e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e hi Scott's it going good what you good are you still in your trailer I am near the end is it hot down there it is well it's actually turning into a nice day here the humidity is dropping good yeah tonight I think it's supposed to be like 40% I don't know yeah it's definitely the humidity that wears you down that's when it doesn't cool down at night yeah yeah do you have air conditioning in your trailer key I almost didn't get it I was like yeah you know it's kind of like growing up in New England it's like yeah we don't need airish and that's getting to be more and more untrue as time goes on I think as we get older we get a little more sensitive to it I think you're right but I think also New England's just getting more I feel like The Summer's been more humid and kind of gross and you want your air conditioning yeah for sure kind of yucky my dog is freaking out she does not like humidity yeah it's uh almost everything it's seems like it's getting uh hotter and hotter more extreme weather to just the rain and all of that just how hard it rains now yeah we had a few good storms during July few good ones but then at the same time it's been so hot during the day we're like teetering on that drought question sort of you know yeah all right I see Bob hi Bob and Jan is here and Carrie and uh and is Doc here I don't see him I know he responded to the email asking your um to be present okay I mean well we're going to open the meeting hopefully he'll join and he can learn uh you know what things are going to is there um all right I'm gonna open the meeting it's 7 o'clock on July 25th I'm calling the this meeting of the shury Conservation Commission to order this meeting will be recorded um and so I guess we'll hold off I wanted to sort of introduce our new uh land land use clerk so Carrie Marshall and I see some other faces on I see Todd who's interested in the commission I see Mark Stinson who is um from Western Mass D who we deal with a lot he does the reviews of all of our um applications for us so he's here to just kind of meet you guys um just so you know Carrie Marshall is sort of our outgoing land use clerk she's got a new job opportunity that she's heading off to so we've we've hired a new land use clerk but I he was supposed to come tonight but I don't see him on the call yet so hopefully he's going to join but I'm gonna have him introduce himself and talk about his hours and um and just so we can get to know him a little bit um but while we're doing introductions mark would you like to um just say hi to everybody so our our members are Scott con Bob Douglas and Jan Rowan um we have a vacancy right now and actually we have somebody we have two people at the meeting right now who are who have expressed interest on being on the commission both Todd um how do you say your last name Todd T it's tachin tachin Todd teaching and Tom Seaford are both so Mark you get to meet the whole crew hi folks so I've been doing this job for 20 years and I have a pretty good historical knowledge of basically all the projects that have been going on and shoot Berry for the last 20 years because I've reviewed most of the projects so I mean Beth she's been around a while but I mean for a long time you know there was significant continuity then of course recently there's been a turnover so it's good meeting new people I'm available uh Beth can send you my contact information email and phone number my job is to provide Technical and Regulatory assistance to all my towns I I deal with 106 towns out here uh all four Western counties as well as five towns in Wester County uh so it's not I do all the notice of intent reviews all the uh paperwork a lot of paperwork uh but I also answer questions from Commissioners or applicants or Consultants so don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions at all I should be able to answer them I very rarely get stumped so nice meeting you all and Mark is a source major source of any kind of information having to do with the Wetland World um Bob you have a question yeah for forgive me is it okay if I ask Mark a question sure Mark hey I've got two two quick questions for you I know that uh some D Regional folks offer education for uh individual commissions is that that something that uh that you do in this region sure I've done it been doing I've been doing workshops for a long time I've done other workshops in shuberry before for other you know previous Commissioners uh I usually like to invite surrounding towns to attend so I get more bang for the buck that way but sure I can do something we'll meet in town hall you got the big room downstairs at plenty big enough to do a workshop down there oh I think we're all really addicted to being online but uh um you learn more if you if you're in person trust okay fair enough um and what's the nature of those workshops bark what what do other commission or what do commissions generally like to well usually when I have a whole bunch of new people it's it's the basics Wetland protection act Basics that's what everybody needs even people who have been on commissions for 20 years they forget things you know especially shoot bar you don't have as many projects I forget what file number you up to but you know like Pittsfield I just issued a file number 1256 amoris is up to 800 some OD you guys are still in the low like 306 or something you know you don't see that you don't have enough constant applications and you get used to things around the lake septic system Replacements you know and and you forget the rest of it because you don't typically deal with it so I like sticking with the basics it's about an hour and a half presentation and you know it's pretty good I tweak it update it all the time so it it is current so yeah I'd rather stick with just wons protection act Basics you don't need to know storm water for the most part you don't need to know uh not much about flood plan uh because you don't get into it much so yeah we protection at Basics great yeah and if I may Madam chair just one one other quick question mark I I know that um uh some com commissions um do conditions on uh rdas uh uh and some some don't um I I was wondering if if you knew what what percentage of towns do do kid condition rdas and what what what do not it's usually let one thing first when you when you write an order of conditions you have the legal ability to go on the property after the order is issued to inspect you do not have that on a determination so one of the special conditions you should always include is the commission reserves the right to go on the property to inspect the work I just want to throw that out there so typically the commissions that have file numbers over say 300 where they have experience they typically do add special conditions to their determinations the commissions that might get one request for determination every two or three months they often don't because they don't remember they don't have the uh the skill set to do that they just don't have the experience so I usually spend two or three nights a week out out there you know I have 106 towns it takes me years to get to everybody and I bring that knowledge but by sometimes by the time I have a time to go back to that town it's a brand new turnover so I do the best I can commissions do the best I can but again when you have a stable commission uh and they're they're more experienced than the small towns they usually add on the conditions I mean I still have several towns out here who in the who are the file numbers are in the teens so uh new Ashford Monroe uh there's one or two others uh Holly even is in the 20s I think Wendell hasn't had that much New Salem isn't up that much you guys are busy because you got the lake let's put it that way yeah we're on our last one was number 306 yeah well we'll definitely um try and organize a training like that with you I think September would be pretty good you know Beth you and I can work on a date you know I I just need a projector uh for the room downstairs Town Hall you know okay great that sounds great great thank you anybody have any other questions for Mark I think he's just here to see how we're doing press the fles so well first thing on our agenda is minutes um we've got minutes for three different days June 26th July 11th and July 18th Carrie I unfortunately was unable to send the 626 I think I listed okay so it's just the two from Janice okay speaking of minutes if Doc is not here who's who's taking tonight's minutes because he was supposed to Becky told me he was going to I did send out an email to him to see if he was having any trouble so I'm hoping he does end up coming I'm just unsure okay Carrie do you mind just you know taking down some notes right now I know we have the zoom so people can always two minutes by watching the meeting yeah that's fine I mean assuming it's probably fairly short tonight so yeah it should be short anyway but somebody could do it um okay so then we have July 11th and July 18th minutes available has everybody had a chance to go through the minutes yep any comments or changes to to either set of minutes no okay um then we need a motion to to approve first we'll do the July 11th minutes I'd like to make a motion we approve the July 11th minutes okay second oh second great um col hi Douglas hi Rowan hi and Wilson I and now we'll do the July 18th minute I'd like to make a motion we approve the July 18th minutes okay second second all right Rowan hi Douglas hi and con hi I'm Wilson I all right great our our uh 7:15 hearing got cancelled because um they weren't ready they they didn't submit their butter notification but also they just their application wasn't quite ready um so we're not doing that tonight and I'm thinking I I'd like to move it to the eth of August the next big question is I'm going to be on vacation that week so I'm wondering if if there's anybody that would be willing to to run a meeting on August 8th or if we should just either reschedule it for a different night um possibly like the next week uh then we'd have sort of back-to-back meetings because we'll we'll have a meeting on uh we we'll keep our schedule with our meeting on the 22nd of August um but we could just move the meeting for the 8th to to keep it on Thursdays we could do it on the 15th and have two meetings back to back or if somebody body is willing to to run the meeting on the eth you know more more power to you U just for continuity sake uh Beth I it would be my preference to kind of move it to the the 15th if if uh um we might be able to get our our new commissioner on board by that point and uh I think that that might be uh a good move okay that's fine with me um I think I may have let Jake Mitchell who's at 678 um P corner I may have just said to him that we're going to move it to the eth but I can talk to him about moving it to the 15th since his application really wasn't ready anyway yeah Beth the last notice of intent I have is that 70 L drive this is a new notice this is a new it's an RDA oh RDA okay yeah it's uh 678 cck Corner Road oh okay did you get it uh it rings a bell that's right you have a butter notification under your bylaw yeah okay yeah um yeah Carrie had her Carrie do you know if we got the fee from him I am unsure so when he emailed with his application I did also see that he got a Butter's list um I told him that I received it digitally I asked him if he could confirm with me that he submitted two hard copies and the fee to town hall because um I am working from home technically until um doc starts so I was just looking for a confirmation from him um and then I explained to him that I would put together a legal ad and have it posted and I sent him a draft of the butter notices that he would have to send out um and then I didn't hear anything from him yeah I don't think I've heard with him since I did try to follow up one or two times and I still didn't hear anything and that's when I called you on Tuesday yeah I ended up calling him um I think somebody from his office called me back then he texted me that he he was on vacation and he just said I didn't get the abutter notification out um so I feel like there's a few missing pieces there um so we need to we need to just move it to the 15th probably did he say when he was coming back from vacation he's back now yeah he didn't even want to do the site visit today that was the other thing we were going to do the site visit today and I I said can we at least do that part get it done and he didn't he didn't want to do that either um so we'll see where it goes what was the address on Spruce or prad Corner um 678 yeah I don't see we received it okay all right so moving on um I think at this point I might what we've we've got so we we we had a vacancy for a while and we've had some interest from a couple few different people for the commission so two of them are here tonight um and since they're both here um I thought I'm thinking maybe they could introduce themselves and and tell us about why they want to be on the commission I we've Tom I think has already spoke to us about that before um but why don't we just have both of them uh introduce themselves um Todd do you w to start hi everyone uh I'm Todd teaching uh I have been living in shsb for seven years I live on great Pines Drive um near Jan I know Jan um I also know Bob just by sight I see him around once in a while um I'm interested in doing service for for the town and I've been looking in into various committees and I thought this one sounded really interesting I am very um committed to Wetlands conservation um I am currently a professor of English actually at UMass L I've been at UMass LEL since uh 2011 um and I teach classes in environmentalism and and literature and environmental writers so I've been very interested in um ecology and environmentalism from uh an academic standpoint but I'm looking to do sort of more Hands-On stuff and I would like to learn more about uh Wetlands preservation and um yeah I mean I guess that's I guess that that that's that's that's my interest I I think that you know I me I have a lot of of background obviously in writing and in education and I think I could contribute from in terms of like the educational mission of the commission and I know that you're um in the process of writing bylaws I think that I would have a lot to add to that too um plus just you know I have a lot of energy for the uh I have a lot of energy for Wetlands conservation ecological issues and yeah that's it if you have any questions I'd be happy to take them so do you do you go to LOL do you you live here but you teach in LOL do you go back and forth or do you do I do but yeah I'm I'm I'm a full tenur Professor I'm only on campus a couple days a week really sometimes three days a week um and obviously I in the Summers I'm off so and and over holiday you know the end of the year holidays I'm off so it really ends up only being eight months of commuting and it's only two or three days a week so it's not that bad it's not that bad yeah so you so you'd be here you know for site visits and meetings oh yeah yeah yeah yeah I'm I'm I'm I would be able to do all of that yeah okay well thank you for your interest I think you're quite welcome I love it I love having people interested yeah any other questions any anybody else have any questions for Todd all right thank you yeah thank you thanks for coming tonight um Tom would you like to introduce yourself hi thanks Beth how you doing um good evening everybody uh everybody can hear me right super um thanks yeah actually a little caught by surprise I didn't know this was going to be part of the meeting tonight uh so I'm really glad I attended um and uh I will say like along with the surprise it's such an interesting story to hear from Todd and like really gladdening that there are like a couple of people and uh who are interested and um part of the surprise was just some of the uncanny overlaps uh so it's exciting to see that I think two very interested people with such similar backgrounds in some way um might be able to offer here so I think it's just a great situation to be in um I've also been here seven years uh and I uh had been a professor of a language it was German but um at UMass but I no longer do that uh congratulations Todd on tenure um I uh I was more of a teaching faculty member uh where 10 do usually come into play um now I work uh as a tutor with a place called the literacy Volunteers of orange and AOL we do adult literacy or um English as a second language for newcomers to America and uh I live also right uh beside the lake on uh South Laurel Drive uh the lake uh but not just the lake uh all of shs Berry's nature um really drew me in once I uh started living here in 2017 and back then I would not known have known to uh even word them as Wetlands or um you know auras and other things so I've really learned a lot over the last couple of years by also kind of attending and being interested in the Conservation Commission work about um how to define and sort of discuss with goals and regulation the the land and the forest and the wetlands we have so it's been very exciting for me for that um I hope I could contribute in similar ways similar ways to what Todd said um with writing and a good eye for detail also with a strong education background um so I'm just very excited tonight to see another candidate who I think also sounds great and also want to continue to express my own interest thanks for letting me speak up hope I didn't speak too long oh great thanks Tom thank you very much yeah it's great to have two people and I think I'll um I'll reach out to Becky and find out about the process because I think that it's time we took a little break we had so many things going on new bylaw new regulations turnover of a whole lot of people we kind of left that vacancy go for a little bit but I think maybe it is time to to make a make a new appointment to the committee so I'll reach out to Becky Becky is the Town Administrator Becky tus um Tom did you I forgot to mention it's probably important um because I think it's significant from what I gather uh Todd is not in a role yet in town government and uh correct me if I'm wrong please Todd I don't know that but um I have the I'm glad now to be able to say I'm an associate member on the planning board and I was recently appointed to the task force studying the storm water uh runoff and the erosion uh so I uh think that's important perhaps in all of the consideration that's going on or I would imagine it could be um and I forgot to mention that I already have a lot of involvement that I'm really glad to have that might be yeah that is worth noting y so that's you're on the the planning board and on the that storm water task force that's what you said yeah yeah and I applied but we don't know yet um it's kind of I think it's a big pool of candidates for the um I'll call it the Boating by law the watercraft and personal use of the lake bylaw okay that committee is going to be appointed within a week or two um so anyhow I I think that's for me that's just important information to consider yeah yeah no that is that is important um I suppose you know a little bit about that storm water task force they're gonna have just they're gonna have public meetings right but I'm just thinking we've had one and the next one is I believe August 15 um tends to overlap unfortunately with the concom meetings because the last one I think was on the same date as a concom meeting um yeah but uh yeah that will be the second meeting I think it's finished shoot for at least once a month if not every two weeks yeah okay I I feel like um maybe one of us can be somebody who might regularly attend try to attend those but you're right there is going to be some overlap where they're the same night so yeah okay well great thank both thanks to both of you for being interested and for um talking a little bit about yourselves tonight that's great and I'll reach out to Becky we'll get something moving um okay I think we should jump down to number five which is um because we're sort of scheduling things that's site visits and scheduling um what I have on the books is August 1st we're doing a site visit to 30 suner Mountain Road I think everybody who can is going to that one right 4:30 a road is is in too just like the one we didn't do today is that another one of those you go out to come in what was that I think you turn up your I can't the volume I couldn't quite hear you suar Mountain Road is on the edge of Amherst too yes yeah it's um it's off of January Hills Road it also shows Amherst when you look it up there we go yes yeah that whole area okay they have the ammer ZIP code yeah yeah so that's our next site visit that I have scheduled um I apologize Beth could you just recite that uh that address again just so I can enter in my calendar 30 suner Mountain Road thank you so much sure um do we know what time that was 4:15 4:30 4:30 yeah and then um Jan I don't know if you saw there was an email from the Ames Pond people from castral land trust it came today I'm assuming it went to everybody they want to schedule sort of a site visit they're done with their project um so they wanted to coordinate a site visit to just look at the project I guess see if they can get rid of their erosion control um so if you wouldn't mind reaching out and trying to set that up with them and with all of us and then also if you wouldn't mind that you said you would do site visits um we need to reschedule 678 Pratt Corner Road with Jake Mitchell and I can send you his contact info so both of those we should set up in the ne and I was thinking of doing Jake Mitchell's the day that of his meeting or whatever meeting he gets on so it sounds like that's going to be on the 15th do we need a little extra time for Kestrel if we're taking that walk yeah that one might just have to be on its own in an afternoon in a on a weekday I prefer weekdays I I like afternoons of weekdays any time after 3:45 and I know for Scott and Bob it's more difficult so just see what you can schedule and throw out an email to everybody and we'll just see who can come and who can't come okay and I'm still working with Penny on trying to set up a date to go to the Top of the Lake Conservation Area um I'm on vacation then Scott's away and then Penny's got weekends that she can't do um so I think that may end up being the week of uh what was I thinking the week of August 19th so a couple weeks away because that will be a longer site visit too just want to kind of do it on its own one of the days and make sure everybody can come so I'll work on that one with Penny um I think that's all we have for scheduling but I'll send emails about everything too especially I guess we're going to move our meeting to the 15th so that so anybody have any questions about that kind of stuff no okay but we can move on to the regulations I'll share my screen so we're going to look at um act uh what are we looking at article three all right I'm gonna sign off for that I don't oh I can't believe it all right good meeting you all and we'll we'll get together sometime thanks Mark thank you Mark bye all right can everybody see my screen yep okay all right here we are at article three General Provisions did you guys get a chance to look through it okay all right what did I think of this um I thought burden appr proof was great because it's right out of the BW hardship wavers um I also thought I I'm fine with with that ction if what do you guys think just raise your hand or say something if you have comments I was good with that oh Jan raised her hand Jan good with that I have uh again I'm always trying to clarify stuff so I make sure I understand what we're up to this seems fine um and and from what you know little experience I have we looked at for example 14 Lake Drive where they were allowed to continue with the uh the drain pipe there was no waiver involved there because that wasn't uh is this correct because that wasn't something they were creating you know they're part create that and it also it happened during construction under an existing permit you know so it was a little more confusing I think you know waivers would be used if somebody came to us with a proposed project where they just felt like their project couldn't fit under the regulations you know basically the regulations are saying that whatever they were proposing just couldn't be done or we'd be requiring like a huge amount of mitigation um that's when you really can ask for a waiver um or or if you know you you're just there's such a um what's the word uh number 214 the overriding public interest um restricts the use of the property like some there's something about a project that makes it just unable to sort of fit into the regulations then people can use a waiver even before applying I feel that 14 Lake Drive they had an application they had a whole permit and then they started construction and something happened and we had to sort of figure it out mid permit so I don't think I would have asked them to like submit a a waiver I think instead we just had to kind of um figure it out does that make sense okay [Laughter] Beth what would be an example of a self-imposed hardship that that's new language that Miriam added since the version that was approved and that is a really good question a self-imposed hardship finds at the in writing that the hardship is not self-imposed I've seen it before with with zoning say you know you can only build so big a house on a on on a lot and you want the house to be you know double the size that's allowed and that would be a self-imposed hardship it doesn't fit because it doesn't fit because you made it too big I I don't I don't know if well maybe maybe that would be the case here that somebody wanted to put something closer to the water than than would be allowed under our BW maybe that would be a self-imposed hardship I'm just trying to just trying to answer that question yeah no I I get I get that you're asking it and I understand how how that would fit with the zoning that they just decided to make a house that was even bigger so with Wetlands I don't know I don't know so maybe we take it out because it is new it was not in the original regulations that got approved in October I don't know what if Miriam just saw it in another document and thought it sounded good I guess I guess I'm a little afraid to take it out because there might be something that comes up like oh you know so yeah I can look into it I can find out where it came from and and what other towns if they're using it what what it means exactly like how how it would apply to Wetland stuff because it does seem kind of strange okay so that's hardship wavers oh there was one that I thought the writing the language was odd this number 232 a description of all reasonable options considered as described below and I didn't see what below is referred to that includes a description of alternatives to the applicant's proposal that the applicant considered and it would avoid a [Music] minim i thought of changing it to just a description of all reasonable options considered that would avoid or minimize the necessity of the requested relief along with the reasons why such Alternatives would deemed to be unreasonable because I couldn't even follow what this meant so I thought maybe maybe maybe it was something that got left in there by accident or something um this thing going to let me edit so if I take out I was thinking taking this out I won't let me Ed it um anyway that was the only thing that I saw we just moved on but I think you should go ahead and do that edit I yeah I can't I've got it in my hard copy here that I'm looking at um okay because I can't edit this W let me edit it okay as long as you know yeah so just um so I'm clear what what would be be edited like the the first half or the second half I going to take out that so it would be a description of all reasonable options considered that would avoid or minimize the necessity of the requested relief along with the reasons why such Alternatives were deemed to be unreason yeah I think that's completely clear and in in cogent so yeah I I would support that edit okay great all right three consideration of reasonable options I thought that was okay yeah makes sense to me um I don't know if you guys are looking at the the older version that um is approved like our current regulations um but there she did remove a section called No unaccept unacceptable significant or cumulative effects which I I am I'm assuming that she moved it to a different area I can't imagine Miriam taking something out um but I did note that that was gone um so we'll just have to see if later in the document there's a section on cumulative effects I'm assuming she probably just moved it somewhere else um so then these two here the um herbicides and the presumption of significance again I I'm fine with those the her side she's just I I don't is it necessary to incorporate other regulations in our regulations I'm just wondering at what point to it's a good question because I mean we we have to administer the the state regulations anyway so it already exists um think you just simplify it if we're talking about our bylaw I don't know that our bylaw needs to restate the state RS I it's only the saving it for this but not other thanks I agree because really the regulations and the bylaw they can very they can just state in the beginning that you know that that we are administering this the state Rags but then in general they're supposed to sort of list things that are different from the state Rags that the town is is uh including as something that we we're going to regulate and this is funny that it you're right all it says is yeah I was going to suggest deleting it only from the standpoint that if it is a little confusing because it's we're incorporating a presumption and the presumption is not really a rag and that's already a rag and so unless we're trying to say something different than the state law I I think it it's actually kind of confusing I agree I think so too there's there's other spots in the regulations that that basically say we we follow what's in the rags but I think in some of those spots it makes a little more sense in here it's kind of silly okay are Bob and Jan are you all right with removing number four yes definitely yes okay great number five presumption of significance uh resource area subject presumed to be signific to more I'm okay with that yeah I'm just um on that one I just I know I wasn't I I just didn't really know what it I mean it's just saying that it's i i i my lay speak would would be that we're saying that the resource areas are presumed to be you know um significant to the values in the bylaw we have that discussion around the whole do we need to restate what's in the the bylaw in our regs and again I'm just not sure is this a if this is a regulation I'm not really sure what it's saying yeah I kind of wonder how much it's repeating um article one that we went through last time where we actually listed the values and then we listed the uh the resource areas and I'm I'm I don't want to have to go back with my document because I'll have to scroll all the way through it but I'm thinking that somewhere there in article one it probably says you know these are the jurisdictional areas that um are significant uh you know have that have the values that are significant to the reg to the ACT and to our bylaw so I I agree I think this seems a little possibly redundant to article one and kind of strange to be in here um I'm willing to take it out if others are willing to take it out take it out take it out all right you guys are you guys are easy well now we get to a section where there's a bunch that I'd like to take out um swart management is important but do I I don't feel like it needs a preamble yeah I I had the same you know in the state rags and other places I've seen where you you got again in the back of this is you're listing the resource areas and you have a preamble for the resource areas because you're kind of talking about what why we're protecting them storm water management is not a resource area it's something we certainly regulate and look at but it doesn't necessarily need this whole introduction of why it's important you know I guess that's my thought and I've just never seen that in other regulations and uh you know I think we start if it was me if you know what I think is where you would you'd have a section here called storm water and it would start with uh with right here with 621 with you know the commission requires applicants to demonstrate that no significant change on it just basically starts talking about what we want the applicants to do in terms of storm water and what we need to uh require of them and what we need to evaluate in their application but this whole sort of discussion about why it's important uh I just don't find important what do you guys think I agree Bob I didn't make notes on this one I'm just and I apologize your your proposal for this section was to to get rid of the Preamble section that just just talks about why storm water is important and start right here where she's got them as performance standards but I would just I would just have a storm water section I wouldn't even call it performance standards I would just start with the section this would just be the beginning of the storm water section saying the commission requires applicants to demonstrate no significant change and then it kind of goes through um that we adopt the D storm own management policy and the storm management standards um or is there considered critical areas is there any disadvantage to keeping the the um reble is there any what disadvantage yes I mean I can't imagine I can't imagine imine anybody saying please just describe the importance of storm water storm water management um you know to me it's more like we when you've got the actual regulations that describe how this the how it will all be managed yeah I totally get that um the only time I can think of you that that um it's sometimes helpful to have the Preamble is like if you if you're like in a legal case then you can kind of like pull from that the town of sheets spray believes and then then you kind of quote from the ramble but that that's just a thought on my [Music] end let's see well except in the performance standards it pretty much says the same stuff when it's uh laying out the expectation for what should be done I think you're right but yeah so you feel it's repetitive I I I get that I could go either way on it yeah proper storm water management includes evaluation of the quantity quality rate and pattern of storm water runoff that may enter a resource area and then you know down below it's like we require you to evaluate the quantity quality well it doesn't exactly say up but um of course my Ang comes from the fact that we want them to have a post project hydrologic budget that's equal to or better than the pre-project in a time of climate change when in the very beginning of this call we were talking about how it rains more and kind of hard to predict but that's that climate change thing all right well I'll just mark down that we are considering getting rid of the Preamble and then we can look at what we have for performance standards I think I was mostly okay with this oops on this part path where you are right now 2.2.6 um that yellow part I had the notes I think something about a waiver and something about what in the in the document that I show it's like a waiver there's a note from Miriam saying it's a waiver provision evaluation of feature impacts the last line wave this provision I don't know I just I read that section like five times I'm trying to all storm management system shall be designed and constructed to adequate control contain and recharge from decrease likely down and offsite flooding as well as contribute to recharge so it's really talking about how they retain storm water and we're saying the request for waiver shall include credible evidence that retaining it is not needed I guess this that last part it would cause irreparable harm to do stream or offsite areas yes so it's a waiver there's a provision that we can wave the requirement of being able to store all that water on site if somebody they'd have to sort of apply or bring forward this wave request and they would have to show that [Music] um that it's not needed to store it on site I I the way I was reading it was it's not needed and would not cause aable harm but maybe I'm just reading it wrong I think I'm understanding what they're trying to say I'm just yeah I'm wondering too if that should say and would not cause irob reble harm to Downstream or offsite areas then that shows that retaining the volume on site well but for some reason it's saying a waiver if if storing it on site for some reason causes adverse impact to Downstream resources due to placement in the Watershed or timing of release of storm water I guess they're saying that if they store it on site contain it all on site it actually would cause it like a drought effect Downstream oh that seems like a weird thing for water does very much right decrease the likelihood of Downstream ofite flooding if im shows that retaining this F will cause adverse impacts to down Resources Commission Way wave the provision so there may be some weird situation where um a project proposing to you know proposes to do storm water management that in in the end would actually imp impact things negatively Downstream then we can wave the provision if somebody can show that that's the case I think if you if you put in a really huge sistern and reduced infiltration maybe that's kind of an instance yeah you put in some something that um but it'd be odd because would seem like your modeling and everything should show should should create some kind of a storm water management design that's that's not meant to harm things Downstream you know why build something that's going to harm things Downstream it's weird to me yeah most storm water mitigation that I see are all designed to hold water in place to allow for infiltration and avoid you know overburdening the the system during the time of of an event and harming folks Downstream and so that's how I was reading this but it kind of made it look like we could wave it and you could you could discharge it um or in this case for holding it in place you would have to show that holding it would not cause irreparable harm to Downstream and I I I was always think of it in the reverse in terms of discharging it too quickly and and impacting people Downstream I I just I just must be reading it yeah I know it's it's a strange thing because right you could just think of a waiver that somebody would propose saying that that there's really no need to build that kind of storm water because there would be no effect Downstream if um but that's not what it's saying it's saying this this other thing which is weird I to me it's I I would I would avoid Ed that we would be doing the the the modeling I I think it's actually kind of the way it's it's written but it would would not cause irreparable harm yeah I agree let me just see something what's wrong I think I'm just going to note that uh and again maybe find out sort of from Miriam where she got it and what it's supposed to be saying because it's a whole new section that was not in our existing regulations yeah there's another part of that same sentence of above where it says it shows that retaining this volume of storm water onsite will cause an adverse impact to Downstream resources due to the placement and I almost think of it in the reverse but I am I'm guessing you're you're both thinking the same thing that maybe this has to do with some sort of new storm water management feature and then they're worried about how the discharge from that could impact like if you just it's a dam or something else and then you just open it up and flood people but I don't know it seems that kind OD I don't really consider that storm water [Music] yeah okay are there on when it comes to storm water though in Wetlands I'm also thinking about this from our own jurisdictional piece and so I'm I'm also not really sure this seems to be getting into other things in terms of how you you're permitting like flood storage and I'm not really sure that's in our you know in our Lane as it were I like I think I'm not this could have a Nexus to Wetlands and it could have a Nexus to to Riverfront depending on where it is and but it's not really speaking to the placement of storm water features and the impacts on Wetlands it's really talking about the modeling and how the storm water discharge would impact Downstream land owners and that was my other General comment about it is you know I'm just kind of wondering if it's even really relevant to our bylaw or protection act um I can check that I want to say I think I think it is there's there's references some in the state RS a bit and then I'm wondering I have to look in the bylaw too that very thing of um you know an applicant has to be able to show that they're through their storm water modeling that they're not going to impact down Downstream properties that's often included as as something in uh Wetlands regulations because we are looking at storm water anyway and it's just a good thing to to be requiring applicants to to be including in their modeling you know cuz over the years it wasn't included you when I first started in Amis that was not in regulations and stuff and there were so many issues where where neighbors would say that house was built over there and now I have a huge U drainage problem in my yard why didn't why was that construction of that house permitted you know and I'd be like well they met the wetlands regulations they met everything they were supposed to because there wasn't anything included about Downstream sort of impacts so that that is something that people look at nowadays yeah it makes sense to me that it is and maybe the presumption is for this section that it falls within the aura it just doesn't really say that anywhere it says it later in the next section you mean the the footing where the footing drains yes that one talks about all footing drains in storm water out Falls must be at a minimum outside the 50 Foot inner or and must be shown in off land yep that one's making reference to the AA the other one is I mean you could have lots of projects for St storm water that are not within not jurisdictional I I would think so anyways I I guess my specific recommendation would be may we I think it's good to run that to ground with Miriam see if it really should be not a reable harm to Downstream and if we decide to keep it I think it needs some sort of tie to you know where the storm water management systems are being designed in the aura or that that we would be doing that work well yeah I think um I mean these are just a typical General requirements of storm water management systems that are um installed for a project and you know the overall project itself may be partly in a resource area or might like if you look at um the library that we just did those storm Water Management Systems uh I might get this wrong but I feel like I feel like maybe a small tiny percentage of them were actually what were they did they I cannot remember that's bad I say part of them were in were they all in the aura or were they Ora but they weren't in the inner 50 feet I don't think yeah right but even though that but even though like even ignoring where they're actually located the design of that system had to meet these kind of requirements and it has to meet these kind of requirements even under State under State regulation you have to for any project that qualifies for submitting a notice of intent because any part of the project the driveway the the building is either in a resource area or within the buffer zone and say that system is a larger building like a like like a library and it qualifies for meeting the Massachusetts storm water standards um whatever the storm water management system that's designed has to meet requirements for water quality treatment and also water uh quantity basically so the volumes that that it's that it's recharging and that it's um you know allowing to go off site so it's not necessarily where the storm water systems are located it's more the overall project yeah right I that makes sense to me be I think where I'm struggling is I understand there are regulations that affect storm water in the Commonwealth I think where I'm struggling is for under the under the shet spy our Wetland protection bylaw where we're where we're enum enumerating additional regulations that are presumably not just restating the the storm water regulations of the Commonwealth but something particular to the bylaw I would think it would have to be more specific to addressing impacts in a resource area and that's where I didn't see this so let's take those brain you know like a storm water feature outside of uh resource area I would think that they would have to follow the state Rags for stormm water but I wouldn't think that we would need they they there wouldn't be separate regulations for that under our regulations here um yeah I mean I don't think we go in this section we don't we don't really go beyond too much beyond the the state regulations you know and I'm confused by this this what she's add I don't really know what it's saying so I need to check with her well and if it's just repeating the state R then I would wonder if it needs to be in here at all but it doesn't go reference to State r no I think where where is that that's 622 commission adopts the storm management policy and all 10 storm R management standards and CM all storm Management Systems shall comply with M storm or handbook you know that that's really the what everyone goes to and then uh this is something new this is this is um just us that all ores shall be considered critical areas which which affects the um water quality treatment of storm water management on the site a little bit so maybe you're reading it these are building and the presumption is that section that we had just gotten done looking at pertained just to the ORS but I just I wasn't to me it wasn't clear yeah so if it if it does I'm I'm okay and if we get the clarification from mam I'm okay keeping it I just think it it's written a little broadly where it says all storm Water Management Systems then it goes on to explain it as our Asar right under the Wetland you know [Music] bylaw okay we'll look into that one some more that storm water horse to death I think this one I do from my own experience on the board I think there tends to be every site visit having to deal with storm water and it is an issue but we end up chasing it starts with usually it starts with something draining into the lake and then we're all the way up the hill chasing you know everything throughout the wated and and and some of them are in resource areas and some of them aren't and I I think if we're going to have regulation when it comes to storm water I could see a lot of folks very interested in having the commission take a look at projects outside of resource areas to talk about where that water is going and that that would be in my mind not what was in the bylaw um but I could the way this is worded I could see that as being something that people could point to in our rights yeah no we can look at that yeah um that's sort of what came up with Lake wyola a little bit is is that you know in the end the storm water situation over there is a watershed based problem um and the the wetlands regulations don't they don't do that they don't you know we look at specific projects we look at a specific parcel and we look at a specific project um and the thing is the the storm water stuff um if you look at the notice of intent application single family homes are exempt from following storm water regulation uh you know under under the state law and you know there's certain certain types of projects that are required under state law to follow the Massachusetts storm water standards and um so really in shutesbury the majority of our projects are are not even going to be required to to do this this stuff that's listed in this section the library was like one of the first ones I think you know that probably came before the commission that that had to actually meet those these this whole standard section so and I'm you know I'm all for managing storm water I'm I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of I mean it's a real issue obviously I just my only concern is I I don't think it's an issue best dealt with through the Wetland protection act and the bylaw because I think that's a oftentimes these are broader land use practices taking place some of them take place in resource areas but many of them don't but they they do have impacts on the whole of the Watershed and to me it's like a a broader land use Watershed planning issue and so including it here just might make it more confusing but I agree yeah I agree I'll I'll take another look at this section to see if if there's that kind of stuff in here that really really goes beyond and may be interpreted the wrong way by people um okay all right so I'm that's that's it for me with the storm water resource area [Music] delineation the only part of this where I had an issue so again again it sort of starts off just saying that the delineations follow a lot a lot of these these state regulations and State guidance documents on how to delineate um let's see which is the one that I thought that I didn't agree with I think it's 75 yeah so I thought that 75 was repeated in 77 very much I thought they kind of repeated each other [Music] um see where natural vegetation is absent because the presence of hydric soils shall provide positive determination of jurisdiction which then if you go down here we've got where area has been Disturbed in situations where natural veget have been destroyed the commission may determine an area to be a wetland based on hydric soils alone so this just seems to repeat itself the one above doesn't allow for the area to be regrown though does it this one this one starts off with that the same statement that's kind of down there that if the are's been Disturbed um but it doesn't have the the final sentence that states um that the the commission can wait until the the natural vegetation has regrown to see see what the nature of the vegetation is right I I'm I'm in favor of keeping 7 s but getting rid of 75 I I would I would support that um for the reason that what you say it's it's redundant and it looks like 77 is more complete because it gives that extra option to the commission I agree that'ss good yep okay then the rest of it seems fine um I thought winter delineations seemed fine and it's something we need in there let me see if there's a there was a yeah this was something I brought up with with Miriam and I think is pretty important and we want to change is here she's talking about the [Music] um subsurface streams and she refers to them as intermittent streams and I I feel like we definitely need to not call them intermittent streams because intermittent streams have a very clear definition under the state regs and um you know I think we need to just call them subsurface streams so we need to go through like the definition section and everything and get rid of that to me intermittent you've got perennial streams you've got intermittent streams it's always been that way now we're adding these fancy subsurface streams and that's fine but we can't call them intermittent streams they need to have their own their own name um subsurface streams trying to remember where we got to in our other experts on that yeah I know I can look back while we're thinking about that I'm wondering how many of us on the commission are qualified to do resource area delineation I'm I'm qualified um for resource delation in terms of um bvw and um ivw and streams but I've never had to delineate a subsurface stream and I don't think I could like I still am confused really as to how we're doing that let's see do it talk about that required by a professional hydrogeologist a hydrogeologist so that's kind of a person in a way than than than the typical Wetland scientist um that was part of what we asked them to work on and how those would be delated so I think section four talks more more specifically about I know it talks specifically about bvw delineation um I don't remember if it talks about subsurface but I kind of hope so and we're we're talking subsurface not meaning a CT or a pipe right we're talking about um something that was just sort of recently added added in is where and this does happen in SHO s quite often in the woods there's a stream and then all of a sudden it disappears for a little while say like 100 ft and then it pops up again um and the idea is that that that instead of just considering that area when it's underground to not be a resource area because you can't see a stream channel um to include that as as resource area yeah that's a that is a very very tough thing and I've been in a fight similar to that where I had two bodies of water and you could actually hear water flowing underneath the ground and uh right there um with the representative from D during this particular appeal are like you know we don't DP doesn't have any jurisdiction under because it is subsurface it's not being held in the Bank of a pipe it is uh you know it's a it's a different animal measuring subsurface flow so it's a that that that is a very tough thing to to wrap your hands around in a regulatory way yeah and I've said this from the beginning right when this first came up and I was just like um but I believe it is in our bylaw at this point so we kind of have to to try and um make it more specific in these regulations how we're going to how we're going to deal with it because yeah it is It's Tricky um maybe when we get to section four we can talk a little bit more about it but yes I agree anyway just in this just in terms of what we call it it it can't be called an intermittent [Music] stream um um sub subsurface stream would would would would kind of get us where we need to be M did we call it a subsurface stream in the bylaw let me see because there was it was called the subsurface stream in the original bylaw right which is why that's where it came from yeah that's where that's what we were trying I thought we Tred to correct it this last version [Music] yeah looking at the definitions in here the bylaw [Music] any freshwater Wetland Marsh wet Meadow verol springb swamp BR Creek river stream including intermittent and perennial Pond leg Reservoir I don't I I because I thought we took out the whole subsurface stream any joining L blah blah blah I don't at least in the beginning in section two for jurisdiction and I thought that's where it was that would be so great if we took it out I thought we did because we had a hard time getting to some more whereare with our experts in terms of all the questions that are coming up like how you would actually Define that and and delineate that but right I'm looking at the bylaw trying to see if well that's yet another thing to research a little bit and see um if it's cuz even I don't want to waste everybody's time but um even freshwater Wetland definition in the B is wet Meadows marshes swamps bogs Hillside seeps Springs verac pools so it's BBW ivw interesting yeah I'll look into it okay moving on so much to figure out I I did a quick skim of it and I didn't see it in there again yeah you know if we oh let's just let's just go back do you guys want to dive into this right now or should we just keep moving your head because it's getting kind of late I was thinking of looking at the definitions in the regulations and seeing like what it says for stream and that kind of thing but I can do that I'll I'll look into it and see where we're at with that [Music] um okay wildlife habitat again I'm wondering about the presumptions oh yeah this is Scott's section he's all wild do we need a presumption spot I don't think that I I don't think presumptions ADV an the RS so again it's very similar to the other the other comments we've made although Wildlife presumptions are arguably the coolest presumptions of course much much cooler than storm water so say we were to take that out then again wildlife habitat section would start right here with the commission accepts and adopts the definitions requirements and performance standards for wildlife again in the state RS um oops then it talks about estimated habitat with natural heritage that's important um yeah and then then that's it it's kind of a short section wildlife habitat and you know to I do think the U what you said though about the presumptions is being repetitive um so anyways I um I think it was the other piece [Music] to scroll let's see where 8.2 where it talks about same definitions and you know I don't know if we need to repeat that um I do you know where they're talking about sending the application to Heritage um I I think it I think the presumption is here is that when the project is jurisdictional to the commission and and within those within those wildlife habitats that that we would be copying and so I don't know if that's worth clarifying uh because those those areas extend outside of areas too for mean for us to get notified or for I think what yeah what it's saying is um hard do read and saidah such a copy shall be sent by the data fing the application with a commission this is this is saying if somebody's submitting a notice of intent so they're already they're already within our jurisdiction somehow if they're submitting a notice and that if they're also mapped for natural heritage you know part of that notice of intent application says that I missed the part so there like such a copy should be sent to natural heritage by the date of the filing with the commission so if you're filing with the commission same time you know same date you want to send it to natural heritage okay thanks I missed the notice of intent part of 8.22 okay so then we have to give special attention it's all good okay setic just you good you good with the wildlife everybody everybody good with the wildlife okay septic systems once again not so sure we need a preamble um it just it just it talks about title five as being something that the Board of Health does um so if if we just got rid of sort of this General conversation about yeah the septic systems can affect resource areas and we just got to kind of what we expect of applicants which is here if applicant seeks authorization for new construction or expansion um let's see replacement of existing system located within the outer 50 of the aura and it receives or Board of Health approval the commission shall presume that the design requirements for the effluent me requirements for effluent and they only need to look at construction phase impacts um and then the next one I think is if it's in the inner 50 and also receives Board of Health approval you can uh presume the same thing and then it says however this presumption of no adverse impact on the values may be overcome by credible evidence from a competence Source it's such body B so that's seems like the right thing to be saying um wait a minute what does that last line mean I think it's saying so similar to the outer 50 if it's in the inner 50 and it has the Board of Health approval we can assume that the system the system the way it functions won't impact resource areas and we should just really review construction impact which is what that says too and then they're trying to say that when if it's in the inner 50 and for some reason someone maybe a neighbor or somebody um hires say a a septic engineer to look at the system it says the presumption of of no impact from that system can be over come by credible evidence from a competent source to me a competent Source would be like a septic engineer somebody who designs those systems um that it actually might impact so if it is in the inner 50 and somebody not us I mean I would I wouldn't think we would want to do that take that extra look but you never know who might want to look at the at a septic system because they feel like it might impact the resource area if it's in the inner 50 Okay so somebody could challenge it yeah yeah okay yeah and I guess because this is in here means that we we as a commission would need to really look at that competent Source inform information and and we and we could actually overcome that so it it makes sense to me um and thens what's this last the commission shall presume a new construction expansion yeah that's fine uh do we want to tackle docs tear peers and floats tonight I I was looking ate going I don't I don't know um Dan had actually gone through this and and kind of rewrote a whole thing which I I think we all might want to take a good look at and think about how how we want to attack this one because this whole section is is new since what we passed you know it's not in our current regulations um um so maybe can we wait till the next meeting for this one a motion has Jan shared that I'm sorry maybe I missed that part the right I I flipped it only to Beth to see if I was nuts I don't think you're nuts I think I'd love to take a look at what you wrote Jan and maybe we could do that and then come back and talk um it could also just be deleted what I wrote is my second choice Jan would you mind just kind of uh give a summary of of where you're you kind of went with it well there was it's a it's a pretty big bite the docks peers and floats and there was a lot missing so pretty nearly every uh home on the lake that has a dock that was built before 1965 is grandfathered in anything that came from 1965 to 1984 basically they have to write a note to the teacher and that's it and then anything after that uh requires the uh the dock license but then you get into some more details because it's a great Pond you're supposed to be able to walk all the way around the perimeter of the Great Pond which is you know you can't do and it it adds all kind of extra superstructure to the docks if you're going to provide steps for people to Wade up to your thing you know it just seems like a liability nightmare um and I'm not sure they really meant Lake wyola when they wrote the rules um but I can send you what I wrote because I was trying to just put it in English and get rid of the a lot of the stuff um I'm I'm I'm just not convinced that there's a big um Wetland threat from the docks or you know to the wildlife personally and yeah I think it's definitely a section we need to kind of think about and go through and that would be great if you could send it Jan and I I don't remember exactly what you said but if there's info in there about like those years um and sort of the current situation for people who are grandfathered and all that that's important to put in that was really important I thought and really absent from this write up right it is definitely and that Source document Jan was was the article 91 stuff no article 91 tell me what I'm talking about no I'm sorry you were reviewing something and you made changes to what was it you that you were reviewing oh I look through she makes references to the waterways program into the there is actually a whole doc section I just followed her um I just followed the stuff that she's directing us to in this write up yeah the waterways program mgl chapter 91 yeah that is that is some some weighty stuff for sure and uh the rules date back to the you know the early days of the United States where somebody had to have the uh access to the shore to go fowling and fishing and uh yeah it's a It's Tricky it is and it's deep definitely I I totally get that it's it's uh it's it's a not an easy one it kind of doesn't fit on a lake that has been enlarged and flooded out to its maximum perimeter all right well um yeah Jan if you would mind sending around we wanna yeah if we want to put this off till next time I'll flip that out to everybody yeah I think this is a good one to start with next time we can focus a little bit on it okay and see if it should just be deleted just kidding um all right and I think that's the end of section of article three right it is so maybe next time we'll do the docs peers section and we'll look at article four well article four is Big standards for Inland Wetlands how about article four Banks and freshwater butland maybe we can get through that next time that sounds good okay that's enough it's not overly ambitious that that's fine okay those two sections of section of article four great all right um I think that's everything so the next time we'll see see some folks as the site visit on August 1st Bob you have your hand out yeah I I apologize I wanted to to bring up something that I talked to a few people about is and that is having a conservation sponsored uh fall hike and I kind of wanted to just uh see what the enthusiasm level might be of that it would be like a community outreach kind of a nature walk and talk about uh different conservation issues I would love that great so let's um uh think about good areas that of uh uh shsb conservation land that we might want want to consider or or or even not a different place where we could talk about different things and uh maybe on our site visit we could we could uh come up with some ideas yeah um there's always Ames Pond which has all its new boardwalks and everything um that's a neat spot it is I I think if if we like are you thinking of um offering this up to the public absolutely yeah kind of a a public relations let people know what what consecration is and does and maybe hand out a little leaflet on on on what you know conservation commission's duties and services Etc okay yeah I'm just thinking Ames Pond would be great for that because it's in chatsberry it's beautiful um it's got all these new boardwalks that some residents may not have had a chance to see yet so if we said that was where it is it might like attract um residents to come super I like that parking is a little tough there but um the other thought is um you know South Brook you know our own Conservation Area um not great parking for that either but at the town beach there's a way to get on and Hike back there and you know it's a little bigger parking spot but yeah yeah know that's because we actually own South Beach we could talk about docks while we're there great let's make it a walk around the lake for that's a good idea a great Pond walk we'll just see how to the right that would be pretty funny all right well that sounds that sounds good we can talk about potential dates down the road all right um chair would you entertain a motion to adjourn I would yes i' like to make a motion to adjourn second second all right um Douglas hi con hi Rowan hi and Wilson hi right thanks everybody thank you Carrie for hanging out I don't know what happened to Doc yeah I'm not sure what happened either but we'll see okay you're welcome keep in touch ter okay okay sounds good good night good night good night