The previous video for this lecture, we defined the notion of a supplement to an angle. That is, two angles are supplementary if their union forms a half plane. With the notion of a supplement now defined, we can define what it means to be a right angle. So we say that an angle is right if it is congruent to its own supplement, okay? So we don't have any notion of like 90 degree angle or angle measure whatsoever. So we can't really talk about, oh, an angle is 90 degrees. We don't have that notion in congruent geometry, but what we can say is the following. If we have some angle, A, B, C, something like this, then we can say like, oh, its supplement would be D, B, C. And if the angle is congruent to its supplement, then we call that a right angle. And typically when we have a right angle, we'll denote the angle using this little square icon here. This is to suggest like it's the corner of a rectangle. After all the word rectangle itself means right angle, okay? So we can define the notion of a right angle inside of congruence geometry. I wanna prove a few things about right angles in this video here. The first thing is any angle that's congruent to a right angle is itself a right angle. Now I wanna caution you, I wanna point out what this does not say as opposed to what it does say.  What this doesn't say is that if you have two right angles that they are necessarily congruent to each other. That last statement is actually Euclid's fourth postulate that he wrote in the elements. And we will prove it as a theorem very, very soon, but not in this video right here. So we're just gonna show that if two angles are congruent and one of them is right, then the other one must be right as well. So it's important that we have that distinction. So let me scroll down here so that we can try to put a diagram on the screen. So let's take two angles. So we have one angle there in red, then we'll have some other angle, maybe something like this. So we have these angles A, I guess I should do that one in red. That's my color coding, isn't it? So we have this angle here, A, this, let's just excuse me, this point, A, B and C. Like so, we also have the angle A prime, B prime, B can be looking a little bit better there, and then C prime, like so. And then we're also, we're gonna assume that these angles are congruent to each other. So let's make a little mark about that. So these angles are congruent, but we're also going to assume that the angle ABC is a right angle. So it's congruent to its supplement. A, B, well, ABC is congruent to its supplement. So we need some point to describe this supplement here. So let's take the point D, so that DBC is the supplement of ABC, and therefore their ABD is congruent to DBC. Now, that's what it means to be a right angle. So be aware that if ABC is congruent to DBC, as we have right here, and we also have by assumption that ABC is congruent to A prime, B prime, C prime by transitivity of segment congruence, we also have that A prime, B prime, C prime is congruent to CBD. So it's important also that we note that these angles, they're all congruent to each other. These two angles are congruent to each other as well. And so what we can of course do is we can insert, you know, a point over here, D prime, so that we can talk about the supplement of A prime, B prime, C prime. That supplement of course would be C prime, B prime, D prime. And so we have supplementation going on right there. Okay, so in a previous video when we introduced supplementary angles, we proved that supplements of congruent angles are congruent to each other. And so notice what happened here. We have that angle A prime, B prime, C prime is congruent to ABC. And then, so that means since these angles are congruent, this will mean that their supplements have to be congruent to each other as well because supplements of congruent angles are congruent. But we also have that A and B here, excuse me, ABC is congruent to DBC because they're both right angles. So they're congruent to each other. So these two angles are congruent by transitivity, but these two angles are congruent. So if we follow all of this transitivity here, so this line gives us congruence, this line gives us congruence, this line gives us congruence. So by transitivity of congruence, these two angles have to be congruent as well. If we go through it just one more time just to be very clear what we're talking about. By assumption, these two angles are congruent because we said they were.  And then the supplements of congruent angles are congruent a previous theorem right there. And so following this congruent statement by transitivity, these two angles are congruent. They're supplements. Therefore the angle A prime, B prime, C prime is a right angle. Thus proving the very first statement we wanted to do. Now that we've introduced the idea of a right angle it also makes sense to talk about perpendicular lines, okay? So let's take two lines L and M. These are two distinct lines in a congruence geometry. And as such, their intersection, let's assume they intersect, they're not parallel. So these are intersecting lines and let's say that their unique point of intersection is B, okay? And so I'm gonna draw a diagram here to help us keep track of what's going on here. So we have one line right here, another line like so. And so let's say that this line is L, this line is M and I said that their common point of intersection will be B, okay? So on L, let's place points A and D so that B is between A and D. On M, let's place some points C and E so that B is between C and E. The axioms of incidence and betweenness guarantee that such a thing is gonna happen here, okay? So with these labels in play here, we say that the line L is perpendicular to M to note it as L per P M if the angle ABC is a right angle. So we want that this angle right here is a right angle. Now be aware that the supplement of ABC is the angle DBC. It's also the angle ADE, those are both supplements. Those are both supplements in that situation here. And this is something we're gonna, well, I typically leave this as an exercise to my students here, the idea of vertical angles. Vertical angles are angles that are across the, they're on the opposite side of these two intersecting lines right here. Vertical angles are gonna be congruent to each other because they are supplements of the same angle. And as the angle is congruent to itself, supplements of congruent angles are congruent. So vertical angles are gonna be congruent to each other as these are both supplements of a right angle, they're gonna be right angles themselves. And then likewise, this over here, these are vertical angles as well, they're gonna be congruent. So it's gonna, I should say these angles, I have to be careful here because we haven't proven that right angles are congruent. But as these two angles are gonna be congruent and this is a right angle, we just prove that this is a right angle as well. So it actually doesn't matter which of these four angles you talk about, if one of them is right, all four of them are gonna be right. That's why we can describe lines being perpendicular without referencing which angle because it doesn't matter which of the four angles you get when two lines intersect each other, they form four different angles. But if one of them is right, all of them are gonna be right. And so when that happens, we say that the lines are perpendicular to each other. Perpendicular, of course, is a symmetric relationship. If L is perpendicular to M, then M is perpendicular to L. It doesn't really make sense for a line to be perpendicular to itself. So we don't allow for that.  If two lines are perpendicular to some common line, we'll actually see in congruence geometry that they're gonna be parallel to each other. So the only thing we can guarantee right now for perpendicular lines is that it's a symmetric relationship. And so to finish this video in particular, I wanna prove a very important theorem with regard to perpendicular lines. We will call this the dropping of a perpendicular to a line. This will be very different from another theorem which we will talk about later about erecting a perpendicular out of a line. So there's dropping versus erecting out of a line. The direction does matter in this situation. So the statement of the theorem is the following. We have a line L. We have a point P that is not on L, okay? Then we claim that there exists a line M that contains P but is perpendicular to L. So when you look at the surface of this, this sounds a lot like the Euclidean parallel postulate. If you have a line and a point not on the line, then there exists another line that contains the point but is parallel to L. In congruent geometry, we have no assumptions about parallel lines. So we're not doing that, but this theorem is very similar but it doesn't guarantee the existence of a parallel to L. It actually guarantees a perpendicular to L. And so let me draw a picture that'll help us explain the proof, of course, that you can read over here. I hope you do read along with these things. So we have a line L and we have some point P which is a point not on L. What we're trying to then construct is a line that passes through P and is perpendicular to the line L. That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to construct this line M right here, okay? Now we don't have that yet, we're gonna construct it. So what we do have is the following. There do exist at least two points on the line L that they're not equal to each other. This is just the secancy axiom for line determination, excuse me for incident geometry, line determination was another axiom there. So we have two points A and B and they're distinct points on side of L. By angle translation, there exists a point C that's on the opposite side of L that P is. So P's over here, so there's some point over here, call it C and we can have it so that the angle BAP is congruent to the angle BAC. So I'm gonna move my picture up a little bit, covering up the proof. And so we have this angle, this angle BAP, but we also know there's some other point down here, call it C, so that the angle BAP is congruent to the angle BAC. This is a consequence of angle translation. We also know that by segment translation, we could take the segment AP and we could translate that onto the ray AC so that we have some point, call it C prime, so that AP as a segment is congruent to the segment AC prime. Now without the loss of generality, we could assume that point was C in the first place because after all, C is just giving us the direction, it's just giving us the location of the ray on that side of the line. So again, by swapping C with C prime, we can assume that the segment AP is congruent to C. And in fact, just to make the correspondence even more available to us, we're gonna call this point P prime. So we had this point C earlier, but we don't need it anymore. So P prime was the point on the ray AC so that AP prime is congruent to AD, okay? And so that gives us the two points we're very interested in. And I'm gonna actually adjust my point one more time. Let's see, let me clean this up because I want the diagram to look perpendicular. So I kind of actually need to get rid of this point right here because actually if I were drawing this in Euclidean geometry, the point would be about right here. So here's our point P prime. Like I said, we don't actually care about C anymore so I don't mind erasing it. We get the following, it's not perfect but we'll do this trick, right? I want my diagram to look a little bit better. I'm gonna take the line that goes through P and is perpendicular to L, I'm just gonna draw it. I don't know that they're perpendicular yet and then I'll fix my diagram using that. So here's P prime and so that fixes my picture there. So this new line we just constructed, what is it? We're gonna call it M. This line is the line determined by P and P prime. We have that line right here. I don't claim yet it's perpendicular. We're gonna have to prove that but that's the bulk of the remaining proof here. So we have our candidate for the line M. Clearly by construction it contains the point P. We didn't have to argue that it is perpendicular to L. The first thing we kind of have to do is of course argue that they actually intersect each other. I took some great detail to draw the picture more accurately but nonetheless, how do we know that these points actually intersect each other? Well, there's a couple of options we have to consider, two cases really. So we have these points A, P and P prime. What if they happen to be co-linear, right? We could have something like this happening where here's P, here's A and here is P prime and then B's over here somewhere. Well, if that's the case, then it would have to be that A is between P and P prime since P and P prime are on opposite sides of L and that's the consequence of plane separation, posh's axiom, right? So if that's the case, then okay, then we have the intersection. The intersection would be some point called A in that situation. Now, if I were to guess randomly, that's probably not the case here. I mean, that would have only been if A was a fantastic guess, but that's okay. No big deal. It's really not such a big deal whatsoever but I guess I actually still want this picture on the screen here. So if A is in fact between them, should have called that P prime. So we know that these angles P, A, B and P prime, A, B are supplementary to each other and that's because P, A, and P prime are all on the same line, that's that supplement. But also by construction, the angles B, A, P is congruent to the angle B, A, P prime because we translated the angle from one side of the line to the other side. So these angles are congruent and they're supplements so that makes them right angles. In that situation, we would then have the line M does in fact intersect the line L and then they're gonna be perpendicular. The point of intersection is A in that situation. So we get that M and L are perpendicular. So that's the first case that we have to consider. The second case is now suppose that A, P and P prime are not collinear. So let Q be the point of intersection with M and L which we would label that right here. Okay, just a little bit of vocabulary here. This point for a perpendicular line intersects the other one or I should say you have this point P where you drop down the perpendicular line to get this point of intersection. This is commonly referred to as the foot of the perpendicular but maybe I'm gonna a little ahead of ourselves. We don't yet know that these angles are perpendicular but also how do we even know these lines intersect each other, right? This actually is a consequence of the crossbar theorem. If you look at the angle P, A, P prime and then it's crossbar P, P, P prime there then of course the interior angle B is gonna be interior there. So this ray has to hit the crossbar somewhere. So it's gonna be at this point we're calling that point Q, all right? And of course B is an interior points to the angle of because of consequences we had proven previously in order to geometry. So we can conclude that Q is between P and P prime. Now of course Q is on the line L by construction. So it has to be the case that A, B and Q since they're co-linear there has to be some between this relationship going on there. Let me zoom out here. So where does Q live relative to A and B? It could be like the picture is illustrated on the screen right now where Q is between A and B. It could also be that B is like over here maybe B could be between A and Q. That's a possibility. Now in this situation if that were the case the ray, the ray A, B is identical to the ray A, Q. And so in that situation the angle Q, A, P would equal the angle B, A, P for either of those two situations. There is a third possibility over here could be where B is. Maybe A is between B and Q. And I did misspoke earlier I had said something like that B was an interior point to the angle P, A, P prime. We don't necessarily know that. We do know that if B is not an interior point like in this situation there is an interior point on the other side of it, call it B prime or something. So we can still use the crossbar theorem of course to get this point of intersection Q. The location of B was somewhat irrelevant. So I misspoke in that situation. But I want you to consider this possibility. What if A was between B and Q like in this situation? Well if that happens then it turns out the angle B, A, P is a supplement to the angle Q, A, P like so. But then their supplements would be congruent to each other. And so what we want to conclude here is whether my diagram is correct or not the angle Q, A, P is congruent to the angle Q, A, P prime even if the betweenness relationships aren't what I have here on the screen. And so that's what I'm trying to argue here. Let me scooch down the diagram now and let's zoom out. So again, I wanna see the words and the diagram happening right here. So this is a pretty good vantage point. So we know that whatever assumptions we have about A, Q and B either all of them lead to the same conclusion that angle Q, A, P is congruent to angle Q, A, P prime. And since A, Q was congruent to A, Q prime and Q, A, P is congruent to Q, A, P prime. And lastly, A, P is congruent to A, P prime by the side angle side assumption axiom we get that Q, A, P is congruent to Q, A, P prime. So I want you to think of these triangles right here and these triangles, they have to be congruent to each other. So notice here that A, P was congruent to A, P prime by assumption. We just argue that these angles were congruent to each other. And of course the segment A, Q is congruent to A, Q. I mean, that's just reflexive. So these triangles are gonna be congruent to each other. So in particular as congruent parts of corresponding, excuse me as corresponding parts of congruence triangles are congruent, we get that the angle A, Q, P is congruent to angle A, Q, P prime. So this angle right here is congruent to this angle right here. There's supplementary angles by construction and therefore they have to both be right angles. So we did construct a perpendicular line, M to the line L right there. I'm gonna zoom in to the text in case you wanted to copy it down. Pause the video if you need to. It might've been harder to see on the previous resolution but that does bring us to the end of this proof here about the existence of perpendicular lines. In particular, what we said here is if you have a line and you have a point off the line you can always drop a perpendicular onto that line. This point of intersection here, we call the foot of the perpendicular and this is a construction that we will use many times in the future of congruence geometry.


Stevenson gets the 84 82 victory over Lebanon Valley tonight Glenn Clark with head coach Gary Stewart coach we talked after the Widener game about a team coming together and learning how to win conference games you had to fight back from down 16 in the first half down by 11 in the second half what did your team show you tonight as far as learning how to win these games well with the ground ball that you don't feel does the ground ball that keeps getting hit at you and we're double figures down at Widener didn't come all the way back it's not the recipe that I would draw up but you're gonna have to win some games in a variety of different ways and today we were able to come back and and make some plays down the stretch Danzel right and Jalen Johnson were both incredible tonight but maybe nothing more incredible than Jalen's three in the final minute shot clock was winding down it was a long look take me through what you saw was it one of those moments where you thought okay I got all the confidence in the world in this kid well we call to play and three guys heard it and two guys didn't and by that time now we're down to four and Jalen made a good play he read it he understood that he had some space had a time to get that off and and knocked it down one of the biggest things that stands out to me about tonight is you missed just one free throw the entire game how critical was that well I thought the free throw line would be the difference in the game they come in as one of the best teams in the country at free throws shot per game so we needed to limit their opportunities at the free throw line and then we needed to capitalize when we got there and and we did we played the way that we needed to do to stay in the game how much do you think this now helps as you head back out on the road this weekend well I think it's invaluable I mean we played against a really good team that came in with one loss and and they've got two of the better players in the country you know Sam light got going and you know for a minute there look like we couldn't get a tourniquet on it and and then if it wasn't if it wasn't light then it was or you know as a heavy diet of one or the other and and you know they've got a good outfit so it's a good win for us which congratulations on a huge victory thank you yes coach Gary steward I'm Glenn Clark this is go mustang sports dot com


Good evening. I'd like to call the Monday, October 15th 2018 Berlin select board to order my far left is Pete Kelly to my left is Wayne Lamberton to my right is Jeremy Hansen and My far right is Angelina Capron and with us also is Dana Hadley the town administrator and Diane Isabel town treasurer I am Brad Town First order of business is a public hearing for input regarding ordinance to allow snow will be on ATV travel on town roads specifically Since the way it was written it's going to be shed road cross-town road black road in Brookfield Road To start the meeting out. I am going to have the emails read first and then we'll go from there Dana Okay, I have two emails I'll read the shorter one first Dana cannot make it to the public hearing about ATV's on Brookfield Road I'd like to be recorded saying I am against this There is enough noise pollution on Brookfield as it is and I certainly don't want strangers Possibly on my property trails Catherine Rickert Then I have a letter a longer email and I'm going to This is from Tim Bingham on shed road and he's written this to I guess Josh Walker Wondering if perhaps we could talk by telephone regarding the upcoming meeting and its resulting decision to allow or deny Trail access on town roads Naturally, I want people to have fun and be able to utilize all the trails available in Vermont We simply need to be sure it is done in a safe manner, which does not unduly inconvenience residents and property owners My house is situated at the corner of shed and cross-town roads We stand to be heavily impacted by additional vehicles using these roads With the police department town office and highway department at the end of shed road We already have many thousands of cars and trucks yearly who already use this narrow residential street During late summer and early fall Berlin highway department has over 10,000 tons of material Delivered which they stockpile to get this all delivered requires about 1,000 trucks Passing in front of my house that includes loaded and empty passes During the winter months They then move all that material out to treat the town roads for safe winter travel This means probably 1400 trucks passing in front of my house Empty and loaded as the town trucks are smaller than the delivery vehicles The front of my house is situated just 10 and a half feet from the edge of the pavement of shed road Of course, the police come and go 24 hours a day in addition to the office personnel at the town building And in evenings, there are many town committees that gather for various purposes On election days and when it gets close to the quarterly Tax payments and water sewer payments being due then we have many hundreds of additional vehicles that come down past us To access the town office So if you come to the town office in the evenings or on the weekends It might appear to be a sleepy little street which belies the actual heavy usage of the road We hear and see hundreds of vehicles daily travel both these roads and many far exceed the post at speed limits So my concerns are regarding safety additional traffic and noise in and around my neighborhood Wondering about the viability of using shed or cross town roads since they are Usually heavily plowed and sanded with both of these roads really snow covered Will this tear up the bottom of a snowmobile and its front skis Honestly, I'm not interested in having yet more noise added to my neighborhood in addition to the conditions I already mentioned. Of course, we are situated not far from the interstate and here the steady drone and vehicles traveling there Is there something i'm missing you're welcome to write me back here or give me a try in my home telephone number and he lists His telephone number tim bingham 13 shed road I think Tim said he was going to be here too tim is here right here I should have had him read it I think it's something kind of clear, you know, we're not really trying to get these total roads open up It's only like for little sections of the road and as for like the snowmobile traffic We've already talked for the few of the landowners where we won't even be using shed road for the snowmobile access where we would come across by the church and to the field and come along the Road that is right across from shed road the old the old pond road From they used to be there before the interstate went in and then we would Go from there and cross the pond and I talked with Tom Willard who owns the house right on the other side of the pond And he is for having a trail Access to the trail as well And and from there we'd only be on the pavement for just that one little section right there where it crosses the pond Once we got past Tom's driveway We would be with the help of the town and with the grooming equipment We would be up off the road it'd be on the side of the road in the you know more or less ditch During the summer But it'd be on the side of the road to get under the interstate and then as soon as we turn left to Head like around the pond it's going to go right up into the field right there And then go through the fields there and through the woods and then down onto black road So and then onto black road is where we would need to have access on black road and onto Brookfield road just to the bottom of Darling road, which is the trailhead that's existing there now Uh, you'll stick your name again and take in where you live. I'm josh walker and I live on black road Okay, uh, Jeremy So I have eight here. I'm just going to go through in the order that I copy and paste it In the short one. I'm for it. Let's set speed limits and keep rural life in Vermont The next one is as residents of brookfield road for the past 40 years We strongly urge the board to deny the proposal as currently presented Though not as directly affected by it as will be some of our neighbors near the black and darling roads We protest use of the ponds roads for increased recreational purposes Especially when they pose such obvious safety hazards for both residents and recreationists The road between the junction of the brookfield and black roads to darling road has several blind curves and hills that are challenging enough to negotiate currently As one who travels brookfield road on a daily basis It's hard to believe that allowing use of this area for snowmobiles and atbs can be anything other than a recipe for disaster Not only in low light conditions, but at any time of the day for all who use it Next one, I'm writing to who was that I don't have all the names copied in I didn't know if they wanted to to share their names, but they they live on brookfield road. They said I'm writing to communicate my disapproval of permitting these vehicles and or spin machines to travel extensive distances on town roads Notwithstanding any insurance the local group might have access to through its affiliation with bassa I believe that particular coverage has shared limits which reduces its protection of any single town Because other claims will erode the coverage In the end, it seems that the town could serve as a deep pocket in the event of a tragic accident And to me it seems like an unnecessary risk for the town to take for the benefit of a select few The next one Uh, and this is from tomwood My wife and I live adjacent to cross town road and the trail would pass directly in front of our house We do not have any objections to the trail and think a trail connecting to norfield would be a benefit to the town Road and safety issues we will leave to others We'd like a discussion on the expected intensity of use if it's a vast trail And whether the creation of a local trail rather than a vast trail might be a good start Some of the public land the trail would pass through is encumbered by easements held by agencies such as the vermont land Trust and we need to check these easements before a trail is constructed The brilliant conservation commission has managed the lands for a hierarchy of uses including protection of natural resources and recreation There are existing trails dedicated to other recreational uses such as hiking and skiing And the creation of a new trail would have to be a multi-use trail That should not be a problem before the town approves any new trail use the proposal should be referred to the conservation commission for review I'm going to read kind of a punchline of a longer email discussion My weighing in was primarily not understanding the limitation of the ordinance after seeing it identified as basically a passing through I think it should be up to the folks more closely affected and with the stipulation that they stay on the identified trails Would not want to see them on the bike path next door, which is which is state lands and this person lives on cross town road Is it farther up? I don't have a strong opinion but call me skeptical. Is this really really necessary? It doesn't have to be for ATVs and has anyone taken into account noise and fume impacts on houses along the roads Can be very bad for those forced to live near active trails used by motorized vehicles There are issues with curfew in hours idling near homes, etc New snow machines are somewhat quieter and cleaner, but not all are new And those who ride the machines can be well negative towards homeowners or anyone who reports of violations This has happened other places where trails are close to houses It'd be great to set up a clear path for complaints when they came to the select board and allow for a public process And here's the next one I've had a fair number of these machines as well as dirt bikes traveling on chase road past my house Their noise is intrusive and on an otherwise peaceful day And it's really frightening to come around the corner on a snowy day to find a snowmobile speeding towards me For the safety of the public, I believe this is a hazard that can be avoided. I give a robust note to the whole proposal And then the final one I'm not in favor of this at all. We already have ATVs that come down off the mountain and fly down the road We also have traffic from 4x4 vehicles that think the road is for off-roading. I'm guessing that the neighborhood would be either You know public comment Yes Well, my name is Corey Covey. Uh, yeah, you want me to step forward? Okay My name is Corey Covey. I live at 271 Black Road. Um, I live there for about 30 years now I own a fair piece of land there I don't have a problem in principle with snowmobiles traveling back and forth from Northfield into Berlin to Maplewoods or whatever I have some of the same concerns that we've already heard in emails. I think it's going to negatively Uh, affect traffic. Um, what's already become increasingly heavily traveled roads We have a lot of pedestrian traffic in dog walkers and bird watchers and you know bicyclists and everything else Um, I think that's going to be an issue. That's going to be a concern. That's probably the biggest concern I think it opens the town up to some potential liability there, which is also of concern Uh, I think that if Vasa and vast are interested in and making that route they need to find a better way to do it Public roads are not the place for it. We have fairly narrow roads and part of the area That's that's proposed going under the interstate here. The very narrow fairly narrow road Um black road since I live on it for all these years I can tell you it's very narrow almost no shoulders for a good portion of the road Uh, several blind corners. You've got an off camber turn where black road comes down in Fortfield road I've seen I can't even tell you how many cars off that corner over the course of my years here So that's going to be an issue I think it's a safety concern I don't see any safe way on this proposed route to run snowmobiles or ATVs there and not cause problems for residents for recreational users walkers The the whole monopoly of folks So I would certainly hope that you folks would weigh that when you make this consideration Just you know taking in mind the the potential for Liability to the town and also the the increased potential for an accident that could result in injury or worse for the folks That have to use these roads like myself every day That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Anyone else Yes I know I spoke to Josh about the route, but I'm not entirely clear Do you have a map that you can actually because you say it's coming by the church, which I'm not Well, um, where that would be we haven't talked spoke with all the landowners over there I have kind of talked with uh, Henry and Chiflegue who owned property over there Which would impact them and they were like, yeah I know we'll talk about it when the time comes and they weren't opposing yet And the trail the existing trail now goes behind Shaw's and it comes over to maple wood And then through there the state owns some land. There's some other landowners there And we're hoping to possibly talk with them and where we could just Come from behind Shaw's cross cum stock road and get into the field You know this side of the church and then come across Down through the old woodbury That the old woodbury house that that's across from the church They have a big field that goes all the way down to the pond So we go get right down to the pond there And then take the old pond road, which is Straight across from shed road. So we come out right there And we don't have a map exactly of where the trail would go now because we haven't spoke with all the landowners This is like the first So the old pond road comes out This side of the bridge so they would be coming out at a right angle this side of the bridge Correct going across that narrow little bridge unfortunately exactly Now the problem is this two-way traffic this is all going to be groomed once they get on them It will be if you have two-way traffic on just one side of the road or will it be It would be on one side of the road And so from and it would be on um tom willard side of the road Okay, and then that goes up into the field where you can see tracks going up there now Correct Right there and then where do you come in on black road? Right down Right at the bottom, you know where the brook where the little bridge is there right there where it comes out of That's my field there where it comes out of the bottom of my field where you can kind of access my field right there It would come out onto black road right there Well, that's why I kind of wanted to Mention that we really only need about a mile Roughly a mile of actual road use and then and then mainly on that It's not like we're going right down the road or way on the side of the road You know when the town plows a plow three or four feet Beyond the actual traveled portion of the road and you know, that's all we're looking for.  Which because it again, it's a two way On black road. I spoke with the city of Montpellier which owns the land on the left And they definitely oppose it But there's actually an old is a power line right of way down through there And you know, if it comes to it, we were going to try to talk with uh, I think it's washington electric That owns the right of way and that's where the trail used to be there used to be a trail This whole area we're talking about used to be snowmobile trail back years ago And as I had said you know the phone too my my major concern is that now I'm going to talk about our field trails, but um It should be the conservation commission that should be Absolutely, that's that's our next um step is the conservation committee from here because they're the next big Landowner or the You know, that's a way we propose it to go we don't know if once we get up there There's going to be people that aren't going to want it. So we're definitely going to look for another way So that it would be contingent year to year And my concern is that some of those would go off trail, but if they stay on those two trails I don't have a problem because control Normally once there's a room trail system through And signs up saying stay on trail or remove the trail Hey people stay on the actual trail because a lot of times with these machines are so heavy You get off the room trail and you're stuck so Mainly everybody stays on the trail I can't say there is some people out there that do Ruin it for everybody else, but it's very minimal And I'll tell you also it's like 90% of the snowmobiles out there if they find somebody off the trail Or if they're doing something to impact the trail system, they're getting a little talking to And asked to leave actually And we're really looking for this for to start out. It's maybe on a yearly basis just to see Everything's going to work if there's going to be problems Let us know and we'll work the problems out or reroute a different way This is such a Area right here because of the pond in the interstate. There's no other real places to cross There's a there's a crossing over in Williamstown Which is a heck of a lot worse than this crossing right here And then what we would be doing here. I don't know if you've seen the trail system through there But it's they're crossing all the exits and under the interstate and on the road but That's mainly yet Yes, ma'am I'm gail tail tally. I live on brookfield bird 2745 and right past the Intersection of black and brookfield and so I two questions first of all, what's the speed limit? That the snowmobiles would be you can set a speed limit. It's mainly the road Speed limit that's on the road there or it's 25 miles or 35 miles an hour Speed limit is the board could set the speed limit and we could put it to whatever they want to try like moving at Is there any restriction about night use? There's not there is in some areas a curfew of 11 o'clock, I believe but that those curfews can be This day. This is Dave rule. He's the uh president of the very Yeah, you know, you can answer a lot of the logistics on that If we could I've got some maps of people are trying to look to see where the proposal is the visual aids are helpful If you're just passing around So I I want you to know that I get a lot of snowmobiling when I was young my parents had property in northern New Hampshire It was the only way to get in in the winter. It was a heck of a lot of fun. It was it was a really important part of our lives Um burlin pond is kind of a different situation. Um It's a I bought a house there almost 25 years ago because it was so beautiful and so remote And I know what the sound of the snowmobiles are going to be on brookfield road because we've already had them And my house is really close to the road And I'm also speaking for chad wolf who lives next to me and he couldn't be here tonight But he asked me to speak to him as well And so my concerns are a couple um brookfield road right now gets an awful lot of traffic from huge trucks And lots more cars somebody also talked about the the walkers and the the dog walkers and the birders and all of that and there's a lot of people on there a lot of the time And it's congested and it's when the big trucks go by it's bad enough but with snowmobiles they're really really noisy And my house is right on the road. So I think it's going to be a tremendous amount of noise We've already had them at night as well Which is really scary because if it's snowing and they're out there I'm just really concerned about accidents and my driveway is short And I just I don't think it's going to be A very good idea We tried to get like mr. Covney. We're really really against this.  We're really trying to get away from the road right there Very hard to get away from the road right there because we don't like traveling the road with our snowmobiles either And I've talked with the landowners there and um We just can't we can't get through that way They you know, we'll be looking for an alternative But we didn't want to spend a lot of legwork for an alternative if we couldn't get this little section opened up here To get across the pond and under the interstate. That's that's that's what this meeting is mainly about Sorry My name is mark reeves. I'm the washington county director for bass And I just wanted to address There the town would have to have the ability to set the speed limits And the and a curfew on the trail when it can travel when it can be traveled So really an ordinance would give the town some uh Enforcement action they can set fines they can set What roads are open what roads are not open? Um, so there's a lot of rulemaking authority and and having a snowmobile ordinance So and we have had a successful shared use In fact, last year a trail was actually built Into the city of newport so people could access see your restaurants and stuff along like in fermago we uh, we have the soon to be 90 mile along the wild valley rail trail where it's a shared use trail with horses and bikes and walkers and Cross-country skiers. We really try to work because we we're landowners too. So we try to make sure that we Share the the resources of the area as responsibly as possible and I understand your concerns I really do and I would never want to minimize them but allowing The use of the roads the town would have the ability to enforce some Rules and restrictions on the use You can't try and change the noise though There are decibel level requirements. So anyone else Yes, sir Brian Greers from i'm with resident of the town My concern is Well, it's a slippery slope really Here as I understand it. This would be the first time The town of berlin has opened up its roads to These off-road vehicles No, uh, actually years ago. There was an ordinance. We just rescinded it June 20 three years ago And did what there were uh, there was a loud use for snowmobiles on the public roads But that's been rescinded nobody The trails had the when bass came in they took them they put trails where they took the snowmobiles off the roads My point is simply that I think it's I think these folks ought to be able to Go on trails But I think when you open up a public road for this particularly Cross-town road, which is one of the most heavily traveled roads in this area Police has been said that the town access There are People hiking in this area this right outside the door here is a nice drink Where young people come and go all the time during the winter for for stating But the fact of the matter is I know you said that some people will veer off these trails And they're the the bad actors that you try to Control but when they go off the trails here, they're going to be in the public highway There's no question. They don't go off the trail in the public highway Well when they come out when if I understand if they're coming out of shed road or if they're coming out of The trail they're going to come out and there's no cars coming. They're going to be on they're going to have to cross the bridge And that's public highway Probably stay right on that highway. I've seen them I've seen now without a trail so I don't expect it will be any less But I think it should be a real concern for this town to take a step by opening up This highway for this purpose There's plenty of trails that they can use they do not need this one It might make it better for them a more enjoyable ride But that's not a reason for the town to open up this area For this kind of traffic It's just there's no there's no benefit if you will to the people who are impacted by it Um, if you live in another part of town, I'm sure it's not an issue, but anyone living in this area It's going to impact them. It's going to impact them significantly And if it's I'm concerned that if this is the map, this is only showing a small portion of the trail And I would think that the town would ask for A full a full map of the trail that they're proposing And that they have permission from individual landowners as opposed to a pack work Proposal that appears to be before you tonight The only other thing I would say is if the town is going to go ahead with this then they should restrict it to daytime hours I mean, this is a residential area. It's a heavily traveled road Um with emergency vehicles going in and out of all Okay, anyone else I like snowmobiles. They're most 90% of them are great. I moved here from And I had the same concerns. I was on costumers. I'm concerned about traffic I'm concerned about who's going to enforce this. I mean everyone talks about, you know, the the town can enforce all these things You got two or three police cars and uh, four people or five Working all the enforcement and that seems to be a concern, but My experience of living out in north baston was before moving here That they did have fast trails and the snowmobiles were were good But there were a lot of people going out and I think they had 11 o'clock at night Curfews as well and the snowmobiles were passing through there at 10 30 11 o'clock 12 o'clock sometimes on friday saturday night very noisy Up and down the road and it was very distracting. So Living across cross-town road. My concern is that according to the letter I received That'd be coming out of shed roads. I know it's different. So when I'm back here listening, but it just covers about a mile on From the weather before you do anything you have to know where they're going before you can have even this meeting Really?  Well, there was a post on front porch forum that made a sound which wasn't real. Yeah, so my only concerns would be You know being on the highway my cross-down road and the noise issue and Late night driving I mean cross-down road does have a lot of traffic now And then enforcement becomes a nation's cost for the town. I mean, I don't know what benefits are coming other than shopkeepers and you know, like the The gas station up here would certainly that's a starting point according to the letter And they would get a lot of people on their way out and coming back and On the route there's already a trail that goes to the gas station there And the other thing is I mean just in terms of living at the corner. I've been here and the people are all very nice But my wife and I go out every day to get the mail and we end up picking up trash along the road And that becomes an issue too. I mean people whenever you got people traveling you've got You know Pick up lunches and things and stuff gets left behind somebody's got to pick it up The environment is affected by it so But again, I want to come back to my main concerns noise and And I may Probably it's not good to call a club funder anything Right off that got to me Just the traffic's gonna cross down really Thank you Mark Reeves again. I did I want to speak to a couple of those things The state law requires all exhausts on snowmobiles to be 73 decibels or less Using a decibel gum that the state police wheeled quite frequently The other thing is enforcement the county has a contract with the County sheriff's office and we in fact we've bought them snowmobiles specifically for enforcement They have no problem whatsoever With clubs contacting them and saying hey, we've had landowner complaints In a specific area and sitting there and nailing people who are violating We also vast also contracts with the fishing game and the state police to also provide enforcement So it doesn't fall back on the town It can fall back on the town if the town It was something they wanted to do but most towns don't We have the sheriff's department and we have the state police and fish and wildlife who Patrol our trail systems Yes, sir Dave rule of president of the very town thunder chickens the thunder name came from like 1972. It's not representative now Also certified snowmobile safety instructor have been for about 20 years And i'm the county liaison between the 13 clubs in washington county and washington county sheriff Um In our snowmobile class, I mean we're always teaching safety all that kind of stuff But uh, here are a lot of comments and I know we're running out of time. So I'll keep it real short but We've got signs out there that Just all the snowmobiles are used to share juice. So we do a ton of those up the town of very forest There's mountain bikers. There's walkers. There's bird walkers nature walkers Snowmobiles get this so they see these things They slow right down and they're going through one of the things we actually deal with Is the snowmobiles are so quiet these days when people are out walking their dog and stuff They don't hear the snowmobile is coming Um, and that noise will be minimized when they're just going through town going up on the side of the road like this They're going to be kind of just poking along that's not, you know The snowmobile is going to make noise when it's going full bore through to a road But most people aren't out there just to go fast and make noise So I understand the noise concerned but that can be controlled with law enforcement and stuff But they're all four stroke sleds even the two stroke sleds. They're much quieter very clean Engines out there. We have a lot of logging trails out there. So we coexist with logging operations out there The slow signs We've got it all we can do most anything but we definitely appreciate everybody coming out to hearing both sides And hopefully that will help you guys make your decisions. But no, we're running out of time But certainly I can answer any questions anybody has, you know, either tonight or you know after the thing Feel free to contact me very count thunder chickens.com just email My contacts are on there Yes, sir I have a question one, what is it that's before the board here? Um, is it just before the board to use that small piece of brookfield road in the small sections of road that were Is that what's Officially before the board or is it all of brookfield road before the board what was what was uh warned was a public hearing for the uh for snowmobiles and atv to travel on roads, but in the uh in the printing of it It was um allowed to for travel on shed road cross town road black road and brookfield road And I believe they were looking for very specific sections of each road I get that from the discussion But when the board makes a decision is the board making a decision to a mile marker Or is the board making a decision for brookfield road? Because brookfield road goes a long way and there's lots of other places to match to catch up with trails through various places Along brookfield road, so is it that's what i'm trying to understand Are we talking about a very prescribed piece in the ordinance or whatever Whatever your action will be the the ordinance will be if we pass an ordinance it'll be for the entire town And then we will the board will take in allow for specific use of certain parts of each road So if you want it to a mile marker if that's the way you want to view it Yes, it'll be to a mile. Well, I I think it makes a really big difference because I I know there's lots of self policing And that's that's a wonderful thing But you've got a mile straight stretch of brookfield road where you can catch air And there's all sorts of all you know all sorts of fun you can have And I mean I can tell you just from driving my pickup truck on the road It wasn't that long ago I came around a bend where and a rise as we have on brookfield road very limited site Three baby carriages right across the road Full road three baby if I wasn't doing less than the speed limit at that point that would have been a problem So, you know, I I recognize that that that folks are thinking about the little area that they might want to use But brookfield road has a lot of multi-use All different times of the year when there's snow on the ground And I also have another point that I'd like to make about atvs, which I don't understand at all Why atvs would want to be on brookfield road? I mean during mud season that would that would that would just make more work for you guys hand over fist It would be I mean and again self policing It's wonderful when some folks self police But the one guy that's doing the spin outs and we've seen it up on irish hill You can walk up there and see where the atvs have done the spin outs And you know what used to be a place where the water naturally ran over time is is is is now a big You know a big marsh pit because the whole thing got tore up from atvs So I I don't understand at all atvs use on on brookfield road I mean other than just you know transportation from one from one point to another maybe even on your own property But I I don't get it for recreational use make doesn't make sense to me Okay Thank you. Yeah, Andrea Galatano live on brookfield road 649 We've had a lot of trouble with atvs groups of guys on dirt bikes Mountain bikers they decide they can just drop in from up top where the Where the radio tower is and cross our land it's it's posted They do it anyways Just don't seem to care I don't know what the full plan is here, but it looks to me like what they want to do is Go further south and it's just going to cause more problems Yes, sir Jim, I know vice president of very town of thunder chickens and an active member of the local atv clubs as well And it probably would be safe to say that i'm the one that started all this mess by showing up here last July Starting all this stuff going on I heard a lot of things tonight a lot and a lot of fairly strong language and pretty Power charge adjectives and all that sort of stuff and I understand how that stuff comes and goes But I also heard about a lot of things that are already happening currently that people are using for examples to not do this In my experience and I've been doing this since this probably probably started 50 years ago I grew up in this town back in the 60s And we used to ride our snow machines from brolin four corners right under that very bridge and up that trail and around and we used to come across the upper bridge up above And My knowledge the main reason that those are not there is this that's an entirely volunteer organization and stuff happens All it takes is two or three guys that you get divorced or something happens There you move and the guys aren't there to keep the signs up and and the trail fell down So the maintenance wasn't there and didn't get picked up But there's already machines out there part of the research of this it it starts out with any of this stuff Is this physically possible?  And we've done some leg work and found that there really are trails there And all the way we see there's people traveling out there now I've heard people talking about snowmobiles on the road already ATVs on the road things happening They're to just snap one's fingers to make that all go away is next to impossible The next best thing is to get involved with organized groups When you know to use them as a management tool to build an organized trail If people are chewing up the trails and stuff it's part of our job to go and fix that If people are someplace where they're not supposed to be that where the guy dave gets calls Somebody's out here doing something they're not supposed to be they know what's us. They call dave He calls the sheriff things get taken care of We've got the police department right here It's kind of hard to believe you gotta be much pretty quite a numskull to be coming through and Within sight of the police station not following the rules at least in these sections of town where people are concerned I For things there are things that I don't Partake in my partake in myself that sometimes you wonder why do people do that anyway? That must be it must smell bad look bad taste bad make a lot of noise and that sort of stuff But my personal experience is If it really doesn't create near the nuisance that folks are wanting to think that it is Our riders are for the most part licensed drivers. They understand roads.  So they're really careful Night riding is actually more safer than day riding. You can see headlights coming. You can see see what's going on out there I guess to do not Stretch this on all night. We see signs everywhere share the road We can share the road with horseback riding in agricultural vehicles and pedestrian and bicycle riders and all that sort of stuff If if our membership cannot prove that they can responsibly and safely and well making a nuisance of themselves Use these short sections of roads, which is this is what this is really all about Just these short accesses to get from one trail point to another Then the town should rescind that and they should they should not have that privilege But personally, I feel like we still live in a rural state where they ought at least be given the chance You know if they can't behave themselves if they're going to create a nuisance if they're going to create unsafe conditions Then then they're dumb And that's that's where I stand on that. Thank you Okay, unfortunately we've come to the end of the the public hearing on this we'll have two more And You'll be more and welcomed with what's your opinions then but for right now I also encourage you if you want send emails to the town administrator or to any of the select board members If you'd like to if you don't think you can make it back in time for one of the future meetings And the other thing before everybody leaves How many of you folks that are living Berlin Are for this and Show a hand Okay, those of you who would be against this just to show our hands Okay, thank you very much Yeah That's we haven't seen it that's improved that I was not familiar with Can we ask for one? Yeah, let's get one But you know what? It's just we don't know. It's their responsibility If they come again, and they're not prepared and they can't show us what they have well, that's not up for them Did this change some changes to the jacket? I have none Hello Dan All right So at the beginning of october I have a fieldwork done for the audit and that took two days And they're completely done as far as the fieldwork part of it right now We're just emailing each other back and forth for any additional information they may need And the auditory did feel very confident this you could have this done Uh from the beginning to the middle of december, which we meet our deadline as far as having the audit complete So she felt that could happen And then I did forget to include the reports that I normally give to you The trial balance is budget status reports link with tax report Because I'm vacation last week, but I'll send those to you in an email or I can include them in the next meeting That we have I could do that. Okay, so that's all I have. Okay, um approval of license and permit vouchers and applications Move to approve general fund accounts table warrant number 19g 08 which checks 18531 through 18562 in the amount of 88,932 dollars and 62 cents Also payroll warrant number 19-08 for payroll from september 30th 2018 through october 13th 2018 in the amount of 42,928 dollars in 95 cents Also the september journal entries and tax admin adjustment And the september balanced bank statements for the general fund sewer commission and the water division second Any further discussion all those in favor? All right Those opposed motion carries Okay, charles maryman and josh walker black road. Hi, my name is charles maryman um Would you like for me to address it?  No Geez If you had a chance to read it then you know that our Request that cannot be filled today because you can't vote on it But our request is that you extend the width of the uh of the working area that the that the That the walkers have in respect to black road. You said a width of I'm sorry. I don't mean to grill you, but did you have an opportunity to read my my memo? Okay, so, you know it's set to 16 and a half feet and It's just not enough Space because it does not include that portion of the road that is the natural Runoff area for uh black black road And the problem we're turning into is that missed out has been Trying to affect and change in the water flow such that it comes on to the road And josh is being very mindful of the 16 and a half feet Area that he has to work in And she is putting detritus outside of that 16 foot uh 16 and a half foot uh area To affect this redirection of the water And she has no right to do that Because in addition to uh, it just being A bizarre thing to do putting detritus in the middle of the right of way It's not her property. So I don't even know why the doubts are here Fighting the walkers over the maintenance of the uh black road And it seems to me the simple way to solution to solve this Is to widen uh the the uh walkers that area of The permit and it's a problem to go away. So that's basically what we're going to ask you So um, I want to first point out that I think we have a civility problem in this country in a lot of different ways and While I appreciate some of the previous work that you've done mr. Merriman In other other cases other things you've done in your professional work I find the letter that you wrote to be rude and fairly offensive in the way that it categorized missed out and Not withstanding whatever facts, but just the way that you suggested that she calmed down and and various things. I just found it Lacking tact. So I'm just going to get that out there and to that I would respond that I will not Back down from anything that I said there her behavior is outrageous And it's uncivil and it needs to be called up Because very very careful with my words because I make a living with my words and each one of those is defensible If miss doubt has a question about it and she wants to bring up some claim with defamation She can do it I'm not I will speak that way to the court and it will speak that way to this to this uh to this drive union as well because That is the acidity here is the behavior. I'm not talking about his doubts perspective. I'm I'm I'm reading it not as a lawyer I'm reading it as a person who Read your letter and I found it to be I found it to be rude and offensive fine I'm not going to be castigated by like that. I've heard you don't know what's happening We're discussing the permit. Yep So the question before the board is just whether or not to uh widen the permit from 16 and a half to The width of the road because they're you actually don't own the land on that road They own none of that made on that road. We might have grandparents House got sold They used to own both sides of that road and I own both sides of the road down farther And when they that land was subdivided and sold Their property line is at the edge of the road not the middle of the road. Okay so Would you go ahead to so it seems the definition of the term right of way Means that somebody does not own the land because otherwise you don't need a right of way So for me the key the Key pages number three, okay where you talk about Map 98.5 reveals at the doubts 3.4 or 5 acre parcel of butch the west lead to the black road right away But does not extend into it So to me that says they don't own the underlying land Correct And then at the bottom it says although I've not completed my research into the matter I suspect the walkers on the land over which the right of way lies So it sounds like if you had a survey, I mean a legitimate survey Of that line got it right here. No, well The only non-owner That has any right of way would be the town and Josh you have taken the responsibility I mean you came you gave unconditionally by the way You knew you had a water problem. You knew you had an issue with the neighbor, but you Unconditionally took responsibility to maintain that road 60 of the board gave you that permission So it seems to me if the walkers do in fact own that property. There's not even an issue here Well, I mean they can't go into the towns right of way. They don't own the land if if that could go So just quickly on rights of way You're right the land underneath it is owned by some way and it might not be owned by the walkers I've run into some really weird situations where property gets transferred out such that the road Is owned by somebody who doesn't even have the land continuous to the road anymore And if you look at the very map that I show you you'll see that it also Shows that the walkers property doesn't go to the center road either. So it's still a open question I think they probably own it for the reasons I gave that at one time It was all in common ownership with the walkers and then they created a subdivision and when they cut it out They they drew the lines to the right-of-way edge Thus what was reserved might well have been in the walkers But the guard tool right away the the doubts have a right of ingress and egress over that They have a right to travel along it as does josh Throughout the whole the whole length of the right-of-way. So that's permissible But that that that right of the doubts does not extend to taking Lens and things and putting it in right away. That's right But it defines they have entrance and egress whatever and even though even though let's assume for a moment that the walkers Own the entire right-of-way. They can't work on it unless you give them permission Because it's your it's your right away So yes, Dave, so let's assume we own that right away The same the same applies, but not to us you do not own one each of that So you're it seems like you're speculating. No. Yeah, well, David. No I brought a case because I thought you might try to make the argument that Through the presumption that the right-of-way extends to the property only Extends to the center of the right away and that's The presumption But So so we can we can engage these hypotheticals. I mean these are not legally settled issues I mean, I suspect at some point you've made and potentially legally settle it. Let's focus on what the town's role is here And all we can do is control what we do with the right-of-way and right now josh is 16 and a half feet That's correct until you improve ownership one way or the other Then it becomes I guess a civil matter This subdivision doesn't This is a subdivision I mean that's absolutely Irrecutible But it's it is irrelevant. You are correct. What is relevant? Well, it's not irrelevant because we can if we can find out that we we own it then we can notice some against trespass with the criminal outcomes, but With respect to Maintaining blacks black road. That's in your control So, you know if you say 20 feet you say it's a three-rod road if you say three rods Then josh has the right to maintain that But you're right. That's the issue. How much how much width will you give the walkers to maintain Black road in light of our claim that the doubts are interfering with the walkers efforts to maintain the road So if I imagine that when I was here before that the 16 feet wasn't and I was going to be back here And I tried for all last year. I tried to make it all work with the belts and it's impossible It's impossible to deal with these people And I apologize because I don't want to be here as bad as you don't want to be here Yippie, as you say then if they're not in your opinion respecting the 16 and a half feet Why are they going to respect 20 feet? I mean, I it just sounds like you need to take this to the next level Well, I don't you may be right. We may have to I mean we we said in the very beginning I said, well, why are you here? I had an issue years ago. It isn't Where I had problems with the property owner and they were Disrespecting, you know the boundary lines. I'm not saying that's what's going on here But what happened to me bill Jennings was the chief of police. I came up the bill I said bill I got a problem. I explained the problem to him. He said, what do you want me to do? I said, I want you to give me advice as to what I should do Now there was no a sands and butts about who owned what He put some form I'm not going to split hairs with you on the definition He put some form of restraining order on those people punishable by 250 the first time 500 the second a thousand if they broke the problem went away literally overnight I'm not looking to do something like that. You know, and I'm not even looking to be here now I was mainly just to have them stop But my point is if we give you a 400 feet No, no, I think Here's your problem Okay, I'm going to move to table listen definitely Here second For what crowd? For why? For the motion on the floor Second I think we should deal with it I think you should deal with it too Is it tape? No, no, I'd like so. Yeah, I understand question. I think the reason why I could if I did Because The problem seems to judge correctly if I'm wrong. This is uh I don't know if this way this is the doubts house. It's not the way it's configured I don't believe but this is a way of origin. Did you want to see this? Do you want to look at this? I just uh, I would like to just say something quick sure Dave Uh, so I think you had that just exactly backwards that you granted a Um a permit to maintain 16 and a half feet um We've complied with it in every respect And there's a ditch and mowing and other stuff going on outside of that that we're not doing So we're complying with that permit It's not the other way around So so the question is if it goes to 20 feet And you give a permit for 20 feet Is it going to be complied with that 20 feet? So it's not that we're imposing I wonder what it's in 16 feet wasn't enough and what they're doing is about 16 foot width and the Grounds and you can see it in the pictures of the stuff that was all put right where all the blue flags were put They don't get you outside the outside the flags This is this what is on the agenda here is just for the For the width of black road That you are allowed to maintain And this is proving that they don't own black row. Wait, hang on. Let me just what I want to answer teed's question Mr. Kelly's question if you look at the video at the uh, the The pictures of the detritus that's been put in the way it is just outside the boundary line Of the 16 feet It's also Where the water would naturally flow if you extended that area Then mist out would not be able to place stuff In the right of way of the natural flow of the water or if she did then Uh, Josh could remove it and allow it the water to return to its natural flow That's why an extension of the width. I think may achieve the goal that you're talking about Yes, Beth. Yeah, so, um Yeah, uh, so, uh, the reason that detritus which I think usually refers to floating things but The reason the sticks and twigs weren't put outside the blue flags Was simply to put some visualization on where that edge was because it was not getting respected There was absolutely no way that it's had any effect on drainage I build and administer maintenance on roads for living The the email that uh, or the letters that mr. Merriman sent Inferred that there had been natural sheeting That occurred As runoff from that section of road and that's absolutely true And that stopped when josh channelized the water Which leaves an un-vegetated scoured surface that increases the velocity of the water and potentially increases erosion There is nothing that we have done that affects the drainage on that road Period and nothing has been done inside the permitted Access corridor that was selected Well, you can look into the pictures and see like when they have paved their driveway out into the right of way that That's directing the water away, and I've actually before I Took the pictures and stuff I had call the contact of the road foreman to come up and just so that he could verify For the board that there was stuff put in there to divert the walk to block the water The way it naturally shoots Well, this this is just for the for the width for an extension of the width and um I don't know How the board feels that extended width or not Because it is a three rod road and then also why do you have a problem with extending the width when they have no Right to that road when their property line Perfectly shows in the subdivision that their property stops at the edge of the road not the center Well to me, that's a soul matter And the rights away The uh, like I said, we're here just for to hear about the the extension if if You feel that the If you or if you can prove to the road and land under the road is still owned by you Then You certainly have on the On the unused portion of the right-of-way. You certainly have the right to do what you It's pretty much what you want to do is want to go in effect for the road itself So all you have to do is take and figure out how to prove that you own Well, I can prove that they don't own the land Okay, fine. We'll we'll work on that our our request here isn't to resolve who Who owns the right-of-way? Our request here is to be given the tools necessary to maintain the road. It's that simple and That doubt asserts that this that and the other thing and a lot we have something called impeachment a character And uh, you know Mr. Hansen finds me to be rude I've got a video here where they're kicking over a crash can six times Which is an impeachment of her character, which doesn't have which let me finish Which let me more Let me finish evidence is someone whose word is not trustworthy Her statement that that they have maintained The there that they have respected the width of the right-of-way Even if it's true They certainly have not respected it in spirit with the behavior that they've undertaken To redirect let me finish let the water onto Black road in a manner that raises the cost for the walkers Okay, Beth. Yeah, so I'm not even gonna go there Because it's a civil matter and there's a long list of behaviors On both sides of this Originally when you guys were looking at the width of the right-of-way or the access corridor We had concerns that We you know, we have a yard. We've maintained it as a yard And um, that was one of the reasons that you decided on 16 and a half feet I believe he determined that was an adequate width for josh to maintain He can dig a ditch. He can plow. He can gravel grave crown Whatever and that has proven to be true. So So i'm not understanding why it needs to be wider that affects If we want be here if it wasn't true that effects are What we've maintained is our property in our yard 20 feet in front of our yard is a lot So we we have been through this all before So the thing would be So the board to have a motion to extend the width or to keep it the same As I said, you know We let that out. It was unconditionally accepted. We didn't get anything in writing. We didn't get any request to change it a reason why And um Why would we now? Is that a motion p? No. Yeah, okay. I make a motion to leave it as it is. Do I hear a second? Second Any further discussion? Do we need the opinion of the town's attorney? Nina we have gotten the opinion. We do have the three rod right away. Um, he did not weigh in on How wide the permit should be? Well, who was a question? What's that? The motion you mean no the question The question is whether the town attorney um gave us any advice when we're the other about this You know another thing I wanted to put in about this 16 foot wide is I'm in the process of uh Getting a permit now for um adding another apartment down above a barn that I have and like if I have another family living down there and we meet on 16 feet wide which is only 12 feet wide because It's for maintenance and ditch and all this other stuff If I meet somebody on that road at 12 feet wide with another vehicle coming there How are we supposed to even get by each other? That'd be part of the permitting process. Well, that'd be part of it for the uh for your permit for the apartment um We can jump that bridge and we'll get there right now. We're just uh Trying to get this settled and also I think you know, I just I just can't understand why I brought it up The last time or the last times that we have been here when this subdivision shows that they do not own the land Why are why is the board? Giving them the land why is the board saying I can only have 16 feet of this when this Definitely shows they do not own the land Well, the thing of it is there josh is that the The land ownership isn't really it In the town's perspective, but in the town's perspective is the is the protection of the right of way And and I'm trying to protect it too because it's access to my property Yeah, but for right now what we are Have on the agenda is whether or not you want to Extend the width of it. We have a motion from the board on the uh To keep it the same and we are now in the discussion process, but There's been no Information coming forward much to uh Doesn't it show with the pictures that I've sent or that Charlie has sent Of the debris and the stuff that Tim had seen in that in there to show that I need more width to be able to maintain that I mean this pictures and the stuff that came that you've done the board I'll receive shows that they're stopping even their driveway out into where it's phoned it right down to a small area That I kept clean for years and their boys used to come and help me do it For years up until this all started a couple years ago Well in a few minutes we're about to find out Like I say, I think the key to the problem is page three what I'm reading. I know you've said You suspect the walkers own the land Doesn't matter whether you prove they don't let's make sure you do own the land without any questions being asked at your property I'm reading use you predict Okay, I mean I you know if that's what josh wants to do the title research I Don't mean to be And cross them to sanatorium mode, but it doesn't matter. I mean the issue here is okay Yeah, maybe if they own it it might make it easier for you folks to say, okay Well, he owns it so we'll give them a tighter width. Maybe that's the reason why you'd like to know whether he owns it or not But even if he doesn't own it, we'd still ask for a you know It's some guy down in massachusetts, you know Inherited it by way of 16 generations because the land was sold out, you know Say that's the situation We still be here asking for permission for a wider width It would just be so happen that would it be over the property owned by george smith or somewhere Any other discussion on this Can I suggest something sure Back when I was here in the 80s. We had the same problem on chase broke with keely alexander and the leslie family And the only way they solved the problem was is because town does not know Where the center of the road is So the town had it surveyed and found where the center of the road is and then they measured the width of what they wanted for a road over there, so Me going up there and putting those blue ribbons up. I measured from where I measured the width of the dirt and then I measured from the center of that dirt Eight feet eight and a half feet both sides But who knows if I was measuring from the center of the road. That's what I get It's easy enough to see the line of the road. Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything That's that was the key argument they had over there. It changes over time And it ended up that the lesleys were right and keely alexander was wrong Well, the permit though reads Eight and a quarter feet on either side 16 and a half feet centered on the existing room Yes, I know that but to solve the the problem Of this happening all the time. I think it would be wise to find out where the center of the road is So then if you measure 16 and a half feet if you want to leave it the same At least you'll know where you're where you stand with your markers Because I mean the markers Might favor them. Maybe the road goes the other way Yeah, we don't know that's for right now. We just got the motion in front of us. Yeah Okay, those in favor of leaving the road to the 60 in that Allowing josh to the 60 and a half feet signified by saying hi Those both motion carries It doesn't change So you where do we go from here? We can prove that you're something different. Yeah Thank you I did hear from the Greenlander Where we had signed an agreement to purchase power from them. They have found an investor for our project I have had this really rough helper look at this paper work and Decide what was different in this and he has given it the okay, so The um the changes were minimal So I guess I'm asking for the chairman to sign this agreement We'll authorize the chair to say anything that's for second. You're second second Any other discussion all those in favor simply by saying hi Hi It's a tool I broke oh he's a snap-on dealer I forgot it on this truck All those all those in favor Just thought what a bizarre night I thought it was a bullet Thank you Okay, where are we here applications for peddler's permit for christmas trees by michael moeller We've to prove the application of peddler's license for michael moeller Any further discussion Hearing none those in favor signify by saying aye bottom left and those opposed motion carries Approval of suck warden minutes from October 1st 2018 Approved the minutes of the monday october 1st 2018 suck warden minutes presented second Any further discussion those in favor Hi Motion carries How the ministry is important. I have a very short report tonight. I'm just reminding you next saturday Is the fire department has invited you all to come to the memorial dedication recognition service Um at 11 a.m of the firehouse Oh the other town Thank you That's all I have. Yeah, we're going to be back on schedule. No talk. No, I know Around table to be Um, no, I'm sorry Jeremy I have a um a report to Provide to the select board from central to my internet as required by statute. Um, I I have it. It's been approved by the board I'll be sending it by email to all the number towns shortly. Okay, it's all I got You know anything In second session day or not tonight. No move to adjourn


The reason for not having so many clinical trials is that basically we are not recognized as so-called experts in the world of hematology. Knowledge is not the problem. So being in contact with the literature on the subject every day practically, we're following what is coming out new and what are the recommendations, guidelines and everything. We simply don't have the means to implement everything that is in the guidelines. In this way, we are not very recognizable for publishing any kind of data because we mostly have clinical data. Also, the prices for publishing in the renowned journals and the ones that mean something in the world of hematology have very high prices for our standards of living. So we know what we need to do. We can publish what we are doing, but it is very expensive for us to do. And then in exchange for that fact, we're not being recognized as experts. So the international community doesn't really have any means to get in touch with us and to try to establish a clinical trial where we are included or where our patients are included. This is also due to the fact that we're lacking either very advanced technology or very new drugs for implementing in the clinical trials. I know that if we do have a clinical trial, we would have access to the drugs on accounts of the trial. But as I said before, we have to be in touch with the people who would like to perform the trial. So monitoring of the trial would be a problem for the organizer as well because the monitoring would have to be performed by monitors coming to our country. This is not a thing that is already under European legislation. So if monitoring should be done, then there would be someone from outside of our country who would come in here and do the monitoring of the data and the results and everything else. Also what we are lacking is a good department for biomedical statistics which is not developed here and this is something different than normal statistics. I mean survival curves and stuff like that are not a normal part of statisticians education. So this is somebody that needs to be educated in the sense of biomedical statistics. I know that the community does have doubts about the accuracy of the data that we provide meaning that as countries or as a region we have some kind of maybe a bad reputation about so to say fixing results to match to the aim of the study. This is a subjective view. Everything I have said until now is only my opinion. It doesn't necessarily need to be true but this is the view I have on why we are not including the clinical trials as much as we can be. We can provide a significant number of patients for inclusion in the trials but I don't say that only from one country but from the region as well. So we are trying to connect in a different manner as is the establishing of so-called Balkan experts groups. So far we have done that for myeloma which is a very prominent association on these in this region and it has been associated to experts which are readily recognized in the scientific world. So I think this way in this manner if we do Balkan coordination and getting large numbers of centers and patients we might probably pursue a breakthrough in acquiring some more than the present status of clinical trials. I do think that some of the reasons might be hidden in the difference in legislature regarding clinical trials because as you know we are not a member country of the EU we are a candidate for a very long time but the thing is we need to synchronize the legislature so that the patients could enter such clinical trials in not a very complicated procedure. So ethnic committee, ethical committee approvals would be normal and that is something we are even doing now but as far as concerns over patient rights or anything else that is included in the European legislature probably should or could be synchronized as we are advancing towards becoming a member country of the EU and I think that this affects the other countries in the surrounding as well.