Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Acquisition Scoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks board pauses phase-two rescoring after GIS acreage discrepancy and agrees to add rare-plant layer to application
Summary
At its May 14 meeting the Scarborough Parks and Conservation Land Board began phase-two rescoring of five parcels using a new GIS-driven application, identified a polygon/acreage discrepancy on the Nonsuch (91) parcel that requires consultant follow-up, and endorsed adding the state rare/threatened/endangered (RTE) plant map as an application prompt (tentatively 20 points).
The Parks and Conservation Land Board on May 14 resumed phase-two evaluations of land-acquisition applications using a newly deployed GIS scoring app and paused the session after finding a mapping discrepancy that could materially change a parcel’s score.
The board began by reviewing five properties to benchmark scores generated by the GIS layer against the board’s prior qualitative assessments. Chair led the session and Nicole, who operates the GIS application, presented the baseline scores and map polygons that underlie the automatic point calculations.
When the board reviewed the parcel labeled “Nonsuch (91),” members found the app’s polygon reflected roughly twice the acreage the applicant proposed to sell (the app showed ~60–65 acres while the application and the buyer’s survey indicated a 30-acre purchase). Board members agreed not to adjust scores on that basis until staff and the consultant resolve whether the mapped polygon or the applicant’s survey represents the acquisition boundary.
The discrepancy matters because several score categories — parcel size, floodplain and wetland extent, and public-access calculations — derive from the polygon. Nicole confirmed the app allows manual point additions or subtractions and provides a notes field; the board instructed staff to ask the consultant why the polygon and the applicant survey differ and to document any fixes before final recommendations.
Members also debated how to treat habitat designations derived from statewide maps versus locally collected observations. Nicole explained the form separates potential habitat (H1) — map-derived layers indicating possible habitat — from observed presence (H2) — documented species on site. Several board members and invited experts urged the group to recognize ephemeral or hard-to-detect species and to allow manual score overrides when local evidence (site visits, bioblitzes) supports it.
A related, substantive change the board endorsed in principle was adding the state rare/threatened/endangered (RTE) plant map layer to the application and including an explicit application question prompting applicants to disclose known rare-plant occurrences. Members discussed risks of publicizing exact rare-plant locations (collection or trampling) but concluded that including the RTE layer as a flagged data source and building protections into public materials was the better way to identify and protect botanical values. The board tentatively assigned 20 points to the RTE-plant question but directed staff to refine the question wording and the point allocation.
The meeting produced several other clarifications for the new form: the board agreed that river corridors count as a linear ‘‘trail’’ for the connectivity score, that scenic-view scoring should include any visible river or stream (not only tidal rivers), and that the stewardship/budget questions should be reframed to separate routine stewardship allocations from capital or improvement funds (parking lots, boardwalks, major trail construction). Members expressed concern about double-counting stewardship versus capital-improvement dollars and asked that the application explicitly prompt for a budget breakdown to identify funds intended for improvements beyond standard stewardship.
After extensive line-by-line discussion, the board paused the scoring process because members felt more time and corrected materials were needed. The board scheduled a follow-up meeting in June to finish phase-two evaluations and to conduct a site visit for pending applications. Staff will contact the map consultant about the Nonsuch polygon issue, add the RTE-plant prompt to the application draft for review, and prepare revised budget-question language for the next session.
The board also recorded two procedural actions on the record earlier in the meeting: a motion to accept the March minutes (moved and seconded; approved by raised hands) and a later motion to adjourn (moved, seconded, approved). The follow-up meeting and the site visit will be coordinated by Chair and staff; no final parcel approvals were issued at the May 14 session.
