other property? [Speaker G (unidentified): I'll address that.] That's on the table. Carpenter's Court is not on the table. The property at Tibbetts is potentially, in my mind, [22:26] Speaker G (unidentified): buildable portion of it and I so [22:53] Steve Zamoreski: beautiful to decrease that from the my mind from me to do it because it's town land and I did struggle with it so please understand that so that it's on the table because it's on the table you know the gleam that's It's me is billable is on the table. [23:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I will say Carpenter Court is 1 of the items that you're, you'll be considering later on. We've already developed 5 of the original 20 acres for per housing. Right? So I. The analogous point is that it's possible to do both. Given the right location and size of the property and configuration. Figuration and frankly, there's no additional without tremendous expense and environmental. Arm, frankly, to develop any more of that property because of the. The significant wetland, I think we don't appreciate it. We walked across the bridge there. And beyond that, I would tend to agree any of the other properties that are part of your considerations. They really have limited orders. No development potential. Tibbetts is probably the only one that does. Subject to further review, of course. [24:15] Susie Williams: Yes, so I just wanted to highlight that, you know, we're not deciding anything today, except whether or not to make a recommendation. And I think 1 of the things that came up on the Tibbetts property when we were there doing the site visit was informing neighbors of these discussions. And so, I think that's another really important part of this process is yes, we're going to make a recommendation today. And then I would really encourage the town to reach out to the neighbors to let them know that these conversations are happening. And if there are any other committees or groups that these conversations are happening, I don't think that's the role of. of PCLB, but I do think it's very important that those conversations do happen. They would not affect our recommendation because we're purely looking at the conservation criteria as it relates to our assessment process, but I do hope that also happens before it goes to council. [25:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I think yes, I guess my comment is really about timing. Yeah, I guess I'm splitting hairs. I haven't thought this through. I think there's a couple of things that play here. 1, your traditional role is, in my view, it seems to really relate to a critical function you play with respect to the land bond monies to consider properties and make recommendations. This is a bit different in that is there's no, we're not using land bond monies. Your involvement here is brought in by reference in a council policy regarding the disposition of property. I think it makes entire sense that you use your same evaluation criteria that, and what's being proposed is for consummation. So, I think that's entirely appropriate, but I think there are kind of 2 parallel paths slightly different here than your traditional wall if you will well it's not terribly helpful but it's a little different right but [26:18] Steve Zamoreski: So my the consensus of the group my understanding is that we move forward with the process make a recommendation as a pclb on these properties and present that to the town council, and then visit the other parallel path. [26:39] Speaker I (unidentified): With potential another group, Mr. if I could, I might recommend to you that you allow a motion with the slate of properties as proposed and then a member, including yourself could choose to divide out 1, or more from that motion, I think that would be the in my opinion, the fairest way of advancing, there's still an opportunity for this discussion to be had, but I think that's a better way to receive in terms of. You have to someone on the committee to make the motion, but I would encourage you to make that motion. [27:12] Steve Zamoreski: It doesn't sound like that's what the committee wants. Well. [27:16] Beth Armstrong: In that vision, we would vote on Tibbetts, but then pull it aside and not send that 1 to the council. Yeah. [27:24] Speaker I (unidentified): Getting into the weeds of Robert's rules here, but I think the motion in my mind is purist as he is moving the entire slate. What would be in order following that is a member to say, I would like to pull 1 or more out of that slate and have a separate vote in discussion. I just think it's cleaner to devote the slate as it's been kind of proposed to you. But then who would pull who would pull it out? A member has the right to ask to divide the question. Yes. And they may not pass and you may. Proceed to vote on the full slate as proposed well i feel like that's what our discussion [28:04] Beth Armstrong: Was about is that 's not the purview of this group just second what tom is [28:10] Steve Zamoreski: Trying to explain is this is the procedural way for us to not pull it out, to keep it all in, if we, if we want to proceed as we were planning to before this discussion and just present these, this slate to the town council. That's the way to do it. We make a motion to move forward as planned, and then somebody makes a motion to pull up the parcel out, and we defeat that motion. Is that, I might fall here, I don't know. [28:45] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm not going to predict how it was, all right, but if we wanted to do that, 's the way we would do. [28:49] Speaker G (unidentified): It does, that make sense? [28:53] Steve Zamoreski: Yes, so would somebody like to make a motion to move forward with the slate of properties, are [29:05] Beth Armstrong: we going to score them first, or we'll move, that's what I'm saying, move [29:09] Steve Zamoreski: forward, move forward the scoring in the, in the recommendation resulting in something like the second pattern, I will second that, would all in favor, are [29:22] Susie Williams: there any other motions? [29:26] Steve Zamoreski: So this is where somebody jumps in. I don't feel like jumping in, so I'm not going to jump, okay, all right, I guess that's it, you're right, we don't have to make motion to repeat it, we can just [29:41] Speaker I (unidentified): are we okay with just moving forward with that, no, that okay, what the board has before it is [29:47] Steve Zamoreski: is okay the board properties, I honest to God, I think this needs to be a separate conversation, not among us, I think the housing Alliance needs to talk to Tom or whoever the appropriate authority is, and then have it raised separately than this, I see two different train tracks here, that's, we just decided, so good, okay, so let's move forward with the scoring, how do people feel about just ignoring some of the properties, is that okay or not spending any time in just including those properties in the parcel in the vote, I know that everyone wasn't on the [30:36] Susie Williams: parcel tour, but could I suggest we go in the order that we went on the parcel tour? That's how I think of them in my mind. Me too. [30:47] Beth Armstrong: Do you feel like we need to spend time on those little 1 acre pieces? And well, the question has been raised by that. Yeah, I think by the guest speaker, I think we have to address it. Yes. So, 1 acre pieces. [30:59] Randy Hogan: I will state were the ones I was told not to score. Yeah, they were scored by. Do you believe that? Because we did receive public comment and we did go to the site. [31:09] Susie Williams: It warrants discussion as a body, okay, so remind me of the order, which is last on the list for those who didn't go on the tour, and do we want to identify who went on the tour, sure, just sir, sure, all the responsibles, no, I just wanted to. [31:37] Steve Zamoreski: Many of us went on the tour, yes. Okay, so let's do try to do this quickly. If there's any, we'll just go through it. If there's any corrections, jump in. Parcel includes aquifer, 50 points. We haven't identified an aquifer here, so no points. Provides buffer, absolutely wonderful buffer, 50 points. Erodible Bluffs, yes, very steep slopes, highly erodible soils, not according to the GPS or the, yeah, or the mapping systems. Any additional comments about water conservation? Okay, we'll give that 100 points. Okay. Environmental hazards adjacent to the floodplain, I guess not, it's not really close to flooding issue. Part of the parcel is 100, okay, so I guess it is in the 100-year floodplain, so it did get some partial points, 6.95 points for the 100-year. Okay, parcel includes adjacent resource protection zone, no. Parcel includes an adjacent to a shoreline zone, it appears to be so. The size of the parcel in acres, 50 points maximum points, that's that's [33:15] Randy Hogan: incorrect, no, on that I did talk with glue shed, they did notice that the calculation of the background was calculating one way versus another, so they have fixed it, so subsequently I have to go back in and fix all of them, but going forward they should calculate correctly, but so this is 40 [33:35] Steve Zamoreski: points correct, yes, 40 points, that would adjust that down a little bit, 10 points. All right, a habitat and partial includes habitat for a significant species, absolutely. Parcel contains take significant species, absolutely, we will have to give that some points, I believe 20 points, right, people agree? Yes, yeah. This property also includes wetlands, yes, it's a wildlife corridor, yes, ecosystem significance, I would say so. When we focus [34:19] Beth Armstrong: on that, I agree it was [34:23] Steve Zamoreski: noted, okay, deer wintering, I guess not, so you can even run on pools, well I would [34:31] Susie Williams: I'd really go back to do, I'd say we definitely saw some deer wintering area, yeah, I will say [34:35] Beth Armstrong: that it's just because they don't identify, the only way the way they identify is if people say [34:41] Speaker H (unidentified): they've seen signs of it no that's not the state maintains a GIS of deer wintering there for the whole state and i 'm assuming that's what micah yes looked at and so it's a [34:56] Steve Zamoreski: it's purely a GIS exercise, yeah, it's we haven't, we haven't adjusted that, plus we don't really know with vernal pools that's back there right now, you're right, yeah, so rural pools [35:10] Speaker H (unidentified): it's conifers other than the, well do you consider the wintering is all conifer, the flood [35:16] Steve Zamoreski: of the stream itself of vernal pools it was a whole mix of this environment sorry wait okay so when i run important questions vernal pools so the question is how do you define a vernal pool versus a floodplain of the river itself oh they're [35:38] Speaker H (unidentified): totally different vernal pools have no water coming in that no system streams okay they're [35:45] Steve Zamoreski: purely just places there are seasonal pools of water that are caught okay and so there's no [35:51] Speaker H (unidentified): fish that are able to access them and things like that as predators okay if i can just add though [35:57] Speaker G (unidentified): there are [36:00] Steve Zamoreski: pockets along the nonsuch like in barn woods that flood seasonally that have the same We have not, as far as I know, no evaluations have done the tibbets we're operating on. So potentially, but I don't think we give it points, do we agree? Yeah. Okay. okay the riparian road corridor he's crossing a road title of a new wading birdfowl i guess not okay so find a recreation case the link between parcels yes, possibly it's a link between trails and we [37:03] Speaker H (unidentified): gave it 50 points. Oh, sorry, this we should with the waiting bird one should ask to get advice. Okay, this is certainly with that very good. [37:16] Steve Zamoreski: Yeah, thank you in there. Make sure it was the parcel was directly on the water. [37:22] Speaker G (unidentified): yeah oh yeah it is yep okay [37:29] Steve Zamoreski: back to link between trails if you 100 meters existing trailer i guess because another property has a trail you're giving points so let's do that parcel but protect land yes parcel is the protected land yes down to public access provides proper public access we'll definitely give that 20 points right your full potential to add or expand passive recreation opportunities absolutely we're going to potentially do some biking out there and put a parking lot in there passive record opportunities total but we're going to add that's 40. okay rc6 Public access to beach or ocean, no. Access to saltwater marsh or tidal river, no. Access to upland river, yes, 10 points. Public access to fields and forests, yes, 10 points. Public access to other area, we'll just leave that blank. Public access total, so that's, you got that, Nicole? I think we added 20,, I think we added, right? Great. Seat views. It's going to be tough from here, right? So I don't think we're going to be able to give any seat views from existing roadways. Okay. So did we add any more? Yeah, we did add. [39:13] Randy Hogan: No, we didn't. It was a hard one. It was way back. [39:17] Steve Zamoreski: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. 20, excuse me. 60 extra, yes, yeah, because there's ours, okay, great, you combine those two groups, all right, working lands contains props, no, okay, initial additional working land considerations, no, and then on to other considerations, 50 points, oh well, I guess we can really not going to do that one, they've been, we're going to transfer the land over, so I guess that's really not appropriate, I'm not sure, to make a note on that, yeah, that'd be great, yeah, so I think other than the open space plan points, we'll keep it at 50. So it's going to approach, it's going to approach it now, it doesn't mean right, we know this is a wonderful property, it's going to approach, it'll probably approach the 600 kind of average or benchmark, I think, a magic score if you will, whatever you want to call it. [40:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Is it number five under other considerations appropriate here, oh. [40:45] Beth Armstrong: That's true, yeah. [40:46] Steve Zamoreski: Oh absolutely, thank you, yes, thank you, yes, thank you Tom, absolutely, 20 points, sorry, I went by. [40:58] Susie Williams: One of the advantages of transferring the ownership from the town to the land trust is that they'll be able to manage the property for recreation, invasive species management in a way that. [41:21] Steve Zamoreski: I think that's in the in our presentation to the town council, that's going to be one of the emphasis, that why are we doing this, well, we're doing it because the land trust can do something that the town can't do, which is manage the property, be good stewards of the property, look at invasive species, potentially expand trails, span of use of the land in a meaning or a it's reasonable appropriate way, so yeah, that's got to be in the message to the town council, okay, where did we visit next. [42:01] Randy Hogan: Was it technically Fangler, we started, it was Fengler, that's law, I just think about the clock. [42:05] Steve Zamoreski: McQuall, that makes a problem, yeah, well then just a quick question about this parcel. [42:13] Speaker H (unidentified): Currently are there public trails that you all manage on the Jostle property. [42:19] Steve Zamoreski: No, because there's very full back, okay, but that was actually my like, is your. [42:26] Speaker H (unidentified): Hope to gain access, public access to that parcel through this parcel, yes. [42:32] Steve Zamoreski: Yes, that was part of our tour, is that route understood, I just wasn't, I wasn't there, so I just want to understand. [42:45] Speaker E (unidentified): They do some value of that access to other person. [42:50] Susie Williams: Right. I mentioned there are existing trails on the property that someone is maintaining and using,, so it was quite easy for us to walk and connect to the Johnson property based on the informal trial network system that is there. Okay, well, there's an existing travel network on the Tibbets property is what I meant. Yeah, okay, thank you. Yes. [43:18] Speaker G (unidentified): All. [43:21] Steve Zamoreski: Right, Dangler Road. Okay, no aquifer was indicated or observed or measured. The parcel has a vegetation buffer to rivers. According to the GIS, we get this 3.6 points, which- [43:51] Speaker E (unidentified): Can I just clarify this? [43:53] Speaker J (unidentified): Are you guys doing both seven and eight together? Number 7 and 8, the parcel is together or just number 8? [44:00] Randy Hogan: So the way the app works is had to make them their own. So you're talking about like Broad Turn is the other one, right? Yeah, right. Yeah. So there's no way to like connect them all into one. So there is 0 Broad Turn following this one. [44:25] Steve Zamoreski: Okay. I guess we do touch the river there, a very small amount of acreage. [44:33] Speaker G (unidentified): Sam, process question. Yes, process question. [44:35] Susie Williams: Can we add the two together? Once we score them? [44:40] Steve Zamoreski: Yes, sure. Oh, yeah. [44:42] Susie Williams: Can we add them together? We should, probably should. [44:44] Steve Zamoreski: If it's listed as one, we should add them together. [44:47] Speaker E (unidentified): Scores. The scores. [44:48] Speaker H (unidentified): Scores, but won't they have like some duplicate scores for most? Yeah, well, I just wasn't [44:57] Susie Williams: sure how, because they have to be scored separately, how we consider it that. Okay, sorry, I think it [45:02] Randy Hogan: would skew it based on how the app works. Okay, so I could try. No, I think it's just averaging this [45:09] Steve Zamoreski: time together, you could average the two. Yeah, we'll just average. Thank you. All right, parcel includes erodible bluffs, absolutely. Parcel includes highly erodible soils. I guess not according to the layers we look at. Total water, we'll leave that there. Parcel includes land adjacent of the 10.9 seawater, no 100-year floodplain, no maps, not adjacent to a resource protection zone. Nine, chasing to a shoreline zone, parcel size and acres, give it 20 points, is that right? It worked on that one, so as there's, it's 20 points. Habitat, potentially habitat for significant species, yes, also contains significant species, we gave that no. We'd like to have a discussion question about that. I don't recall what was in the report, what have we observed out there, but, or have that. Yeah, any significant species, any recognition by any of the organizations, again, and no, it meant to this, I mean without. A comprehensive survey, all that forest is applicable for some of our listed bat species. It does some of the properties along the Nunchucks River, and there was, so this IFW did find a wood turtle in Bowler Farm, so we know there's some type of wood turtle population. But again, without comprehensive, right, people on the ground looking for these things, it's very hard tonight to state exactly what's there. Sure, in the past we relied on observations and pictures and your surveys to add points there, so I feel like we can't add points there. Do people agree with that? Okay, parcel includes wetlands, yes. [Speaker G (unidentified): Wildlife] corridor points there ecosystem of significance I would say so right wouldn't you say so Noah yeah for sure dear wintering area doesn't show up there it's a game of vernal pools yeah okay we'll leave that there unless it's conversation or Perrion Road connections Hmm. What about that across that road there? Yeah, you think so, right? Okay, 10 points. Title or in waiting birds. [48:22] Speaker H (unidentified): Every same thing for with us. [48:25] Steve Zamoreski: Okay, 10 points. I had like 30 pointers. Okay. Okay, recreation links between parcels. Well, it does that, right? Yeah, it's a snowmobile. Yes, so we're gonna get about 50 points with the biggest benefit of this. Yeah, includes land within adjacent, the oh, we already did that, didn't we? Yeah, we did that. Possibly creates link between trails, yes it does. Parcel butts trails, yes. Parcels near protected, yes, okay, so it's like we're going to add 50 there, is that right, 100? All right, public access, yes, 20 points, expanded potential expansion, yes, I would say, right, do you agree? Okay, that's some points. The glass of the ocean of beaches, no access to marsh of tile river, no access to upland river, yes, is that true, is there 's a connection, right, technically there's a little piece, that piece, okay, good, 10 points. Public access to field, of course, yes, all right, environmental hazards, parcels adjacent, where he did that, I'm sorry, I keep going back there. [50:26] Beth Armstrong: Access to another area, we skipped over that, access to other areas. [50:33] Steve Zamoreski: You're gonna get some clarification from whoever put this together, what that he was in there before, yeah, yes we are, that should be 10 too, yeah, we don't put any in there because it's, we're really, unless you bring something out that's not in the list, and I don't know what that would be, we left them there from before, maybe we shouldn't have. Passive recreation for pay, we don't, we have, we obviously have past recreation close by, so we're going to add points there, scenic views, not title field of Course, yes, right, forest land, yes, and so I think that gives it 20 points, historical significance, archaeological site, yes, we finally found one, the Mammoth, let's make note of that please Nicole, and that there's a [51:40] Susie Williams: kiosk, we saw the kiosk, we did, yes, I don't know, it's just 20 points, thank you, let's make note [51:46] Steve Zamoreski: of the Mammoth site, we get some scuba divers in this, you can find, right, all right, working, no, okay, down to other considerations, again I think there's room 24 for improvements, right, yep, is that where we put this before, 1.5, yes, okay, 20 points, so that'll get our score up a little bit, and then we're going to, don't know if I, If I have it. Yeah. Does somebody have that sheet? I don't know. [52:40] Speaker E (unidentified): I didn't think that one. I didn't think you do that. [52:43] Steve Zamoreski: So I've been thinking more about our, just kind of, we started this about the, you know, [52:47] Speaker H (unidentified): the scores of these two parcels, which really, you know, should be evaluated as one parcel. We can't actually, we should not combine them at all. I don't think we should average them or. is that you can sort of rationalize there'll be penalties indirect penalties through the math of going indirect when in fact there's some of them you're adding core skills yeah and doing any kind of yeah challenge to that would diminish that additive effect yeah and i agree with that [53:22] Steve Zamoreski: and also we're not really going to report a score anyway thanks it's not that we don't typically promote the score and talk about the score because threshold it's not like a minute yeah exactly but we try to de-emphasize the actual numeric score it's more of a tool for evaluation and make sure recoverable endpoints so that's good just getting here oh thanks so you can go through a little fast that was pretty fast aquifers i guess not vegetation the buffer yes we had some buffer there a little rotable soils yes I don't see any changes there. The flooding, based on the maps, is what it is. Racial protection, same thing, shoreline zone, same thing, cross our sides, and we are right there. [54:35] Beth Armstrong: No. I think this one is 40. Yeah, the 61 acres was wrong, right? [54:41] Steve Zamoreski: that's what i'm saying it's not 50 points right that's what i'm saying i'm sorry we need to fix [54:46] Beth Armstrong: that do we know what it really is for acreage zero birth done it's not six to one you know scott [54:56] Steve Zamoreski: wasn't this the one of the software no that was a different one i didn't know if we could [55:03] Speaker J (unidentified): 61.65 yeah so that's based off of assessing data so i can look up real quick on the MICS program and see what it says. [55:16] Steve Zamoreski: Well, it's going to be between 50 and 100, right? You think we'll go drop below 50? [55:21] Randy Hogan: I was going to say, the app is, obviously the math in the background is off, but I'm drawing the parcels, so it should be capturing the actual acreage. [55:30] Beth Armstrong: Yeah. So you think it's 61, huh? [55:33] Steve Zamoreski: Well, I think we just make that 40. Yeah. We'll be confident in that. Okay. Okay species of significance yes contains significant species any observations there scott any observations of significant species on fuller farm are going to apply to this person what turtles is species of concern we do have data or a little brown bat in the area great big brown bat do you make notes of that a couple other species of bags but great you know hard again to pin them down to very specific points how about your bubbling some of the birds out there this is forest forces isn't it Yeah this is of course it's okay all right there is work travel oh river super all right 20 points can i interrupt this [56:43] Randy Hogan: For a second from the parcel we just did which intersects this one did we i don't have it noted that we added 20 points on that one [56:54] Beth Armstrong: That is still the same thing right this is not across the road [57:06] Speaker H (unidentified): That's sort of the complication of dealing with this like how do you move to your right like a bobcat is going to walk straight through there and there's no issue but easily described since it shares such a large boundary. [57:21] Steve Zamoreski: But one thing else I'll add is that there is black bear out there again. Again exactly what that means is how many are juvenile dispersing animals versus a breeding population that's very challenging to determine but there are black bear sightings almost every year that we hear about yep great so 20 points yeah they're out there it doesn't matter yeah they're in the backyard of course yeah that's cool sort of cool we had one we had our wildlife you know control one identified scratches in our trees as young black bears this spring right there next to the house h4 Got one wildlife corridor yes ecosystems of significance we usually look at other organizations that identified that I think that's true right Scott organizations have identified these lands as ecosystems of significance these forested wetlands yeah along the river yeah definitely 10 points for that deer wintering area no vernal pools what do you think any observations there i [59:07] Speaker H (unidentified): Don't think i've seen any variables okay thank you is it really steep coming up from the river up and onto the [59:13] Speaker J (unidentified): Parcel, it seems like it's a lot right along the river, and then those two like claws that go up our streams coming now, and that's steep there. It's steep on either side of the stream, so like the valley is steep on either side of the stream, but I mean the stream definitely goes downhill, so you are as you're walking towards like the England Road, you look like [59:39] Steve Zamoreski: there's a stream at this one. There's no, there's, I think there's a stream in both of them. Yeah, I [59:45] Speaker J (unidentified): I don't take the lower one, but on the maps and shows a stream going through, I have the upper one, and that one has a little stream. Yeah, and we gave it 50 points for the steep slopes, so we've covered that. [59:58] Steve Zamoreski: Notable steep slopes that were you getting it. [1:00:01] Speaker H (unidentified): No,, no, that if it's super steep it's not going to part of course. [1:00:06] Speaker J (unidentified): Oh, I'm sorry, it's a lot of long, so that area that kind of parallels the river down there is more flat. Lab. So that could have that same thing with maybe some flooding. But I don't have. I haven't been out there at the [1:00:21] Speaker E (unidentified): time to witness everything. [1:00:25] Steve Zamoreski: Great riparian road corridors. No points there that people agree with that title wetland birding bird waterfowl habitat. [1:00:35] Speaker H (unidentified): That points there, well the one thing about the Preparing Road corner this map doesn't show was if it does come up, we don't know if it comes up and goes under that road there connecting the parcel, these two parcels Scott just said that there's a stream that goes through this whole thing. Yes, unknown, right, so if that actually comes up and starts on the other side of that road, then that would, that's tricky since the map doesn't show that. I don't know [1:01:05] Steve Zamoreski: how to deal with that. 's the road we were on, right, wasn't, yeah, and that's where that wooden fence is, the barrier, right, yeah, yes, the stream does cross the river, there's a culvert [1:01:18] Speaker J (unidentified): and when we walked the other side, the one that we just, there was a little, there was a [1:01:23] Steve Zamoreski: culvert going down on the side, so then that's okay, let's give it 10 points for our little critters. Thank you. Okay. Recreation. Links, parcels, 50 points. It creates links between trails, 50 points. We've got points,, points for near protected land. So we have 5.1, public access to passive recreation. Yes, right. Potential for passive record opportunities increasing, yes, so we'll give it 20 and 20, not accessing beaches or oceans or tidal water, upland rivers, yes, there's a stream there, right, ten points, hills and forest, ten points, and then leave that other area blank, did [1:02:33] Speaker G (unidentified): you get that almost, okay, scenic views [1:02:36] Steve Zamoreski: Views, not tidal marshes, fields or farmland, not really. Forest land, absolutely. Rural coral, special unique vistas, not really. Worked forest, not really, but definitely fields and forest land, right? [1:02:59] Speaker G (unidentified): So, we'll give it 20 points. [1:03:05] Steve Zamoreski: Not working lands. Other considerations, So we gave it we'll go back and give it again 20 points for the non-town funds for improvements. But it's fun about 5 right and then open space plan in the it's in designated areas. [Speaker G (unidentified): So good well] I think we have to wait for the fiction value up what is next and where do we go under court oh yeah i don't have again i didn't print that on that i'm like reserve yeah i got it i'll say that's gonna give me those thank you guys all right aquifers no vegetation buffer yes rotable Bluffs yes I fell down that Hill once before the stairs went in rotable soils not according to GIS okay Jason do the floodplain no parcel 100 -Year Public Lane, no. Resource Protection Area, no. Shoreland Zone, yes. And the size, do we have that right? Where do this, it's 21 to 50. [1:04:47] Susie Williams: That should be 20 points. It's 14.3 acres. So it should be 20 points. 20 points. [1:05:04] Steve Zamoreski: OK. Habitat of Significance, 50 points. points species of significance observed what do you think Scott or Andrew we can also connect that to the other parcel as well right [1:05:23] Speaker H (unidentified): I saw a Fisher on the property next door okay but I mean sort of I mean again you probably [1:05:32] Steve Zamoreski: probably have all the standard gray box podcast for sure yeah all that and some of that from time to time sure we'll give it 20 points wetlands 50 points wildlife corridor 10 ecosystems of significance not according to that but we've we've scored that in the past seems like it is don't you think with that stream there any thoughts we're deer wintering vernal pools i think so we're pairing a road corridor i don't know of any designated vermin. There's a good green frog breeding population there. That wetland. I don't think we've ever checked for frog or salamander. Okay. Tidal inland wading bird habitat. All [Speaker G (unidentified): right.] Recreation. 50 points. Connecting fossils link between fossils connecting trails yes start to the end and near yes all those points probably access for recreation yes 20 points improvements there's already been improvements so we're going to give that 20 points access to beaches no saltwater marsh no upland rivers lakes ponds, yes, 10 points. Field and forest, yes, 10 points. Jump in if you disagree. Access to other areas. Oh, no, forget, we're not going to add that. Passive recreation distribution, no, I think we already, obviously if we're connecting, we don't have, we have areas in that, recreation facilities in that area already. Already scenic views from the roadway well definitely forest land I [1:08:10] Speaker G (unidentified): mean it keeps that [1:08:13] Steve Zamoreski: that community in that little road from being yes let's just say 20 points for that working lands no and then improvements non-non-fun improvements yes 20 points all [1:08:42] Speaker G (unidentified): right I just [1:08:43] Susie Williams: wanted to highlight this one this property was originally purchased using land bond funds so I think this is very appropriate that we permanently protect it [1:08:56] Steve Zamoreski: great thank you Jess I'm impressed about the working lands yes if [1:09:06] Speaker H (unidentified): we had evidence of a puzzle being used traditionally for fiddlehead gathering did that did that fall under the Yeah, we're all we build a gathering for sale. Yeah, would that be considered under working lands? I [1:09:27] Susie Williams: think this is us trying to give points to agricultural easements. [1:09:33] Speaker H (unidentified): I know but I get that but you know there's so many Mainers that make money off the land and [1:09:41] Steve Zamoreski: small right that is our work yeah mushrooms yeah other things I think we could add points in that [1:09:49] Susie Williams: category and other I would label it forward foraging or similarly to firewood collection well if it's appropriate I mean yeah some places do allow firewood collection [1:10:08] Steve Zamoreski: not within skyrocketing yeah I think let's let's table that for another because I think it's valid and maybe we just had 4g in here I don't know but then the question then how do we know it's happening that will be pretty written yeah we did in our previous parcel we did talk a lot of [1:10:27] Speaker H (unidentified): that the ranch was brought to us we talked a lot about blueberries right yeah you're right [1:10:32] Steve Zamoreski: and yeah okay let's let's add it to a conversation and we can always amend in this I don't think we can do that today all right other considerations I don't know. You're the one who suggested we follow that order. [1:10:55] Speaker E (unidentified): Then you may have that sheet. [1:10:58] Steve Zamoreski: I should have asked you for it. Yeah. All right. It's not over an aquifer. It does have vegetation. We have good buffer. Great. No, it doesn't have an erodible block, deep block. Maybe just re-jump in. It does have erodible soils. [1:11:26] Susie Williams: Okay. And I just wanted to jump in here. These are easements. These are the easement parcels. Yes. Not transfer. [1:11:36] Steve Zamoreski: Yes. Yes. Does that matter for scoring purposes? [1:11:41] Susie Williams: purposes not really no it transfer it matters for discussion purposes okay yes well and it does at [1:11:47] Beth Armstrong: The end it does when we talk about developing trails and all that, because it's an easement, so the land trust is not going to develop trails on that unless we go into a separate management [1:11:58] Susie Williams: agreement. Okay, which would be wonderful, my opinion. So there are some points at the end [1:12:05] Steve Zamoreski: that does affect. Okay, thank you. Parcel includes land, yeah, we give it some flood mitigation points. It's near protect plants in a shoreline zone in the parcel. Let's check the parcel score. Survey says 51 100. Is that right? This is 47. It's 30. [1:12:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, let's go, it's around 30. [1:12:31] Steve Zamoreski: 31 acres, yeah, okay, so it should be 30 points. Sorry, thank you. It's kind of at least four that works, right? The first one, this one, yeah, that's 40. Yeah, it's actually 47. Let me just double check it. [1:12:49] Speaker J (unidentified): Is that right? Yeah, that's the one. So it's the one that surrounds, there's a late [1:12:55] Susie Williams: also where the dog was barking at us, yes, with those beautiful [1:13:02] Steve Zamoreski: trail features that almost killed the Andrew, actually, yeah, he went down. Sustainable, it's the size of a parcel, I keep looking for it, is the size of a parcel listed anywhere on this form? No, we should probably add that. We should add. Nice addition, yes, top of the form to let us know [1:13:25] Beth Armstrong: how big this is. I think that's a grand idea. Just about to suggest the same thing, and it's [1:13:31] Susie Williams: glad I said something smart. The GIS calculation of the average of your office, because we know like no from the, I'm trying to get bangla, that the town is different, yeah, right. [1:13:46] Randy Hogan: I would suspect different based on the polygon, yes, exactly. All right, [1:13:54] Steve Zamoreski: let's move here because we're running out of time with burning daylight, as they say. Parcel, okay, so we're in the habitat species of significance, yes. It's a habitat for species of significance. As far as observations out there, you guys have observed or any other new records? [1:14:27] Speaker H (unidentified): I've seen great blue heron there in the river. [1:14:32] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay, good. [1:14:36] Steve Zamoreski: Wetlands, yes. Wildlife corridor, yes. Ecosystems of significance. [1:14:43] Speaker G (unidentified): Significance on the river. [1:14:51] Beth Armstrong: That's an ecosystem of significance, isn't it? [1:14:54] Steve Zamoreski: Yeah, we relied on other groups, recognizing that as such that we had other things. Have we had that thought? Is it part of kind of that general. [1:15:06] Speaker J (unidentified): So, the 9 such, right? It's on such river and then such river is included in the comprehensive plan as a priority. Yeah. From the town. Yes. The town. Sure, and it's probably, I mean, I can look at it, but it's probably in the open space plan [1:15:21] Steve Zamoreski: oh yeah, as a priority, so sure, 10 points, I like that rational. Vernal pools, you won't probably identified here, riparian roadway, nothing noted. All right. [1:15:43] Beth Armstrong: Okay. Recreation. Inland wading bird waterfowl habitat. You should add ten points for that. Okay. Link [1:16:00] Steve Zamoreski: between parcels, yes. Yes for, I mean, contains links, abuts, yes. Protect the lands, yes. Public access, no. No,, no. [1:16:18] Susie Williams: It does provide public access. That one has the trail sign on the road and the parking. [1:16:24] Steve Zamoreski: Oh, that's it. We're back to this 1 now. Okay. And there is, and that will continue. [1:16:34] Speaker J (unidentified): My understanding that it's within so that when the town approved the subdivision, that was. Within the survey, and, you know, the, planning board documents, because that's what I've seen when I looked at it. I don't know. I can't. But so that's what I've seen when I looked at those documents and there is a trail sign there's an established trail there yeah like she said there's a parking that was created as a part of something so I would think that the intent was to have trails all right so we'll give it [1:17:03] Steve Zamoreski: 20 points there but not for improvement conservation use that would allow public access and trail construction but that would be up for the town to ultimately make that decision [1:17:13] Susie Williams: Okay so I think RC 5.1 20 points RC 5.20 because it yes no expansion okay that's fair I think I [1:17:26] Steve Zamoreski: agree with that okay access to the beach the ocean knows access to salt Saddle River no access to a [1:17:34] Beth Armstrong: river no wait a minute does the title water come up that high yeah but it is upland river [1:17:44] Susie Williams: yes 6.3 oh wait sorry yes 6.3 is that yes [1:17:53] Steve Zamoreski: but I'm looking I'm looking at your map I'm sorry Okay. All right, upland river 6.3 points. [1:18:05] Beth Armstrong: Is that part of the floodplain for the non such up there title. [1:18:13] Speaker J (unidentified): It's the floodplain for the non such title. I don't think it's impacted currently by like sea level. encroachment like it's not the tide is not coming up that far but it is in the floodplain of the river going downstream public [1:18:30] Steve Zamoreski: access to field and forest yes another area yes well we could just leave that out this other area unless we can identify something that's unique there we can get that out passive recreation you know No, this is the connection. This is the one if we don't have existing within a half mile. I think we already have stuff within a half. Yeah, it's right there. [1:19:03] Beth Armstrong: But under RC7, passive recreation. [1:19:06] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, but this is the, yeah, this is the, [1:19:09] Steve Zamoreski: This is under the, this is put in because the open space plan has a goal to have everybody have access to open space within a half mile. Yeah, they already had it, so they don't get this, scenic views, you know, it's again, it's field and forest, just keeping our roadways from being totally built out. So 20 points, no working lands, then we won't do that 20 point improvement, the non allocated funds, the non town funds. On so we won't add that but it is within the town focus area all right you're getting close what are we doing next the other side the other side which is what [1:20:12] Beth Armstrong: Individuals are doing improvements to the land [1:20:16] Steve Zamoreski: That's kind of your form again. Yes, you may. [1:20:21] Susie Williams: Well, this is the one with the cute signs, the adorable signs. [1:20:25] Steve Zamoreski: Oh, this is the cute time on the little troll sign. Yeah. Thanks. That's a good visual. Yeah. All right. [1:20:34] Beth Armstrong: A great fan. So let's go through really fast. [1:20:39] Steve Zamoreski: It's got some buffer for the stream, it doesn't seem like it has steep waterable bluffs or highly renewable soils, it's adjacent or actually it looks like it's in the 10-foot floodplain. It's in a 100-year floodplain according to the maps. I mean, it's in a shoreline zone. Parcel size? It's correct. [1:21:12] Speaker J (unidentified): It's correct? So this one actually has a grow up herb in it. So the 66 acres is based on the assessing data. When I look at it in my GIS program, it's probably more around 30 acres, 31 acres. So I'm not sure what the group wants to use as the data. [1:21:35] Steve Zamoreski: I think we've always used your acreage, so 30. [1:21:39] Randy Hogan: So what did you say the acreage is? [1:21:41] Speaker G (unidentified): Like 31. [1:21:44] Steve Zamoreski: Thanks, Scott. All right, we're going to put that down. Habitat. 5 points for habitat significance, 20 points for species, 50% for wetlands, 50 points for wetlands. and Wildlife Corridor, 10 points, Ecosystems of Significance. Again, we've been adding that point, 10 points. [1:22:13] Beth Armstrong: It's on the Nonsuch River protecting. Yeah. [1:22:17] Steve Zamoreski: Deer Wintering, Vernal Pools, doesn't have any points for that. Repairing Road Corridor. Yes. That seems right, huh? up north yeah we have our road there those critters cross title waving birds spot waterfowl yes balance stream all right directing connectivity 50 points for links 50 and 25. All right public access 20 points potential to add again that's this that's the easement right correct so zero we're adding public actions of beaches no public access to title no public access to upland Rivers yes 10 points fields and Forests yes that's no points okay so no it's not adding a new spot for recreation then scenic views of [Speaker G (unidentified): Course yep streams] okay 10 20 points working lands no other considerations you won't have that 20 points for improvements it is in the open space plan it is in the area yes all right are we getting close last one which one's that 's rhonda [1:24:21] Beth Armstrong: I would love to thank you. We receive public comment on this, yes. Okay, thank you. Oh, I did have a hand. [1:24:41] Steve Zamoreski: You guys can share. Thank you. This is the one on Mars, where we took the photo. [1:24:50] Beth Armstrong: Yeah, that's right. Okay. [1:24:55] Steve Zamoreski: Yes, it is an aquifer. [1:25:00] Speaker G (unidentified): It's got the buffer. [1:25:02] Steve Zamoreski: I guess not, nothing there up to environmental hazards is in sea level like large migrations to arise [1:25:18] Susie Williams: against point for 100 year. This is just this part, the big parcel, because we're not scoring [1:25:23] Steve Zamoreski: a little right, that's just for clarification. Yes, thank you, this is just for the large parcel, okay. Shoreline protection zone, yes. Jason, there's shoreland zone, why can it, how can it not be? But it's not on the map, but anyway, I don't know how that our shoreline zone measured, you know, it certainly is, so well, not on the map, and we've been pretty, we've been sticking to that, yeah. Barcelona Acres, are we right there? [1:25:55] Beth Armstrong: I thought I was being able to override some of this. [1:25:58] Steve Zamoreski: No, it says 40, points. [1:26:00] Susie Williams: We continue our streak. [1:26:02] Randy Hogan: We'll only get better from here. [1:26:04] Steve Zamoreski: It'll get better from here, yes. Okay, habitat, 50, 20, 50. Okay, looks good. Wildlife corridor, yes. Ecosycosism, yes. Deer wintering, no. Invernal pools, no. It's the swamp, right? [1:26:21] Beth Armstrong: I mean it's the march pretty much, if we see deer there in the winter we see deer there all year [1:26:26] Steve Zamoreski: round yeah but this again we 've been we've been sticking to the identification of by the [1:26:31] Beth Armstrong: id, we can't override when no one can experience, and same with the shoreland zoning, I fight that [1:26:39] Speaker H (unidentified): one too. There's been deer habitat and deer wintering, yeah, wintering has very specific the ecological conditions that are unique, and as long as that's just the terms that we use in here, I think we need to follow them. Yeah, we have been, I understand your frustration with that, but [1:26:59] Steve Zamoreski: okay, preparing well, no right, we, you know, we wouldn't do that. Inland birds, yes. Tidal birds, yes. Connectivity, yes, for that person creates a link between trails, you know. Well, I think that goes back to the public comment. [1:27:20] Susie Williams: This is not for public access, this is not a, this is not a recreation area. Do you want me to [1:27:27] Steve Zamoreski: address that? Yes, please. Yeah, so it is a very wet area, a lot of it is scrub shrub, the wet one, so it's very difficult to walk through, if we've done it at home, but it is since it is town property now, it is open to hunting, I think, occasionally. [1:27:52] Beth Armstrong: A hunter goes out there regularly. Yeah, we see them regularly across the marsh. That would [1:28:01] Steve Zamoreski: not change. There is no plan on our part to build trails out there or any parking. The only trail access we expect in the future would be from water access. So the piece we already own home, which we call None Such Cove Reserve, which this would be expanded to include that, there's a little bit of a high island there, and we do picture a potential landing spot for canoes and kayaks with maybe a short little trail on that high piece, but that does not include the piece you're reviewing because at that point it is all drops down, it's all on that one. [1:28:55] Beth Armstrong: Yeah, or connection, if she's still on connection to the three pieces and run connection to any of [1:29:02] Steve Zamoreski: the developments, because it just would be a very expensive and difficult trail to build of them. Yeah, and for our marsh program, the interest, the reason we're interested in those two little parcels is for stewardship access and potential marsh restoration access that we've been working on through a very large partnership with 20 partners of state agencies, federal leads, the town, and from the organization right off the road. Yeah, those are basically cul-de-sacs and development, and I'll throw in there too that even if we did want to [1:29:54] Speaker J (unidentified): put a trail access in there, the trail would go across state land, which you know the state would have to approve all that. We would not, it's not our, it's not our land to build a trail on, it would be [1:30:05] Steve Zamoreski: state land that will travel with no lines from that one yeah that's good so you do get points for abutment of lands and near affected land so that's good public access we're going to give that 20 points there is public access i believe right people are in there now for hunting We're not going to expand recreation, so no 20 points there, but we will give it the 20 points for access. Again, if you disagree with me, jump in. Public access to ocean, beaches, no, I guess marsh, public access to tidal, marsh, yeah, I guess so, right? Right. If we're going to let people in there, they have access to the marsh. Why give that 20 points. [1:31:06] Speaker H (unidentified): All right, just to clarify your comments about public access. You're saying that you are not going to build trails, but you're not making this. There's no restrictions with people trying to access the river through the property. [1:31:23] Steve Zamoreski: Yes, exactly the same as it is now, like people as town property, people can access it without trails. So there's basically two types of hunting that happen there, deer hunting and the more forested wetland and edge of the scrub shovel wetland, and then potentially people going out for waterfowl hunting with vanilla, probably not the one good place to do that. [1:31:52] Beth Armstrong: Because it's quite a distance out to the marsh, and turkey hunting based on when we see people out on the only possible hunting thing would be turkeys. We came out on the marsh with their guns again, so and they've been coming out from that area, so we have to assume they're after turkeys. If they're not after turkeys, they're after crows or maybe coyotes. Okay, they're out there in the new seasons. Well, it wasn't when we were seeing people out there. All right, so public. [1:32:36] Steve Zamoreski: access is the upper one we already gave it public actually mars so we're good for that recreation no back to scenic views absolutely marsh tidal rivers and the bay and the beach pretty much so we're gonna give it the 20 points there working land snow i'm not going to give it the 20 points for improvements all right so we've concluded that we are what we already knew I think is that these are really good pieces of property worthy of conservation. Would anybody else like to make any other Comments? [1:33:27] Beth Armstrong: We had the public comment wanting to hear more discussion about access to here, doesn't appear that she's still, no. [1:33:35] Randy Hogan: No, she said she would be listening, but she's got me now. Okay, then I'm going to put it in the. [1:33:40] Steve Zamoreski: minutes what we discussed right Anderson and we don't really have and he's saying that right I mean it's not the purview of this organization to have a me say that I mean now they could approach the land trust well the land trust has said they're not going to change access that's her concerns right and it doesn't appear that 's going to change but she wasn't here to [1:34:09] Beth Armstrong: Hear that discussion, so would the kind thing be to get back to her and like say what Andrew said, or encourage her to reach out to Andrew, or typically if he's gone, you know, she was going to listen and worry about it, yeah, she's going to listen to the report. [1:34:26] Steve Zamoreski: Concern about access, she would lose the access they currently have, and it sounds like she would. [1:34:33] Beth Armstrong: Works now. I heard her concern about that opening up to a parking area and lots of the public using actors through their neighborhood and changing the feel. Oh, very concerned of the neighborhood, which it sounds like is not the intent. Clarity from the town on public access points are there. Is another access point going to be brought in? Can the impact on the name of it when the confirmation that new exit points, if they're developed, won't serve the march migration? [1:35:03] Steve Zamoreski: Right, so that's she'll listen to this and get the application. But just to rephrase as far as Andrew and Mr. Andrew, nothing is going to change, right? And I've got that on this, right, for public. [1:35:19] Speaker I (unidentified): Public access, yeah. Good, so for her nothing to worry about. Good. Just a point of information that occurs to me that Andrew's thinking of his representation. I believe he'll honor that during the time of his tenure, but this is in perpetuity. And so the only way to assure if there's something, and I'm not saying this rises to this level, I think it's entirely appropriate for this committee as part of your recommendation to recommend to the council that perhaps a deed has some restriction of use. Again, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate in this context, but going forward, if there's something of that nature that is really important, I think it's fully within your purview to provide that level of detail, and that can be done so and controlled forever through covenants or deed restrictions. [1:36:12] Susie Williams: And it doesn't apply to this specific situation, but we have made recommendations as to deeds and covenant restrictions as a body before. So that is something. Yeah, I was just really speaking to that point that I think it is within your purview. We feel strongly. [1:36:29] Speaker I (unidentified): About a point or another, there's a legal way to assure consistency if it's that important. And again, I don't, in my opinion, this does not nearly rise to this level. I don't think. [1:36:44] Steve Zamoreski: Thank you. Okay, any other discussion? I guess we could make a motion. We decided that we're going to treat this as a group of properties, a full slate. Anybody like to make a motion? [1:37:00] Susie Williams: I move that we vote to recommend such transfer of these properties as requested by the Scarborough Land Trust, including both it's not acquisitionally wallet transfer ownership and conservation easement as appropriate as specified in the application to town council. Second. [1:37:29] Steve Zamoreski: All in favor? Any discussion? [1:37:35] Beth Armstrong: The PCLB recommend the transfer of ownership and conservation easements of these properties. [1:37:44] Susie Williams: Scarborough Land Trust from Tim, yeah, as requested in the November 1st 2025 letter. Thank you, Jess. Just I don't think we want to go through like each property, no. Okay, got it. [1:38:07] Steve Zamoreski: All right. All in favor? Any opposed? Unanimous. Great. Now we have a few more minutes to use. So I want to make sure that when I'm doing the cover letter and talk with the council that I'm giving the right public benefits to this. So it's the fact that the Scarborough Land Trust will be good stewards and do improvements and invasive species management and all those kind of good things. It preserves these lands in perpetuity. Officially they are not that now as pieces of land that this town owns. Anything else you guys can jump in? [1:38:55] Susie Williams: I like that they're adjacent to currently to existing protected lands. [1:39:02] Steve Zamoreski: Yeah, all of these were identified to expand the existing preserves. Yeah, and would be managed as a larger block of protected habitat, including boundary marking annual monitoring visits. It's invasive species management, wildlife habitat management, and where appropriate public recreational access. And these properties weren't included in the original 30 by 30 goals, right? Yeah, they are, because they're open space now. 30 great 30 is open state, yeah, so they're already. [1:39:48] Beth Armstrong: Yeah, that's that's why that's why I guess so similar to that. It'll move it from open space to permanently protected a little further the goal, no further because they're already included. [1:40:03] Steve Zamoreski: That they won't change the numbers, yes, the percentage of sort of like, but does provide. [1:40:11] Susie Williams: provide protection for perpetuity which they do not currently correct have it's also protecting [1:40:17] Steve Zamoreski: Water quality and water, yeah, all the all the usual stuff, yeah. I just didn't know if water got in there. Well I'll I'll I just remind people that you know listen, okay, yeah, but I will let me do that. Okay, great. Any other thing we our next meeting is the next central meetings. [1:40:40] Randy Hogan: November the twelfth. So I don't know if the another one. [1:40:46] Susie Williams: Well, I think I'm coming up by late is I'm running for town council, and Sam is running for school board, and I don't know if that would then change the makeup of this body, and I will be a little late or I know that could invite the next meeting potentially not like if you're. [1:41:03] Steve Zamoreski: trying to plan an october one i can okay we certainly have had our fair share of meetings yes what do you folks have coming up we don't have anything before november all right so do you want to do you want to do you want to cancel the November 12th meeting [1:41:31] Randy Hogan: With the kind of the only thing I would say, I guess we haven't determined the 2027 meeting dates, which we would probably do with that, but it doesn't mean that it can't have been. [1:41:43] Steve Zamoreski: Off of that line right here, okay, well, we'll meet in December. Are we, don't we have a scheduled meeting in December? Should we move our meeting? Should we move the November meeting to early December? Yes, let's do that. Okay, does any, what do we usually do though, Thursday third? [1:42:05] Susie Williams: No, we probably want to do an early Thursday in December, yeah. [1:42:10] Steve Zamoreski: Can you put an email out to the group, please, on that early Thursday, the first Thursday? It might have been the first Thursday. December. [1:42:22] Beth Armstrong: It should be the third. [1:42:24] Steve Zamoreski: December 3rd. Just to have everybody check their account. I forgot my phone was open. [1:42:31] Randy Hogan: I'm sorry about that. Yeah. [1:42:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, then do a 30. We're moving in this cost number 3. [1:42:41] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, if I could, I'll just mention kind of a in the pipeline who may be seen if it ever kind of materializes and gets in front of you. But the town is actively working in coordination with the land trust on a parcel that would hopefully support active recreation in terms of athletic fields and conservation. And it's a property the land trust has become quite familiar with for its own reasons, for conservation purposes. And we're currently exploring the potential for some active recreation on a very small portion of that property. And I just want to make sure that I don't over represent what we can or can't do, so we're going to spend a little more time and effort money to understand what's possible before we advance that. Having said that, I nothing will be ready in the time frames you're talking about, even December, so okay, I suspect it'll be early next year. Okay, and did the recreation committee approve? [1:43:40] Steve Zamoreski: Approved there, okay, yeah, so we can add that to the agenda for December. They should be done by then. I'm late, all right, would it people anybody like to make a wish, we have nothing in December. [1:43:58] Beth Armstrong: Is that possible we'll have nothing to discuss in the summer? [1:44:03] Steve Zamoreski: Soundingly, well, we'll maybe, I mean, we don't have to have a meeting, is that your question? But let's let's let's reserve it on the calendars and then we can talk via email. There's always discussions around different things that we can talk about, we had some, so yeah, let's talk about, I mean, you don't have to come only when there's a meet of property to assess if there are other things we want to talk about foraging but. [1:44:38] Speaker H (unidentified): We didn't spend an hour on that either, so that's a cool question about without any like overly specifics, if the town is gonna presumably work with Lynn just on buying a parcel that has mixed use of athletic, the athletic field at the conservation, would the request to the land bond also be used to pay for the construction of the fields or simply the purchase of the fields? We're looking at alternative [1:45:08] Randy Hogan: funding mechanisms that could do the funding of the actual construction. That's what you're talking [1:45:15] Speaker H (unidentified): about, right? So it's solely the purchase of the parcel is what the time the land bond money would [1:45:20] Steve Zamoreski: be used for. I think the final answer, I mean, I don't know what the town's going to do, but it's up to them, but I think the final answer would be reflected in the actual wording of the referendum and you know how much leeway that gives the town to try to ask for money for other things, random language originally written for the actual land itself, not for improvements. [1:45:55] Susie Williams: It's yeah, it always said purchase land and interest in land, right? So I think that's what we [1:46:04] Steve Zamoreski: limit supply bond dollars. Yeah, that's my hope, that's my understanding and my hope that we don't use the money for field construction, right? Yeah, that would be all too. Seconded, all in favor.