The primary agenda item was the examination of the Swan Meadow property, which holds an inventory of trails.

Attention then shifted to properties 16 and 17, now under the purview of the affordable housing trust. It was confirmed that these properties had been transferred and a Mass Housing Partnership grant was already in place to facilitate development. The commission agreed to update their records to reflect this change.

Property number 60, a 51-acre parcel on Meadow Road, was a point of contention. There was uncertainty about its exact location and boundaries, which sparked discussions about its suitability for conservation. One member speculated on its proximity to other landmarks, including a swamp, while another emphasized that the property had a conservation restriction, limiting development options.

The commission proposed segregating town-owned conservation and recreation properties into a separate table for clarity. This new table would include properties like Meeting House Park and Howard Park, which serve active recreation purposes. The aim was to provide a clear distinction between conservation and recreational lands, facilitating better management and public understanding.

Trail ownership and accessibility were other topics. There are trails connecting various properties, leading to a debate about specifying which trails are town-owned versus those managed by the North County Land Trust. One participant hinted at overlapping responsibilities, suggesting, “if there’s something else,” indicating the need for careful delineation to avoid confusion.

The commission also focused on verifying the specific numbers associated with various properties to ensure all relevant conservation and recreation properties were accounted for. This effort involved cross-referencing property numbers and names, discussing their implications, and ensuring accurate representation in the town’s records.

An example of this detailed scrutiny was the property referred to as “Metal Road,” which could not be located under the number 2812. One participant noted the confusion, stating, “I cannot find it under that 2812 number.” This led to a broader discussion about including community facilities such as the library and Senior Center as recreation properties, acknowledging their recreational value for children.

Specific parcels were discussed in detail, with one member questioning the appropriateness of placing a playground in a wetland area, remarking, “Why would you ever put a playground on wetlands?” This highlighted the need for careful consideration of land usage, particularly when balancing recreational needs with environmental constraints.

The commission also reviewed properties intended for affordable housing, discussing the need to designate them accurately on maps. There was a consensus that properties voted on by the town meeting for affordable housing should be clearly labeled.

Discrepancies in the town’s property records were another focal point. One individual pointed out an error in the acreage listed for a specific parcel, emphasizing, “this is definitely an error that is definitely not 51 Acres.” It was clarified that the parcel identified as “2812 Z” is actually “.51 Acres.” This led to a discussion about the need to cross-check these errors against the assessors’ records.

The meeting also addressed the condition of various lands, with suggestions to replace terms like “wooded” with “swampy” to accurately reflect the land’s characteristics. One participant suggested, “why not put add swampy in that description,” underscoring the importance of precise terminology for environmental categorization.

As the commission worked through a list of properties, they aimed to confirm which ones would be added to the new chart and ensure accurate descriptions. There was a collective agreement to revisit certain properties and collaborate with the assessors’ office for a clearer understanding of property conditions and ownership histories.

The commission faced additional challenges in locating specific properties, such as “19440” and “360.” There were discussions about integrating properties associated with the Granite Road subdivision into the broader mapping effort. Historical classifications of some land parcels as “landlocked” required further investigation regarding their current ownership and intended use.

A suggestion for a bus tour of the trails was made to increase public awareness, particularly for those who may not venture beyond the town center.