Oh, can that be one number?

Did you see them though?

But do we need three?

Do you do you need four for the minute?

I don't think so.

We have a quorum a lot of a simple majority.

Paul is not after 19th.

Yep.

That's right, but it's a floor.

Yes.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

We're waiting on you about that.

Okay, we'll call the uh Tuesday, November 2nd, 2021 Planning Commission meeting to order.

Uh item 3A is the amendments to section 21186, 21187 of the North Kingstown zoning ordinance related to groundwater.

And I think uh we have a supporting memo from the planning commission, uh planning department.

Um that uh memorializes the fact that uh we did take into account several of the comments from the groundwork committee.

Uh that we did have uh discussion, we had the public comments, and then it brings us through to a series of findings that we would have to include and uh months of findings which we have to include a statement of general consistency of the proposal plan, including the goals policies for the implementation of program and other elements of the comprehensive plan, which I think we clearly did during discussions, uh including demonstrated recognized consideration of each of the application general purposes of the zoning as presented in 21-4, which we're directly walk us through uh which is promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, providing a range of uses and intensities of programming.

Uh A through G or listed, each of the goals, objectives and patterns of land use containers comprehensive plan, uh the natural characteristics of the land clearing suitability on soil characteristics toography, susceptibility of groundwater, groundwater pollution values that are connected, age of coastal and freshwater farmers and freshwater cultural web hands, values of unique available natural resources and features, availability capacity of existing plan, public hand or private services and facilities, need to shape and balance permanent enrollment developments, use of innovative government regulations, technologies.

Do we need to read those into the direct before we no?

Is if there's any specific ones you think are necessary to note for this particular type of ordinance, I would note them.

And just to backtrack, Jim.

Um there are a couple of things that we wanted to make sure you did cover tonight, including confirming whether or not you wanted to use the maps from DEM and the two items from the um the memo that came to you with the the groundwater ordinance.

And I did send everybody a copy of Eric's, he has a couple editorial comments.

There was nothing of substance, so we will take care of those if everyone's comfortable with that.

And Tracy did email us that while she wasn't able to attend tonight, she wanted to be on the record that she's in favor of a positive recommendation for the suggested changes.

Um I think that the record would reflect that the uh discussion we had whether the maps would be listed as Rhode Island DEM most current, so it didn't require a rewrite or a uh reaction.

Is that is that the concurrence?

That's correct.

Correct.

I do have a couple other questions if I alright.

Now a meeting is now concerned weight.

Just the changes in the draft.

Okay.

So I want to so I noticed we it looks like we added is monitoring well required on that table.

Did I miss a meeting where that was discussed?

What page are you?

I just want to make sure in the you know when that we added.

That was part of the discussion.

I have the draft coming to easy on us.

So that was discussed at the meeting.

I don't remember us adding that as a column.

It came up toward when we were discussing either BNTs and people are like, who needs to have a monitoring well?

We tried to figure out who we inject this to.

And we said the easiest thing would be to add the column to that table and say yes on yes on yes now.

Oh, all right.

I do have a vague time.

Okay.

Um it was um when we were speaking of that particular item.

I I have notes added to the table instead.

We knew it was triggering it.

Yeah.

Okay.

I recall that now that you mention it.

All right.

Um just quickly look at what I would get sent along, so um we can uh that was my major question.

No problem.

We want to get this question.

Um so the maps would be the red amount of DBM was current.

Um the two items uh that were suggested from the groundwater committee to the director of the water supply was the parcel that is in multiple groundwater designations, the most restrictive shot apply, and we discussed that and something following the science of placing them wherever the line falls and uh dealing with that uh as the lines fall, we would follow the science, not following a man-made boundary and the groundwater reservoirs with the same protections well having some uh we were in agreement with the director that if everything was going to be treated the same, there'd be no reason to have two districts.