and a type two oh that's weird um there's type one and type two this is from the uh previous set of regulations and um each of them have an aura but the performance standards are different so the type one which has more flow more for longer periods of time than a type two um would have the performance standards that are um spelled out in theb lens protection act Riverfront area performance standards for the inner 100 feet um or the inner reparan Zone as called and the type two which is a more intermittent stream it doesn't have as much Continuous Flow time um would have a lower standard of protection but they would both have 100 foot buffers on as defined um by the methodology that um has already been approved by the commission here in seven 0225 um and again this is all pretty much the same language from the previous RS and the riverfront area so this is a new section because Riverfront area was not a protected resource under the previous bylaw so uh we didn't talk about Riverfront area at all in the regs last time around because we couldn't um but that 200 foot zone is already protected by state law and the state law RS are pretty good um because those RS were adopted most recently they're newer than the old some of the RS for other resource areas and they're quite detailed um um so this is just really kind of bringing these regulations into a alignment with the uh State RS for Riverfront area um here are some just Preamble information I'm not going to kind of get into all that um and then here's a definition the river front area and the definition is based on the distance horizontally U from the mean annual high water line of a perennial stream only a perennial stream not intermittent streams there's no Riverfront area for intermittent streams um and some information about how the mean annual high water line um is defined and uh the characteristic SS of Riverfront area and it just basically referencing the state regs here and the presumptions um again um and the performance standards um no no work activity or work other than the maintenance of an already existing structure which will result in the building of within upon removing filling or altering a Riverfront area should be permitted except upon a clear showing by preponderance of credible evidence that the values are not going to be harmed so it doesn't mean um that you can't alter Riverfront area but you have to have this credible evidence um showing that there's not going to be an overall adverse effect and um in state law there's a requirement for an Alternatives analysis and our bylaw also requires an alternative analysis So This spells out this process an Alternatives analysis is basically kind of an analytical tool where an applicant demonstrates that they've looked at other options and the option they're proposing is the only practicable one and practicable is defined as being um kind of reasonable and capable of being done in terms of uh what is available on the land what is the Project's purpose how much is it going to cost what kind of technology is required um overall project cost that you know if something was prohibitively expensive then it wouldn't be a practicable alternative and again there's this piece about alteration and wildlife habitat evaluations which is regard under state law and it's included in these RS all right and then down here under vegetation this is a little um this is a little different so the vegetation removal and replacement performance standards that we adopted with our regulations had a a table for replacing trees and the table was based on the number of trees being removed and the size of the trees so the more mature trees which have more benefit to the environment and to Resource areas would require more replacement um saplings so if you were cutting down a a really mature tree you might have to have you know several you know or two or more saplings I don't have the table in front of me so that's kind of thinking that you know the priority is to preserve overall amount of vegetation and to compensate or mitigate for removing mature trees um in looking at other communities a lot of communities have tables of this sort and everybody does it a little bit differently um but it seemed to me that another way to go that was a little simpler was to tie the replacement to where and the landscape the tree removal was taking place again prioritizing the revation or maintaining vegetation within that 50 foot aura or the inner Riverfront area because that's being prioritized as being an area to protect and not having the same um concern for areas outside of that um where presumably the environmental impact of the tree removal would be less um so I'm just suggesting this as a simpler way to do this and also as you'll look this ratio for replacement is um less onerous um as you can see within within the outer 50 foot it's just a one to one tree replacement or for four shrubs for one tree um and then it's a different ratio for the inner 50 foot um and there's a definition of which trees would be um subsequent uh subject to replacement so at its discretion the commission may Grant a waiver to this requirement whoever the following replacement shall be required in order to obtain a actually this should probably go up above because it says following all right sorry about that you might want to check that um in order to obtain a waiver so people would have to um go through this process and the location of the trees be verified by the commission and have um there there would also be um the opport opportunity to modify the replacement quantities and types if the commission made a finding that it was going to there was going to be an undue hardship or that the trees being removed aren't going to really have a value or an impact on the Valu so if there's some trees being removed that are kind of right by the road and or you know in the right of way and aren't really very close to the Wetland maybe the commission might say those are not as important as on that are providing shade and habitat um wildlife habitat for resource areas close to them um okay so that's again something that the commission can consider you know I think you know it's worth looking at what are you actually requiring and and what do you think would is is really feasible for people and fair and um affordable as well as you know it doesn't help to kind of have a formula that's too complex and that the just isn't going to use you should try to come up with something I think that is usable and practical um all right so I believe that that is all there is oh and then we've got procedures and permits we're almost done actually um I don't see any changes here uh a butter notifications little bit of difference here in the new bylaw um about the wording of an AB butter notification um it is not necessary now for people to send a copy of the plan to applicants which we weren't requiring people to do anyway but it wasn't really practical to do that um and um the notification to a Butters can also now be done by USPS certificates of mailing which is approved under the bylaw and it's much less expensive for applicants there's in significant Savings of maybe hundreds of dollars depending on how many Butters you have um by going that route so that a good thing that the bylaw has that um this is just some information about abbreviated notices of an um resource area delineation or anrs um you know basically applicants must provide information on the red form and must fulfill the filing requirements the submitt of a complete and accurate description of the site and project will minimize requests for additional information which could result in delays and the commission may also require supporting materials be prepared by other professionals including but not limited to and then there's a list of people the reason why there's might be other parties is that for example um if there's an intermittent stream the commission might want to have a hydrologist um or other kind of environmental scientists weighing about uh the delineation of the intermittent stream and where it begins and ends um so the commission could require that anyway this is just letting people know that the commission could do that the next section small project permit this is basically the same language that's in the bylaw or was in the previous set of regulations under administrative approvals where as you may recall we weren't allowed to call uh this permit process a permit um under the previous bylaw so we just called it administrative approvals which um you know we're allowed to do commission is allowed to um you know uh issue administrative desk decisions um or letters to people but anyway so this is just basically the same Lang anguage from the bylaw and these are the criteria that the commission had used under the previous rigs um and the requirements for uh permit and the process for approval and you know there is uh the commission can approve or deny a permit by majority vote if the commission decided that something didn't really qual qualify as a small project permit it would deny the permit and then the the applicant would have to if they wanted to go forward would have to probably apply for a different kind of permit depending on the circumstances what permit that would be um rdas again this is just the certificates a mailing thing nothing's changed and a wi nothing is changed in here public hearings there's a little bit of uh different language about public hearings in the bylaw so this is taking some of that information about a commission having the authority to continue a public hearing and if an applicant uh did not agree to that continuation then the hearing would close and the commission would take whatever action um it deemed um it could on the information available and it could mean that they deny a permit um if they didn't feel like they had enough information and then the legal notice excuse me is uh at the applicant's expense um but that the commission um will arrange um the the notice publication as is current practice coordination with other boards this is just updating the language to mirror what is in the bylaw and decisions this is again language that is mirroring the bylaw and reasons why a permit could be denied um again this is in the bylaw and uh no work can commence with a permit or an orad um unless it's been recorded in the Franklin County registry of deeds [Music] and um that the uh commission will send a copy of the permit decision to the applicant um under security this is um just revised language that was in the bylaw so this is again taking the exact language that was in the bylaw um extension of permit okay this is all the same we're almost done project changes okay enforcement um so this is language taken from the Buton bylaw under enforcement um and it is all the same um the 21d provisions are here um so just updating that section and um J Janice and I this last section 17.8 5 um it was the um the language that was in here was um taken from from um some regulations um from some some other communities and it was a little vague what it meant it said something like comp a failure to comply with any certification and previously approved plans and it wasn't really clear what that means um so we just added this extra language here or to seek approve U failure or or or failure um to seek approval from the commission for any modifications um to plans prior to the commencement of any unapproved work meaning um that you know if you're in the middle of a permit and you're starting your work um and all of a sudden you realize you need to change your plan but it wasn't that change hasn't been approved that could be a potential violation if you don't come back to the commission and inform them of the need to change the plan and to get their approval in whatever form that approval needs to take um under enforcement order uh Janice suggested um that in situations requiring immediate action the order could be signed by the commission chair if unavailable um should really or if unavailable um another commissioner because that's sort of standard practice rather than um what I think the previous draft had said which was an agent it also said or a member and it's just usually that's not usually the way consumation commissions do it usually it's the chair that has that responsibility to make the decision to issue an enforcement order and you don't leave it up to a member um they may not be in sync with the rest of the commission the chair tries to make sure it he or she follows what the commission would would want and then it gets ratified at the next meeting so it just seemed too broad to just say any any of the members could could issue an enforcement order so I thought that the standard is for the commission chair to do it and if they're not available then another commissioner can and that kind of mirrors what happens with emergency projects that if there's an emergency project uh the chair can issue an emergency certification um that then gets ratified at the next meeting right yes all right I think that is all there is um I'm just looking I don't think there were any other changes here under um emergency projects um you have to say who is doing the work and it's an example contractor or homeowner but in reality um usually it's a public agency so Janice suggested putting the word public agency in there because um it could be any of the above um that's doing the work for an emergency project but usually ends up being most emergency projects are brought by you know um Public Safety or the highway department or Fire Department or something like that um and that's it I think let me look I don't think there was any other changes nothing um oh this was under the required narrative this was Janice you had suggested that they include that was just a wording change methods to be used for control yeah control of erosion sedimentation during and after construction um where that such methods are necessary there could be situations where it doesn't make sense to use any erosion controls because there's not really a risk of um runoff and I don't think okay site and site visits this another small wording change it said you know that um under non-urgent conditions the commission shall give the applicant or the representative advaned notice of the pches visit refusal to permit time to permit per MIT timely site inspections under an application or permit may result in enforcement action or permit denial and so before it just said enforcement action but adding also permit denial um and then the fee schedules are as they were um with the changes that the commission had approved um earlier this year and then the other thing this is all moving on here um so the appendix a had the five categories for calculating the fees for notices of intent and those five categories are based on the definitions of the categories from the wetlands protection act but it wasn't clear that that's where you would go to look for definitions of those categories and the the categories were kind of abbreviated and um Janice and I were concerned that an applicant might get confused because it didn't use the exact same language that are in the uh State Rex so we suggesting we're suggesting just revising appendix a in this way with the exact language from um from 310 CMR at 10.03 7c which is where they have all the categories for fee for the fees and you can have an abbreviation in your instructions um for applicants but the regulations is kind of the go-to and the commission would rely on this to decide whether or not an appropriate fee had been calculated um because there could be a situation where maybe um somebody counted wrong and didn't fill out the worksheet and either is paying too much or too little so um so that's what this is and we took out omitted the items that had to do with Coastal projects because obviously that isn't relevant for shitz faury and then the second recommendation for appendices was to add abbreviations and so Janice put this together of um all of the abbreviations that are in the regulations they're already defined in the the text of the regulations but this could be um a kind of a go-to for people to refer to um if they find that the terms are they can't find where the uh acronyms are spelled out okay great we powered through it you did you powered through it that was great that was a good a good summary and um I guess I speak for everybody say thank you so much to both of you for for going through and making all of those those updates and changes um proposed updates and changes that was a lot of work um so we definitely um 100% appreciate all of that um I do have I have some questions and things that maybe we can talk about maybe I'll start with one and then other Commissioners can can ask theirs um do you want the document up so we should I put it back up sure okay and I'll just scroll and you can uh I think this is it okay yeah one thing I wanted to just kind of talk about because it's a little confusing is in the definition section you you even you went through the intermittent stream definition um and that has to do with you know the streams that that go underground but when I think of an intermittent stream I think of intermittent versus perennial and it's almost like when the definition we're saying an intermittent stream meaning one that you know tends to go under round for you know the 200 foot it's an intermittent stream that's an intermittent stream and I'm wondering if I I'm just wondering if other people think that that is probably we should probably come up with a different term than intermittent for the streams that go underground yeah I know what I understand what you're saying yeah and and and it is defined um in the performance in the under Inland resource areas there is kind of a a and this is true sometimes you'll have a definition under definitions and then it'll be Amplified in that um section for Inland resource areas so um you know I think that it's already defined um you could possibly just incorporate this in those definitions and take this out because it's you know still defined as long as it's defined under resource areas you know what I'm saying yeah I guess I because it is defined as you know an intermin stream as being one that um I think it's even defined as inter in um under law an intermittent stream is a stream that doesn't that has a watershed that's under a certain threshold right so that's that so that's not defined in terms of how much flow there is um or how long it flows during the year it's it's how what the size of the Watershed is right that's why I'm thinking this type of stream where we're saying it's um you know the entirety of of the subsurface or subra and portion of a naturally occurr these are the streams where our our new kind of streams that we want to protect ones that that go underground um for a portion I think you're absolutely right I think that I think we we still want to include them we just seen a different name for them than intermittent stream because because obviously like you're saying under the state and everybody else thinks of an intermittent stream as the the the state regulations Define it I think I think the thing I think that there's two things going on here one is I think that we should have a definition of interman stream that is consistent with how everybody else is thinking about intermittent streams um and I so I think this needs to be fixed um but I think that this is a characteristic of an intermittent stream which is that it loses surface connectivity um but may have flow um so that even during periods of because that was the whole thing that that Patrick Garner had said that even periods of during you know an intermittent stream May dry up during a dry period but even during periods of high flow like in Spring an intermittent stream May Lo may disappear it may go subsurface and then how do you figure out what to protect what what land area to protect so that's what this language was about was about that 200 feet but I think that this that's really um belongs probably under critical characteristics or defining characteristics yeah I see yeah I see what you mean Beth and and I agree usually you say intermittent stream and you're thinking of a stream that just flows along the surface and occasionally dries up and patches or whatever versus one that's actually going underground losing the surface connectivity as it says there and then back up so I think it would be good to somehow be able to have that slightly different so that we don't lose that connectivity underground connectivity thing that we had to deal with it with patner and do so much work on right that's a that's a that's a definition that addresses a different issue I mean like there's there's an inid stream which is like a stream that's clearly is the character characteristics of a stream but it's not perennial right it doesn't have the Watershed size so it it doesn't it doesn't meet the criteria for perennial however this is addressing a different issue which is that you know when you have lengths of this intermittent stream that have no stream bed characteristic you know you can't there you know there's a stream bed for a while and there's bank but then the bank disappears for a while you know where does the jurisdiction start and stop yeah and I mean I know and it's talked about in in another section so in the end Maybe we just don't have this definition in the definition section because I think that's where it gets confusing to me is that you're actually defining the term intermittent stream differently than like in the riverfront section where you're where you're talking about the difference between perennial and intermittent streams in that St standard way so I'm wondering if we anyway I something that we need to just the commission needs to just kind of figure out how we want to distinguish Within the regulations those two different things I yeah I agree I absolutely agree with you okay I'll take a look at it and if I I can email the commission if I have some thoughts about it afterwards but that's it was good catch yeah um and I don't want to hog all the time to um we could do you know one question at a time do other Commissioners have some questions comments no do you want to take a would it be helpful to kind of go back through kind of section by section path or do you I'm just wondering if we would be jumping around quite a bit sure we can start from the beginning if people want to want to do that a very good place to start yeah so I had I had no questions with the with I guess most of article one let's see where I yeah scroll scroll down this that you know jurisdiction that didn't have any questions on those changes I did have questions about these General presumptions and I think think it comes from I see repetition with um what's in these General presumptions and then what's in the bylaw the back end well the back end of the document where you're talking about for example like the the there's the aura section um the aura resource section in the in the back of the regulations it has its own um presumptions and and it there's just a lot of repetition I find and I I uh that's just my comment on it I guess it's not really a question it's just something that I think as we kind of try to finalize these regulations I because because this is a this section has grew a lot from um yeah well let me just explain where this comes from so this is from the MACC model bylaw so we didn't B we didn't write it I think Mr McGregor wrote it or somebody at mecc did um yeah and so it's in the bylaw and so I just copy and paste it from the bylaw it doesn't need to be in the regulations because it's in the bylaw right the regulations expand but it sort of like I felt like to not have it in um leaves a big piece out um I mean you could just reference the bylaw say General presumptions shall be as you know as so stated in you know section blah blah blah of the bylaw and then you don't have to restate it um because it's already in there um and if that's more uh concise and makes sense to the commission that one way to do it what I had a hard time with this why the reason why I put this under this whole section is that each of these paragraphs kind of talk about a whole bunch of different things and so I couldn't sort of Fe where would they go if I were to go to article four which is I think the um performance standards for resource areas like I couldn't put it under Aura because it's also talking about Riverfront area and you know I couldn't talk about you know resource area loss because it was also you know would apply to every resource area so that's why I thought General presumptions um that was my thought about it yeah I I I like when it refers to climate change and things that maybe aren't necessarily discussed as much later in the document um I think it's yeah it's just something we'll have to kind of look at a little bit and see if we I want to include all of it more but I mean it all it's all good I guess it's all good information it's just I don't like to see sometimes when I feel like I see repetition in a document like this you know it's just like is then I feel like in the end people aren't going to read the whole thing if it gets to be too long and too rep repetitious of of yeah you can you can forgo it as long as you make sure that whatever you do have an article for for resource area performance standards is not inconsistent with this language because this is in the bylaw so you don't you have to do this you have to follow this you don't get a choice about that so um you know again you could just do it by reference saying it's a general presumption you know and then reference that section of um the bylaw which kind of spells out this analytical framework for how the commission is supposed to be making decisions and what they're supposed to take into account um hold on one sec um let get rid of that okay so go ahead yep no bad that's all I have for that section all right anybody have other things that there I'm inclined to agree with what you said partly because when you get into the meet later there seem to be things that were a little bit conflicting or confusing so something was expressed one way here and then later slightly differently which if you don't know what you're looking at that's that makes it more difficult but I also have a question so we've got a lot of stuff up front and that verbage appears to be for the commission and it may be for the average citizen to understand how the commission is making a decision but I guess from my point of view not knowing you know how everybody else does stuff you know if if I'm if I'm picking up the regul and I want to do something my first thought is I go to the regulations I look for what I want to do I see what you tell me I have to do you know how much it costs and what forms I have to fill out and that's what I want to see up front if I want more description about the details of some of this stuff I could ask the Commissioners I could go you know maybe have an appendix with this kind of material in it and and get to that same stuff or I could have a bibliography if I really want to study um but waiting through the tens of pages of stuff here before I got to how to do what I want to do I found pretty offputting and I'm wondering if that's a an organization we have to stick with well I you do you want me to respond Beth well I I'll just say that I I do think the general structure of the document is um is kind of standard and and it it mirrors the state regulations in terms of the sections and what order they're in and um you know a lot of the back end again where you actually get into the different resource areas a lot of that is actually just straight out of the regulations and and the and is set up this the same way in the same order things like definitions though I've seen I've seen in all kinds of different state different towns will take a definitions for section for example and put that at the end like they put that almost as an appendix um so I guess there is some ways to start to start the document a little differently um but we can look at that can I I make comment yes I God had his hand raised yeah did you want to go Scott I'll defer to you and then I'll I can go after you yeah I mean I I think that um you know having a table of contents is helpful so people can see the overall layout of the regulations um but I would just advise the commission again that as I mentioned earlier regulations are really intended to function as rules and analytical tools for the commission to use um they're not written neither these regulations or the state regulations which are about 264 pages long and are very confusing and redundant and circular um so um neither of those are intended to serve as instructions for an applicant to figure out what they need to do the commission has to have clear re instructions for applicants and guidance for applicants and a process for Consulting with applicants and walking them through the process of applying it's very complicated even if we didn't even have a by lot and it was just the wetlands protection act permitting is complicated and people need help and support if they don't have professional Consultants doing it for them the commission has to do that um and provide that guidance Within and I think the commission does have some instructions and some materials on its website and can continue to refine those but that's really where applicants should be going and then you know the regulations you know an applicant can read them um and they're they're they're they can they're absolutely um allowed to do that but I don't think it's they're written with that in mind to be in guidance for the applicant it's not a how-to manual for the applicant there has to be something else for applicants just build on that and say I do think that you know reviewing these frags it's really important to uh I think to the degree that can provide Clarity for the commission and making decisions and stepping down the bylaws what's most important I I hear what you're saying Janice I I don't think the the regs document is a place where maybe people would be starting and I I do think that there's a need for some form of FAQs or a worksheet or something that takes you know the bylaw and the RS and and translates it to something more simple for applicants to to look at gu I I agree I think most people who um have a project they really want to know what's allowed what's not what they have to do and I think we can I think there are companion documents that we can do to step this down and make that easier for people tianis Stone uh yes I just wanted to say I I I agree with what um Scott is saying that there should be separate uh paperwork that serves as instructions on how to apply for different types of projects and um I think you guys have done some of that before and that's the standard way that this most people and like I think maram was saying the state Wetland regulations no applicant could go into and figure out how to do the the application it really um it's it's meant for the authority um who's um doing the the um implementation of the permitting to to go through the weeds and some of it some of it is inscrutable I mean I've there's some parts of it I've read a dozen times and I still it's like you know because it's referencing other things you [Music] know yeah no it's it's such a learning I mean I've been involved with Wetland stuff now for 12 13 years and I still find new things in the state rights all the time and I'm like oh okay then it's a constant learning um what else I wanted to if people have questions go ahead I'm just I'm searching through mine well we're still in this section is there anything um I had no questions in that section all right you know definit um you know it's always kind of like a balancing act of how many definitions to have but um I think you know definitions are really important um and certainly have a a role in what makes something legally binding or not because if it's not defined then um if you don't Define it in the regulations then it becomes um you know subject for controversy later potentially wh did I just lose the screen share No we're still doing it no you're there is does this list of definitions this the exact same list that's in the bylaw or is this a expanded list of what's in the bylaw I took the list um and I you know you guys can see my document I've lost it hold on one second okay here is I guess so I took the definitions that were in the regulations we passed in 2023 I added definitions that were new that are in the bylaw and I also added some definitions for things that were not defined um but are in the bylaw for example I I I I have to go back and look you know I don't remember if adaptation was in the b or not I think adaptation might have been in in our um or regs there were you know so it tracks pretty closely with either the 2023 regs or the bylaw for the most part um and in a couple of instances you know I I looked at um subsets of other towns regulations and looked at definitions that were commonly used there was a definition that was used by multiple communities I figured that's probably reflecting kind of a consensus in the field yep as long as it's yeah consistent with what's in the bylaw um that's all good I have to be the same you can have more definitions like you're not limited by the definitions that are in the bylaw and in fact that's one of the purposes of regulations is to Define terms that the bylaw doesn't Define so you know and I would say to the commission if you think there's any terms that are relevant that are not in here um this would be an opportunity to add them okay so I I had no other questions about the definitions I didn't either um how about the next section which was uh gonna give you all my brain scrolling through here um getting there okay the next section is the general provisions and there weren't many changes really the there was the storm water stuff do you want to take a look at that yeah I had a question in in that um let me get there um is this it okay storm water management so again the preambles are not standards for say they the background information the commission might use to help inform it and to put in findings so this sentence this section are new do you want me to read them that's a the Preamble part I'm okay at least I mean I understand okay then performance standards yeah so the commission requires applicants to demonstrate that no significant change an offsite runoff from existing conditions will result from the proposed work which by the way is in the state regs so um that's being consistent with the wetlands protection you can't shunt your your storm water off to somebody else the post project hydrologic budget must equal the pre- project hydrologic budget and the commission may require the preparation of a budget um to demonstrate that the one it's a little wordy it could probably be better when um um because it's sort of saying um I don't know if you want to use the the preparation of engineering an engineering report to demonstrate that the water budget is going to be maintained I mean is that what you want to use I mean that's what the hydrologic budget is is basically an engineering analysis and that would be at the discretion of the commission whether to require it or not right um yeah I I don't know I we may want I we may want to just change some of that language a little bit I need to think about it a little bit more how we want to refer I almost think that the standards and stuff but my my real question was that 6.22 one all oras all oras shall be considered critical areas that's that's in that's in the current RS that's in the state regs no it's in the current regs the 2023 regs yeah okay I need to I just need to look up what that just I just noticed it right now when we were going through and I I just I want to look up what that what the outcome of it that is um in terms of meeting the the state standards well it wouldn't be under State Standards because an aura is not a critical area under State Standards so you know the buffer zone is not um there are certain things and I have to go back and look maybe Janice you remember what what qualifies as a critical area well that's why I'm wondering the definition of a critical area and under the the current D storm water standards if if something is a critical are area what what does it have to do because there's something ringing in my head that I that those are usually more um specific areas than just the buffer zone which is really the aura so anyway I thought maybe you were Janice can explain that I don't remember right now okay just looking on um I'd have to go back and look um because I'm just just drawing a blank right this second um you know my my understanding is that it's not it's not a um it's not a critical area under state law but because it's a resource area um and alteration of it is considered to be as important as alteration of other resource areas um you know alteration of other resource areas I think would be critical areas so anyway we can go back and look at that um but I think that a number of communities do this with the regulations this was wasn't an unusual piece okay yeah I was just trying I flagged it when you were going through thinking critical area like what what what is what do the storm water standards require of critical areas um it just stood out but okay we'll look that up going back one Higher there Maran to 6.21 what we were just talking about before it seemed that um the part that you had highlighted I I think that part makes sense to me it's the The Following part that maybe is giving them further down the weeds and what would be necessary if you can scroll up a bit I'm sorry what Scott which part can you can you scroll up a little bit yeah right there 621 yeah can you hear me okay yeah I I guess I thought there should be something about a statement of the expectation there's no significant change and it might be that that's enough you know like I thought was yeah I thought the part you have highlighted there in the purple yeah I thought that was good I think we it starts to get into the alteration of cover types that maybe that's oh that that part I don't know that it's I mean there are lots of things that could affect um type runoff characteristics you know including that but I I just didn't know if that but sometimes by by listing some in that listing others I I think some of that could be deleted yeah I think I agree I mean I think that the issue about I think there needs to be a statement that the commission has the um discretion to require bmps if it need if it determines that they're necessary um so I think that that that's important because that's also that the commission has that discretionary Authority Under The Wetlands protection act so restating it is I think important and I think this issue about direct runoff not being permitted into a resource area or offsite is also important because um those are performance standards um is there is there some overlap to if you scroll down to the next piece where we talk about 6222 loss of prvious surfaces where again talking about infiltration and presumably runoff are those sections perhaps connected in some way because they're saying the same thing that's how I read it [Music] um it's hard to uh gonna get rid of this comment because it I change things yeah so I was thinking maybe those two sections could be combined and maybe make a little less less redundant and and and get to the piece I think you're looking to add which is you know we have to follow the state W protection act that bmps may be required if we're going to be changing the amount of runoff yeah agreed and then this piece about a waiver you know I think that's important I don't think you want to let that go um I I I'll I'm happy to tweak this a little bit and bring it back to you guys this is good feedback again I'm just really impressed with all the work that's g into to drafting this so thank you these are minor tweaks I'm I'm really very impressed with all the work that you and Janice have done bringing this forward so I want to say thank you I I didn't have any more in this part I don't know Beth Or Janice if you did did Bob ever join us Bob are you out there no I don't think he did I'm looking oh no no I'm here oh good hi Bob how you there if you have any comments questions raise your hand I absolutely will okay yeah I didn't have anything else really until the docs and peers section okay let me get down there um and again I just um you know I took a stab at it um trying to think a little bit about what the commission's policies have been um and um what some of the parameters are with state standards and uh just for reference uh I don't know if you guys can see my comments here but you know Westport Kingston hangam all have um section s for docs and peers in their bylaw regulations and there more towns I just are the ones I looked at and one of the reasons why I was looking at those in particular hams and Kingston is because as you'll see their regulations are very recent and um they've did a very thorough job with their regulations and those towns have great ponds and so they had regulations for great ponds I know those are coastal towns but the regulations were because they also have great PS so um how would you want to attack this B read it together yeah because there was something sorry there was something that I when we were going through before yeah if you want to just okay pre so applicants seeking to install docs um are encouraged to familiarize themselves with DP um that's kind of not necessary that's just really I mean that would be like you know you might want to put that in some handout for applicants so it's not really essential that you have that statement um the construction existence maintenance use and repair of water dependent structures which again is defined under what a water dependent structure is over time is likely it has significant and cumulative adverse effects on the values individual or multiple structures in close proximity to each other have the potential to degrade resource areas by altering water quality water circulation bottom simens Banks land underwater bodies aquatic animals and vegetation Fisheries Wildlife rare species docks peers walkways and floats have the effect of segmenting wetlands and may inhibit their functions increased erosion scouring and undercutting of banks may also occur in their vicinity docks can cause shading boating activity associated with docks can result in turbulence through prop dredging and wakes adding suspended sediment to the water column thereby degrading water quality smothering vegetation blah blah blah boat traffic generated from docks can cause erosion of Banks and BBWs so this language I know seems a little maybe not appropo to um you know what the purview of the commission is but but it's um it's in a lot of other regulations um lake wola is a uh Great Pond designated by chapter 91 and chapter 91 licensing requires an order of conditions or determination by the commission before a license can be issued so that's seems worthwhile to make note of that in recent years and from time to time Lake wola and portions of its Watershed have been designated and mapped as priority habitat by natural heritage projects in or near priority habitat must be reviewed by natural heritage independent of the jur the commission's jurisdiction um um but is I feel like there's something projects but I think it me are significant are significant to the values of the bylaw before granting any order permit or other determination the commission shall require proof of natural heritage review um as required by state law because that if if for some reason it lost the uh lake whale lost its NH um ESP designation then it wouldn't be required so that's another reason around the order of conditions um when you do an noi the application the state Wetlands protection act form three gives the applicant instructions about notifying natural heritage natural heritage is clarified that even if it's an RDA if it's a dock in Lake wyola you still have to notify them but the state RDA form doesn't tell them to do that and that is I think kind of creates this this ambiguity it and potential for confusion if the commission required a notice of intent for docs then the applicants would see those instructions on the form but if they're allowed to apply for the doc through an RDA process then the commission would have to make sure it tells the applicant in advance that they need to go through the natural heritage review process and that could Jam them up yeah I I mean I agree with with that I I mean I understand all of that and that that's how it goes um but and I think this is one thing that I saw earlier n priority habitat and um estimated habitat is is reviewed and changed by the state on kind of a regular basis and so you know there may be other areas within Town besides the lake lake wola area that get mapped for Heritage and having this in the regulations just it makes me a little nervous because of the fact that Lake W the lake wola designation might change over time it may not be listed anymore um I feel like this that's why I put in in recent years and from time to time um because making it clear that that could change um I mean said more explicitly again just kind of um spelling out this um I feel like that that section would belong better in in somewhere where we're simply talking about natural heritage not um talking about docs and peers I guess well except that um I suppose you have to do a review if you're not if you're doing work in priority H in prab you have to go through the review process um even if it was and there are a couple of other little areas where there's prab in in shutesbury right it just seems like in terms of a permanent standpoint um you know the the two other areas that I'm aware of like right now there's no development it's just forest habitat so it's really lake wola is where this becomes kind of a a development issue yeah I don't know I just feel a little strange about having that in the regulations um what about if it were to say um M you know if if um a if if a doc application is subject to natural heritage you know jurisdiction um you know the commission will require proof of the review I mean you we have to anyway I mean you have you have to not we you have to but somehow I think making it clear in the regulations and in your instructions to applicants seems really important yeah it just it just stands out to me that that can be anywhere in town where there's natural heritage not necessarily just where the docs and peers are being put in you know so having it be in this section just seems just kind of odd I don't know we can we can look at it I just wanted to point that out I guess and oh okay what other people think Scott you got your hand up yeah I I had the same thought and I was also just looking at the previous sections up until 101.6 and wondering I mean I think they're they're kind of reiterating kind the science of how some of those structures could impact resource areas but I I didn't really see them as regulation in and of themselves you know no they're pream they're preambles it's it's more it's more just general information relevant to the the decision- making that the commission and and sort of facts that the commission might rely on in making a permanent decision um it's not a these aren't performance standards these are um just sort of background ancillary information that might inform a decision so the all the way all the 10 point ones do are part of the preamble to help kind of frame the Commission in terms of what the potential impacts would be yeah that's the structure that's been follow throughout the RS um so so again this a decision point about requiring an order of conditions um we wait so here 10.17 the the commission encourages land owners to obtain chapter 91 licenses for pre-existing docks so that's a policy that the commission has taken it's not a um it's not a performance standard um whether you want to put that in the regulations just to kind of underline that or not is is up to the commission to decide right now you have that in the Preamble yes because it's not being say it's not a um so then there's when we move down so we can see how this all interrelates so then we've got this definition navigation here are the presumptions where proposed activity involv a water dependent use or the construction or use of a water dependent structure such as a dock permanent or seasonal peer or float the commission shall presume that such activities or structures are significant to the values um this presumption is rebuttable and may be overcome by ponderance of evidence showing that the activity or structure does not play a role in the protection of said values if the presumption is deemed to have been overcome the commission shall make a written determination to this effect setting forth its grounds that's pre-standard pattern for presumptions and then here are the performance standards so the commission shall only review a proposed dock Pier or other water dependent structure that is not a float or swimming platform upon the submission of an noi so that's the decision Point are you going to require that or not I put that in that you could decide to change that such applications shall include proof of application submission for NSP approval again you might want to take that out because um the uh prab may not be there the prab um mapping is um subject to change over time and proof of having initiated a chapter 91 license again you don't necess that that could also be not necessary because you could put that in your order of conditions so you could say to somebody all right you know you're going to have to come back to us for a certificate of compliance and show us that you got the chapter 91 license they can't get the license until they have the order of conditions so you know they can initiate the application but they can't complete the application until they have so um it could just be that you put in your order of conditions that as the commission has done in the past saying that it won't issue a certificate of compliance until has proof either that the license is uh duly recorded at the registry or that um the doc is no longer in use and no order shall be issued until a minimum of 30 days if it's elapsed from submission to nhp that again that state law you know putting it in there is really kind of stating a policy um decision because you're required to wait 30 days anyway um but you know here's the kind of rub about an RDA with an RDA you're supposed to um H open your public Hearing in 21 days from the filing of an RDA but that isn't enough time for natural heritage to do its review so you'd have to open the hearing and then you'd have to continue it to a date after 30 days yeah um Bob you have your hand up oh I think you froze uh oh you there Bob thank you for Bob um he'll come back he'll come so um so that so you know the nhp stuff you could take out you know um because you know again it's referencing something that is more subject to change over time um I'm just going to highlight that so I can find it again um and that's again you can you've got to decide you know are you going to require an noi or are you going to allow some of these to come through on an RDA and if you do an RDA you just then you have to be really clear that there has to be this 30-day review period with natural heritage and then you know how are you going to um ensure compliance if you're order if if point of the conditions is that people have to get the license because you don't want to permit a project you don't want to be permitting a dock that then isn't in compliance with state law I mean there's the other I remember having a conversation with Mark Stinson about this that one of the conditions of an RDA is that when you apply for an RDA you have to certify in your application that you're going to be in compliance with all state laws so you have to get the chapter 91 license if it's for a doc because state law requires that um but how would the commission um review compliance with the permit if it if it has no mechanism for coming back to the applicant yeah no it makes sense to me I mean in the end you're you're you would be in resource area most likely especially if you're putting in a new dock because you're going to be affecting bank and and land underwater with with the actual structure often and if you're in a resource area you should be filing a notice of [Music] intent so all right so let's move on so um the commission so I'm this is a a decision point but I was proposing that the commission propose that seasonal floats buoys and swimming platforms which get removed um could be reviewed perhaps under a small project permit because um you know they're they're only in place for a year or for a season do we I'd have to maybe when we get to the small project permit application we can go back and I'm just trying to remember remember if we really talk about those types of things there but I think we had an exclusion for docs um I don't I have to go back and look I knew that we excluded docks from it you couldn't do it for a doc but um I'm not sure I mentioned floats and buoys and that's why I was thinking you know maybe be you know to make it a little easier for people who are wanting to put up things like this so that's something to think about um I'm just gonna that red all right if the commission receives an application for any proposed activity on a property with an existing but unlicensed doc Pier walkway or float a condition of the order of condition shall require the chapter 91 license be obtained certificates of compliance shall not be granted until proof of a duly recorded license is provided to the commission so that has been the practice of the commission yeah and then while each application shall be reviewed on a case-by Case basis the commission shall also consider cumulative adverse impacts on Whitland values um caused by the installation of multiple docks peers or floats within the same resource area or adjacent resource areas um application for docs peers walkways shall comply to the greatest extent practicable with the applicable design standards from the DP um small docs and peers or as it may be amended as well as all local state and federal regulations pertaining to the installation of such structures so that's another performance standard docks peers floats shall not degrade resource areas during construction or for the life of the structure design and construction of such structures shall use best available measures to minimize impact sighting shall avoid or minimize placement over vegetation and then structural maintenance of docks peers or walkways or any portion thereof shall require the owner to inquire of the commission is to whether the work will require a new permit maintenance of a wooden structure shall not include hazardous materials um and that's something to think about because you know there are you know I know of one instance where um the commission permitted a wooden permanent dock it wasn't a removal seasonal Dock and so there is the question about maintenance for structures like that um not withstanding the provisions listed above no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on rare species habitat and and maybe that's enough to say that and get rid of all the natural heritage stuff up above yeah Storage storage of materials stored in an area outside of a resource area except for the aura or Riverfront and must be transported there too without causing damage so obviously people might need to store their docks in an aura because that their whole property is in the aura yeah um but I I remember there was a a project we reviewed a year ago or so where somebody was storing um their dock in a bvw so so that's that okay um how are people feeling do we need to stop to stop at any point and um maybe I'm not used to this I'm out of practice at these Marathon sessions we because we have another meeting tomorrow night we have a regular meeting tomorrow night um I don't know how do people feel um well I I could stop [Laughter] anytime I'm thinking my thought would be um that I think we've we I again thank you so much Miriam and Janice for doing all this work um and I feel like we have raised a few questions and things that that maybe you can make a couple tweaks or whatnot and then um get us the sort of the latest version of um and then I mean in a way I feel like at that point then as a commission we need to start just going through the different sections um kind of finalizing it how we would we want it finalized and then eventually bringing it um to a public hearing at one of our meetings Carrie I was gonna ask if uh Miriam could send the presentation like the PowerPoint slide she Shar in the beginning just so that when I reference it for the minutes I can have it attached as well um I know when we were going through the draft there were a couple places where I went oops there's a typo or something got cut off I don't know if anybody was taking notes of when those were because I'm gonna have to go listen to the recording to figure it out does anybody did anybody take notes not on that I Harry was just referring to the PowerPoint the six or seven slides which okay a nice reference no it was when we were going through the draft there was a couple places where all of a sudden it looked like there was a sentence missing and I'll have to go hunt for it it's okay you you outlined that one in red but you did a couple other very minor um corrections to spelling or something on why okay right well thank you for um taking all this time with us oh thank thank you for all your work on this I mean that was huge just just bringing the regulations up to to matching what's in the bylaw I mean that was something that had to be done and and it's really wonderful that that the two of you were able to do it so thank you very much um and so yeah I think that'll be the way forward if you make you know any changes from this meeting and then get get us the most recent version then we will we will take it from there um but thank you very much does anybody have anything any other things to talk about just to reiterate the the thanks to maram and to Janice for all the work on this it was a ton of work going through this and reading it and lot of careful thought and so I just very appreciative thank you me tooo worri welcome it's mostly Miriam as you can guess but I read it all over a few times I'm sure you did y thank you to both of you thank you thank you guys for being interested and willing to take another evening of your week to and time before that reading it to to deal with this we will we will keep on working on it so we get our wonderful final regulations all right I'll take a stab at it and get you a draft and I'm going to sign off so good night okay good night thank you Miriam thanks Miriam good night um all right night Janice um all right so we'll see the rest of you guys tomorrow night all right motion to adjourn I some move I'll second it all right Rowan hi con hi dougas hi and Wilson I all right thanks everyone good night thanks everybody take care