At the forefront of the meeting was a discussion regarding various grant opportunities and their alignment with the commission’s objectives. The commission focused on the already approved support from the Marian Stoddard Greenway Fund, which is set to assist with due diligence costs, including a property survey estimated between $8,000 and $12,000. Members expressed the importance of including the Natural River Watershed Association in communications about the contractor for the survey.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the DCR conservation assistance grant, which promises coverage for appraisals and environmental site assessments but notably excludes legal fees for land acquisition. With an application deadline of April 30th looming, members deliberated on the timing of applying for a survey in relation to securing a Conservation Restriction (CR) holder. The consensus was to wait until January to reassess after a scheduled meeting with the North County Land Trust, due to concerns that a survey conducted without a CR holder might necessitate updates later.

Further complicating the grant landscape was the challenge of engaging with the National Heritage, Freedom’s Way. Initial attempts to connect resulted in difficulties, and concerns were raised about the grant amounts offered, which ranged from $500 to $3,500, being insufficient for the commission’s needs. As a result, the commission resolved to focus on the community planning and resource conservation grant, which appeared more relevant to their objectives.

Discussions also touched on the need to clarify the potential for the stewardship fund to assist with the legal defense fund. Members agreed on the importance of pursuing a scheduled call to understand the coverage details of the stewardship fund and to consider the necessity of a potential process for surveying, which could involve dividing work into parcels and obtaining quotes from different companies. The contracting process was emphasized, with members noting that bids were not required for expenditures below $10,000.

The meeting also addressed the preparation of a letter of support for a conservation restriction on a specific property. Although there was initial debate about the letter’s recipient, consensus was reached that it should be directed to the town. The letter would express straightforward support for acquiring the conservation restriction, contingent upon a survey confirming any historical significance.

In relation to the conservation restriction, there was dialogue about the management of forest habitats, despite acknowledgment that discussions might be premature without a CR holder. The commission reviewed materials from national heritage for management strategies and sought clarification on whether a forest or habitat management plan was required by the prospective CR holder.

The meeting progressed to reviewing a report intended for the select board from the conservation restriction committee. The report outlined goals such as protecting interests at Squanakook Meadows, providing space for town soccer fields, a future well site, and preserving priority habitats. Members scrutinized the terminology used.” The need for grant-writing support from the select board was discussed, with members agreeing that experienced grant writing could improve approval chances. The town was noted to be the necessary applicant for certain grants due to Tesa’s non-municipal status.

A point of contention emerged over the ownership of the soccer fields, which impacts municipal grant applications. While it was confirmed that the town owns the property, further discussion was deemed necessary to clarify ownership implications for grants.