The meeting’s most pressing topic was the endorsement of Todd Tichen for the vacant commission seat after Tom Seiford, the other candidate, withdrew his candidacy. Tom, who has participated in many commission meetings, expressed his excitement about other commitments, including his involvement in a stormwater task force. He stated, “I guess I would call it I will withdraw my um my uh candidacy,” signaling his decision to step back. The commission members expressed appreciation for Tom’s contributions and noted that the decision was a “win-win” situation. Following Tom’s withdrawal, a motion to recommend Todd Tichen for the vacant position was made and seconded, with all members voting in favor.

The commission also dealt with the Dudleyville Dam emergency situation, where they needed to ratify an emergency certification related to dam construction. A member highlighted the importance of confirming the emergency status, saying, “with dam removals, it’s important to make sure it’s an emergency,” and expressed confidence based on input from two engineers who confirmed the emergency status. The commission then moved to ratify the emergency certification. An update was provided on upcoming site visits connected to the dam project, with contractors looking to begin work contingent on weather conditions. Members discussed scheduling an erosion control inspection and expressed hope for favorable weather to commence work.

Additionally, the commission addressed several site visits, including a visit to 678 Pratt Corner Road involving tree removals and the addition of a curtain drain, and another to 30 Suer Mountain Road for a carport proposal, which appeared to comply with conservation regulations. Other visits included 16 Cornwell Road for a garage project and Wendle Road for a building addition, both deemed acceptable due to adequate distance from wetlands. The new library on Leverett Road was also discussed, with erosion controls noted to be in place despite limited visibility due to poor weather conditions.

The topic of conservation easements was also prominent, with Mark Waitman presenting his situation regarding an open space special permit. He explained that he had a 4-acre building envelope on a total of 18 acres, with the remaining land needing to be placed under a conservation restriction. Waitman expressed difficulty finding an entity to hold the restriction and referenced a suggestion from the planning board to bring the matter before the commission. He detailed the legal framework governing the restriction, which would allow for limited activities such as farming and residential use while preserving the natural state of the remaining land.

There was a discussion about the enforcement of conservation restrictions under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 184, sections 31 through 33. One participant expressed hope that the local Conservation Commission would oversee compliance, as town involvement would likely lead to more consistent oversight. The participant suggested a fee be charged to the landowner to cover inspection costs, which was believed to be standard practice. The conversation revealed differing opinions on whether such a stipulation was necessary, with some viewing it as a helpful reminder for future owners and others concerned about potential confusion and burdensome nature.

The meeting also included a discussion about the order of conditions concerning the lowering of Lake Wola. One participant, Adrien, outlined ongoing efforts to extend the current order of conditions set to expire in January 2025. Adrien emphasized the need for a three-year extension to prevent any lapses in authorization that could complicate the winter drawdown process. The commission members expressed general agreement on granting a one-year extension, with a note that it would help accommodate the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process.

Another topic was the debate over specific conditions related to 31 Lake View Road. The property owner and their lawyer sought to amend an order of conditions to facilitate the application for a certificate of compliance, emphasizing the need to waive seven specific conditions that were to remain in perpetuity. The lawyer argued that these conditions were excessively restrictive and constituted an unreasonable burden on the property owners, potentially affecting the property’s value. The commission engaged in a detailed examination of the conditions, with some members advocating for a collaborative solution while upholding the regulatory framework established by local bylaws and state laws. The interaction underscored the importance of understanding the legal implications of the conditions imposed and the potential for future amendments based on the ongoing discussions.