o e hi Beth hi Carrie sorry for the late opening I got caught up writing an email there's a situation with zo board that I'm trying to uh resolve oh okay no no worries no worries I was just um wondering and glad that it's it's working tonight yes did everyone update their zooms because I just got it updated and it looks crazy in a good way but I was just not expecting it um I mean I don't know mine I've had to do that a couple times in the last month or so but I mean I probably might have done it with a work thing in the last couple weeks or something and that's why mine I didn't it didn't happen to me tonight but it does happen and it changes I know and you go in and you think you quickly can get into a meeting and then all of a sudden you have to go through updating your zoom and everything hi Donna hi everybody hello hi Jan he Scott can you hear me okay y perfect good to see all y'all nice to see you too um Bob texted that he's at something and he he's going to be a little late but he is coming but he be a little late um so this is it so let's open the meeting it is 7:02 on July 18th on I opening the meeting of the shutesbury Conservation Commission call to order and this meeting is being recorded I'm glad we can meet sorry about that meeting last week that was that was really chaotic and kind of crazy um but it's all right we don't have it does it happens and we don't have a a ton of stuff going on really so you know it was okay to just move it to this week it's really fine um all right so first on our agenda is minutes we've got minutes that uh Carrie put together and Jan worked on for June 27th um did everybody get a chance to look at them yep good um I thought they were fine I had no edits or changes so we just need a motion to approve the minutes I motion to approve the minutes of June 27th of June 27th all right second I'll second all right con hi Rowan hi and Wilson I great and Jan was really nice to actually put a set of minutes together for a tiny little meeting last week which I think's appropriate we did call to order we opened you know whatever so she did and she's going to send that around and we can you know approve it at next week's meeting because we are meeting again next week our regular meeting on July 25th um all right so then lots of things to talk about um my list go um Carrie are those emails about the Mac membership and handbooks yes um so I was just wondering how much do we pay for the membership uh off the top of my head I I oh it's so for the membership itself I found this out very interestingly enough I called them because I wanted to make sure what I was putting down was correctly but I forgot to ask about about the handbooks which is why I got the email um so it's actually based on uh committee members and population size that's what I was told over the phone which I thought was very interesting they didn't explain how I should have asked how but but yeah huh that is weird so the the you sent them 10 uh what you said $120 and was that just for the handbook that's not the memberships no so I believe when she was talking about 120 extra I was including a handbook for each person including myself I believe that you're either 20 or 25 and I was going to get a handbook for just a have so that way when the next if the vacancy is filled is going to be there I didn't have to worry about it okay that answered me back but I've been so caught up in the whole with the zba that I haven't even had a chance to answer that no it's fine I I was just curious I think it said it's $20 per person who for for each member for each conom member I'm assuming that's just for the handbook and that yes they also pay membership fees which I just was wondering what those were so when they sent they sent the letter and it had like the full board like from the previous fiscal year so that's why I was calling originally because we only have four out of five so I was like oh is it different and they said no because it's based on commission members versus population which I did think was interesting but yeah yeah I'll follow up with them and get that strained out okay yeah and we can yeah see have me included because I'm wondering about just giving them more money so we can get a membership for whoever the staff is because that's what she was saying it costs a little bit more but I think it might be worth worth it to have the staff have a membership and get a get a handbook also I agree yeah okay um and then um Scott those emails with the person from 30 suer Mountain Road uh it sounds like they're probably gonna have to submit an application because there is a wetland but maybe we do a site visit yeah actually I emailed them here have they responded I haven't seen that yet so they have yeah yeah she responded yeah okay yeah yeah she didn't really give them enough in I still think a site visit would be good she said that she thought there was a wetland within like 40 feet of um okay Ed which would mean they would need to file but it's always good and then then what I was thinking you could look into is if there's any restrictions having to do with the conservation land being within 10 feet I guess she must be in a butter to our conservation land and so she yeah um uh was tied up with meetings and stuff today but I'll um I'll circle around read the email and then get with her and see if we can arrange a a side visit I I don't know her timeline for for that either but um do we know which parcel which conservation parcel she abots um I know I know we have one on Su near Mountain Road I'm not sure the name of it but I know what she's talking about maybe I can work with Carrie on that to see which par on if um what exactly we own there yes yes Carrie might know or Morrison you know car's on her way out you might have to actually stop at the office and go through the box I can I can do that here um at some point yeah no that's fine I think just a site visit right now would help because if she has to do a Wetlands um if there's a Wetlands within 40 feet she just got to do an application anyway yeah so that sounds good well maybe that's the place to start is u i can connect with her if there's if that's where she's at there's a a wetland prox it doesn't really matter if there's it's conservation land or not I'm finding it unlikely that we have some sort of um reservations that we extend off the property that we're responsible for managing I think it's the white light issue and if she's adjacent to that or within the the Ora then I I think we you know it's giving into that conversation so that was good I'll follow yep yep I agree and um we have a couple other site visits to set up time is it 7:09 yeah I guess we could talk about this now for six minutes um we've got a RDA that's coming in that that Carrie's been doing legal ad and everything to get them on our agenda for next Thursday it's 678 fat Corner Road um we did an enfor there a bit ago I think most people will remember that so I haven't read the RDA but I I think it has to do with taking down some trees on that same property um so I was thinking so there's that site visit um then there's the Su Mountain Road and then Penny would like us to do a little site visit up to the top of the lake um Conservation area which would be great um I'm thinking we do the 678 Pratt Corner Road and the 30 30 suer Mountain Road the same day and I was thinking of next Thursday just to keep it in the same day as when we have a meeting just to keep people like you know my life my life in some kind of order um so if that works out for folks that would be great and then the top of the lake I think it's going to be a longer site visit um so maybe we do that the next week like uh what is that Monday the 29th it's like one of the afternoons that week that week we don't have a meeting so it could be um hey Bob that could be uh for me it could be Monday Wednesday Thursday time frame but um how does next Thursday afternoon work for two site visits anyone any I I think that would be fine for me what would be the starting time great um 3:45 yeah I thought I would do one at 3:45 and one at 4:15 let me uh let me check check with work on that but uh that's a possibility okay so Scott when you reach out to that woman see if next Thursday works that was good okay you're thinking after 3:45 is some time in that NE of the woods okay are you available next Thursday I am not available here the rest of this month okay Jan are you around thday Thursday sure okay great Scott do you mind missing the suar mountain one no no absolutely not I I really don't think this w revolve around the conservation areas that we manage I think it's going to be more of the Wildland issues and working the or is my gu yeah yep I think so too all right great um let's 3:45 Thursday we'll start at um 678 crack Corner Road I'll send a reminder next all right great and then we'll work more on the site visit for top of the lake with Penny um I just I guess a quick update on the uh because we got a couple minutes a quick update on the Dudleyville pond dam remember we we issued an emergency CT but then D had some comments and then uh I I put together um basically conditions that we're going to go with the emergency CT and they look actually very similar to our our typical order conditions because it's a really big project so I wanted to have more you know all the usual erosion controls and all that um and the uh consultant and de had a couple comments on those order conditions and so we're so I we've got those comments but basically de is waiting for their funding they still don't have all of their funding and so the emergency SS are only good for 30 days so they're so we're waiting until they actually get the okay with their state funding and they can go ahead with the work to issue the emergency C that'll be for 30 days um yeah and there was a couple other concerns from D about who was actually declaring it um an emergency uh you know and it's it's basically the office of dam safety they just were sort of questioning that we were basing it on a letter that was dated about a month ago um but I think that's all been straightened out so we're getting there with that um and I'll definitely let you guys know once that's issued and once construction is going to get going because I think Jan you and I talked about we want to definitely do some site visits while that construction is going on but it's a little delayed that's just because we've started a fiscal year is that what it is oh the funding probably probably yeah and I know of a lot of Grants and things that were actually announced this week once July 1 is is over so yeah okay yeah all right nobody has does anybody have any more questions on that one Bob I think you're muted what were the natures of the comments that you received um one comment had to do with the turbidity curtain um one of the sheets of stantex plan set showed a turbidity curtain in the down in the downstream in the Stream on the other side of monteu road um and then another one called it a oil boom and then in the third sheet which was more the last sheet which had to do with like grading and seeding um there was nothing as a turbidity curtain and so one of my conditions had just been we would like to see a turbidity curtain installed Downstream throughout the entire project um and they came back with sort of saying that they did didn't that that listing it as a turbidity curtain on one of the sheets was a mistake and that they don't encourage and I've seen this before turbidity curtains in streams with such high volume um because they really just get destroyed and they they don't stop anything so they were talking something a little more flexible something they can replace really easily which was straw Waddles that were staked in that's what they were saying for Downstream um so that was one comment um the other comment was that the language I put in just describing the project said that they were reconstructing the channel and they kind of said and they they're right that um you know saying that they were going to actually go in and create a stream channel was almost going Beyond just abating an emergency like dealing with just an emergency so they just changed the wording a little bit or asked if we I could change the wording to just say um you know dam removal um and then but not call and then dam removal with then sort of Channel being created through the the removal of the dam that was all I think that that was it for their comments thank you I think those are good catches on your part yeah I think it'll be good all right it's 7:18 so we can um move on to number two on our agenda um 70 Lake Drive so we're looking at the order conditions and I see Marks here so I'll I'll share my screen and bring up the order conditions so just to refresh everybody we uh we we closed the public hearing at the last meeting um and we're just reviewing the order of conditions tonight and hopefully approving them oh too many things open that's for the record I'll refuse myself okay can you guys see my screen wait can't yet yeah right I'm I'm not good at this now we can yay y all right special conditions for the order of conditions for 70 Lake Drive all right the project the work proposed um is within jurisdictional areas of bank for Lake wola Land underwater bodies and waterways of Lake wola bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone or the aura to the bank and then that's just a description of the project applicant proposes to extend an existing deck five feet enclosing a 10 foot by 42 foot section of the deck um work will include removal of stairs installation of four drilled helical pilings construction of the deck extension will sit on both the new helico pilings and old stairwell concrete pilings um no impact resource areas oops I say no impact to reforce to Resource areas 8 squ feet impact to the aura from the drilling of the helic pilings um there'll be 210 square feet of new roof which is impervious that will drain to an existing drywell and over um existing lawn and garden for infiltration natural heritage natural hair we have received a letter June 6th from natural Heritage basically saying that the project is not located within estimated habitat so that's good the estimated habitat really goes with the lake not so much the um land next to the lake here's the plan we're referring to the [Music] plan and the rest of this is all our standard conditions H nothing special certificate of compliance yeah these are all standard standard conditions and we've just got bold some of the important stuff um we need to get within 30 days we need the letter with an original signature stating that they that the applicants received the order conditions and understands the order conditions a 30-day it needs to be registered or recorded at the Franklin County registry of deeds this highlighting will go away can I jump in for a second with a question yeah sure I I was just going to say I did reference here your old order of conditions that was that comment from Mark Stinson yep yep that's question yeah was that your question yeah yeah so what's the process of getting a certificate of compliance for that um did you did you record it well back then we did the orders of conditions I think we recorded the orders of conditions but back in 2002 I don't think we ever recorded the issue of certificate of compliance I don't think we ever knew we had to get a certificate for compliance back then okay so and so I think Mark's picked up on that and said okay he sees the orders of conditions but he doesn't see the certificate of compliance right yeah and his comment asked you there was a certificate of compliance and then right at the end they said was the order ever recorded um so did did we find that order conditions um and did Carrie send it to you and do you know if it got recorded do we have the recording I have I I think it would Carrie did find it yeah and I think we recorded it but I've got a check into that so that's I guess that's the first step is to confirm that we recorded the orders of conditions right yeah yeah I was going to include as a condition here that in addition to recording this order of conditions I just had the applicant shall provide proof of having recorded the order conditions for the previous project number um because yeah once we get that information then um all we have to actually probably just do is a quick another site visit to look at the work that was specifically under this order um and then you put together um an application a certificate of compliance application which is a real just one sheet submit it with the fee and then we get that on an agenda to vote on it okay sounds good so we'll we we will I'll take care of that okay so I'll leave that in here just as sort of like a condition of this is that you provide proof to us again that that those orders got recorded um I kind of think it was recorded because how would Mark know that it if it wasn't on the if I wasn't at the registry of deeds how would Mark nobody because all of these orders and conditions get sent to him okay you know I will send him a copy of like this new set of of conditions And he supposedly keeps all that stuff on file all the notices of intent all the orders of conditions um and office often what he probably doesn't ever get is that things get recorded because often that info comes to the commission and doesn't end up getting to him um all right so we'll follow I I'll ter I will take care of that okay and then this other one is that the certificate of compliance for this order conditions shall not be issued until the applicant has furnished the commission with proof of having renewed their chapter 91 license for their dock um so you know that's a condition that's not not going to slow down construction of the deck it would just be getting the certificate of compliance after the deck is built and all all of that we would be looking for that sounds good okay erosion erosion control should be installed uh notify the commission 48 hours before work [Music] begins and then these are all just standard conditions about erosion control during with the work standard standard um and then also when the Project's complete contact the commission for a post construction site visit and then stuff about the certificate of compliance erosion control stay in place that's it um any other questions mark I know I kind of flew through that but these are really just all the standard conditions yeah no all very straightforward no problems okay um Commissioners does anybody have any comments or questions not for me okay I'm GNA stop sharing then all right um and if everybody's good we just need a motion to issue the order conditions for 70 Lake Drive I move to issue the order of conditions for 70 Lake Drive all right second I second all right con hi Rowan hi uh Bob I think you have to say you abstain okay and Wilson I great all right thanks Mark and thank you yeah we we'll get you the the paperwork uh next week at some point all right thanks all right next on our agenda is um we have Donna McNichol here she is the shot Berry um Town attorney and she's going to talk to us about the comments from the um attorney general that we got on our bylaw so welcome Beth I don't know how you want me to proceed on this did you just want me to go through each section of the letter and or do you want to ask questions how would you like to proceed um yeah I was thinking if you had read through it if you saw any real issues I have one of them out of all out of however many comments are I have one that I have a question on most of them they made sense to me they they almost all at the end say you know check with your your town attorney on whatever so I guess I'm looking to see whether you thought any of it was strange or could cause a problem um no but I I think it makes sense to just sort of flip through the comments so that the commission you know understand so the the first comment is obviously about your fees and that's a really standard comment that comes out of the AG's office because there's two kinds of monies towns can collect to buckets one's fees and one's taxes um and fees have to have a reasonable relationship to the work that the commission does so the only thing I would caution you on when you're setting your fees make sure that they have that reasonable relationship car's time um commission's time paperwork Administration um notices in the paper you know just make sure that there's a relationship between that you can't have a order of conditions that costs $3 you know of your work and charge ,000 that you know that wouldn't make any sense but as long as there's a reasonable relationship your your fees shouldn't be up to challenge but I that's just the general law and so it's important for any commissioner board to know that um the definitions um the comments on that I think that only thing they're trying to point out is that public entity State agencies really aren't under your jurisdiction so as you're dealing with issues that on state land you know just keep that in mind as you're working through some of that stuff sometimes the state's willing to sit down and talk about a project they're doing and that kind of thing but um they're probably not going to look favorably on you issuing an order of conditions that makes them do things they're not planning on doing and yeah I I've had this before they don't they don't have to follow the bylaw right like um the situation in ammer had to do with a butter notification I think it was mass do or somebody who they were willing to I think file an RDA with us this was a while ago and sort of do things maybe that the wetlands protection some of the stuff that the wetlands protection act but any that was above and beyond the wetlands protection act they were like no we don't we don't do that because we'd have to abide with every single town that we deal with and whatever so is that's kind of what they're getting at then that they really don't have to follow the bylaw I guess okay so um I was I was really interested in the security section to be perfectly honest um and and I think that my main interest in the security section was this idea of negotiable Securities right I know that's standard language and I know it's in most bylaws when you're looking for shity bonds or something of that nature but I think they're really hard to manage so I think when you're basically looking for some sort of Financial Security for a project a bond or or an esro account something of that nature makes a lot more sense and then the other thing that they're trying to point out is that make sure it's set up so that it doesn't go into the general fund you want to make sure it's under that specific special account so that you can tap into it but I I'll just give all of you fair warning that chasing security bonds ASC accounts is really difficult um the insurance companies don't like to pay out on them you know they're very um fussy about when you claim how you claim whether it's covered by it and we can take care of some of that in the language of the bond making obviously you want to make sure that there a company that's can um do that kind of work in Massachusetts those kind of things but they're hard to Chase so you know making sure that there's good you know that the the contractors and everybody really understand your order of conditions so there aren't any surprises so you're not chasing a bond at some point down the road is a lot easier than having to chase those bonds yeah yeah they do provide Financial Security but they're hard to Chase and little shoots spy I don't I mean it does depend what projects come through right get some big ones yeah and you know so but that that's just I mean that's more of a cautionary note but negotiable Securities you know I can't imagine trying to chase those kind of things down insurance company security bonds escrow accounts they're there you know you know who to contact you know who to fight with negotiable Securities is a little trickier so what what is a negotiable negotiable Securities are like stop or you know some sort of financial pledge as opposed to a bond or an escrow account where they put the money in an account it's held by an escro agent and then you notify the escro agent if they haven't done the work they need to do and there's an agreement that says if they haven't done it within 30 days you can approach get the escrow agent to give you the money to go do the work um so I'm obviously the cautionary terar on all of that is make sure that they reflect the cost of the work because a bond for $20,000 if it's $80,000 worth of work is not going to help the town a lot um but it can't be way over you know so lots of times if you can get an engineer to hand you an estimate of what the work's going to cost so that you have it then you have a really good um Benchmark for what the amount of the bond or the escrow account should be so that's really helpful in a lot of these situations okay um enforcement entry on the property I think we've been discussing this for years um you need permission to go on people's properties if not we need to get an administrative search warrant there's two reasons for that one of course is the land owners for Amendment rights the second things is any ability to get fines or penalties if you go on the property and you find a flagrant violation and you want to collect fines or anything of that nature and you haven't gone on the property legally the courts won't give them to you it's that simple so it's much an administrative search warrants are pretty easy to get um you fill out an affidavit in District Court basically saying there's probable cause to believe there's a Wetlands act violation you list what it is you list why how you got the information and most district court judges will issue them we've had to get them over the years in a lot of the towns and the courts are pretty supportive of being able to go in um they're going to want to know the area you need to look at they're going to want some boundaries for the search warrant but that's much easier than going on the property people have saying you didn't have permission and then either trying to flect finds or do some other work where technically it was an a warrantless search um the the big exception of course is emergencies um and I was trying to think of examples when you may just decide that it's you need to get in there and you don't have time to get to court um and do it although Court takes about 24 hours max so it's not like it's a long time um but what I thought about was the um solar project in one of the towns years ago where they basically didn't do any erosion control and the entire and it was on a steep slope and the entire project slid into a wetland um and their Conservation Commission obviously had to act really fast to get in there and and stem what damage was being done before they could even issue any kind of order of conditions on how they were going to clean it all up um that may be an emergency where the court would say it was justified for you to go on property without permission or without a search warrant but it's got to be something that's happening immediately that you really need to get in there and that there's a real danger that a wetland will be irreparably harm armed or severely damaged to the point where it would be really difficult to correct it um before I would ever want you taking that chance so this so this is even for enforcements like we get a call that you know somebody's got a back ho and they're digging and digging in a wetland we we can't because there's the cease and desist cease and desist portion of an enforcement where you kind of want to get in there and make them stop doing what they're doing um but I guess but so in that case uh as long as you maybe called the property owner first and and said something's going on can we come onto your property if if the property owner gives you permission you you are allowed you're fine then you can go on the property but if they say no you're not coming on my property and you really believe a Wetlands being damaged then um you can go in an emergency basis but um any orders you issue are subject to challenge anything of that nature where if you have the time to fill out that affidavit my name is Beth Wilson I've been the chair of the concom been on the concom for X number of years I have this kind of experience in wetlands and Conservation Commission um protocols and processes um I've been I stood on the road on such and such Road in shsb Massachusetts and saw a back Co in the Wetland digging we need to get in there and look at it Court will give you a search warrant immediately and you can be on that property really fast okay sounds good you know and if you need any help with the affidavit or anything you just have to give me a call and we can and we can get it done um informing the police chief this was so misunderstood at town meeting and I didn't know what to do with it um at because it was happening so fast obviously the point of this section of the bylaw was that if you had information that other law enforcement off officers were coming into shuberry to enforce or to search or to investigate the chief just wants to know because once you have different law enforcement arms in a community you want to make sure they can coordinate if necessary and and that was the whole point of this it didn't have anything to do with you know notifi I mean that was the whole point of it was just to make sure that the shutesbury police if State Police or um environmental police were coming in to do an enforcement investigation that the police chief of shutesbury knows so once there's officers in her community that are trying to do something she can give backup if she needs to she can respond you know if questions come in about it and that was the point of this it's not really how it reads you know it that way clearly enough and so I certainly don't think it would hurt to think about um revising the language a little bit to get across that being the point of this is that when other law enforcement agencies are called to shoot Berry on Wetland matters um that the you know the police chief is notified that there'll be other law enforcement officers in the community because that was the point of it right yeah um yeah we to change the language sort of just sort of expand on I think what we're trying to say a little bit but uh to go through a whole town meeting to I know I know I know but I think that I think as long as that's how you interpret it and if you know somebody's coming in you just let the chief know so she knows other enforcement officers are in her community you know I don't think there's anything else that has to be done I mean the way it reads you know the Conservation Commission shall inform the police chief prior to any involvement with outside I mean if you need to call the environmental police to ask them a question question or call you know um State Police to ask a question or something I don't see you having to call the police chief on it and that's sort of the way it reads I think that what involvement will was supposed to mean was they were coming into town they'd be in town law other law enforcement officials and the chief should then know about it in case there's any coordination that's needed so um that's the way I would interpret it that's the way I'd use it um effective date we need to fill that in so oh well uh Grace posted it she did everything that this says to do and um I believe it's May 30th okay as long as as long as that's it was published in that's the last publication date required that's the date that goes in there yeah yeah she she did all the postings that needed to be done around town and whatnot and all right yeah and I didn't know are is there only one posting or two I can't remember see I assume we don't have a town bullet in or pamphlet it says shall be posted in at least five public places in the town and if the town is divided into precincts at least one week apart in the newspaper so it's that second week of the newspaper that the date goes in yeah so I she she told me she did it all to the book all right believe Grace So know me too so those are my comments on the AG's does anybody have any questions now no I think you covered you answered my question mine had to do with the uh informing the police chief and what we should kind of do with that and I think you're right I mean we leave it as is and we interpret it sort of as we meant it when we wrote it during the town meeting if down the road we end up again needing to make changes to the bylaw I guess I would suggest that maybe we expand on that a little bit to clarify it but I don't think I mean I would just changeed in involvement to knowledge that other police enforcement officers while be will be in the community or something like that you know yeah I remember going back and forth you know several of us on this call were um involved in tweaking that language we had conver conversation around it and it very much centered in on this issue Donna that I I think this was the intm where we were trying to make modifications originally to better reflect this intent and um so I I do think it's it's keeping in line with I think our interpretation of how we were putting it Forward at on meeting I just um I just think involvement is too large is yes yeah yeah too large of a word right yep so yeah so I guess if we get the chance down the road you know if we for some other reason we're revising the bylaw um maybe we we do change that a little bit Yeah and then you got to think of the political it was such a hot button issue for heaven knows what reason um that you know you may decide that you're just going to interpret involvement as actual presence and leave it at that instead of going back to town meeting and having the kind of discussion that went on at town meeting over that yeah yeah that's true too all right um I don't have any more questions any other Commissioners concern no all right well thank you Donna well you're welcome I'm sorry I didn't stay on long enough to do it last week that's okay that was felt like I felt like waiting for a professor you know they weren't there in 15 minutes I'm out of here me too 15 minutes that's the cut off all right everybody have a good evening you too thank you night all right that's great that makes me feel like our bylaw is sort of final you know and it is posted on the web page and it does have that effective date on it which I believe was May 30th um so I think we're good and we can file the Attorney General comments with it and not on the web page but you know just have them with it and I think we're good so yay so now we can move on to the [Laughter] regulations the regulations let me get so I think I had mentioned kind of looking at um article one and article three but maybe tonight actually we I'm you know so busy our life goes on that we just do article one that's our right with folks because I I do have some changes to it so there'll probably be some discussion um I guess I should share it right just a second which version are we using I think we're going to use the same one um that we looked at at the last meeting the one that to that no I didn't want to go through I feel like feel like all of us have really looked at this one you know yeah right oh shoot all right this is this is this was called the redline version in my file um I think it is the right one it's just not yeah so this is the red line version but it's just not showing the red lines so it's it's already made the changes if you know what I mean is that going to work for folks yeah okay um so some changes were made in here that um that I was all right with uh what was changed has all the changes to this this section just reflect the new bylaw and and basically take language from the [Music] bylaw I could get this in Redline version but I don't have word that's the problem I could get I could bring it up in Google Docs but then I think it might look even weirder um so also so this whole section one I you know and I don't want to go through everything because Miriam already we already went through it once but it it talks about the values it talks about the resource areas that are under our jurisdiction and any changes that were that were made between what was voted in and here really just reflect the um the bylaw so I'm fine with Section six I do have a question about 1.72 and okay this is really just clarification for me I think um so for example we're going to go on a site visit there on PRACK Corner Road that they they asked you to come and look and see you know what they're what they're doing that isn't for an RDA so I guess there's a step that happens before request for determinations if somebody asks yeah there really is um sort of a question of of where's you know are you talking about like where is the Wetland and if you're in if you're in a resource area or if you're just in the aura um so this is kind of um people can file a request for determination to find out whether they need to file a notice of intent is what this is sort of reflecting and [Music] um people sometimes do that a lot of people will just if they're actually doing work in a resource area we'll just jump right to filing a notice of intent um so most requests for determination are for things are in the aura and as long as the commission is able to determine that the work in the aura is not impacting directly impacting resource area then there's no need to file a notice of intent is that kind of what you're asking yeah that's you broke it down kind of into two parts and that was was part of it but I guess the other part was even before that if somebody just has a question because they're not sure you know what's going on at all they can call us and we go look is that true yeah definitely okay most times people um aren't sure if what they have is a wetland or not and they're not sure if the work they're doing is you know within 100 feet of a wetland and a lot of times if if we go do a site visit and we don't see a wetland within 100 feet then we can tell them they don't need to apply but if there's even any kind of a question usually for me at least if there's any kind of a question about an area and we think that it probably is a wetland then I typically tell the homeowner they need to hire somebody hire a wetland scientist to come and take a look and most likely delineate the Wetland line um so that then once they've got that line they can determine where their project lies where their work area lies in regard to the Wetland okay Y and then of course at that point if it's if it's not in the Wetland and it's in the aura we can advise them on um some of the minor activities for the aura that are in our regulations that even if you're in the buffer zone but you're outside you know 50 feet you're between that 50 to 100 feet away from the Wetland line line there's some things you can do and and you don't have to um file anything at all so again that would be a discussion we'd have with with somebody when they're trying to figure out what they need to submit to the commission and this this doesn't fit into any of that but I saw that uh I think it was the planning board or I think it was the planning board sent something to you because somebody wanted a building permit and I didn't see any follow up on that so I'm assuming because they're outside of our jurisdiction that you say you know it's outside of our jurisdiction or something in response um I don't I don't recall that [Music] um yeah if if if there's definite evidence that there's you know say that say somebody has has delineated the Wetland and the work that they're proposing even if it has to go to the planning board um um but it's outside the 100 feet then that's what I would respond yeah to the planning board that it's not under our jurisdiction because it's over 100 fet okay yeah yep um all right so section two this is where I um would like to see some things taken out um for example if you read two 2.2 activities undertaken in resource area including the AA or Riverfront have a high likelihood of unacceptable significant or accumulative effects upon the resource area either immediately as a consequence of construction um or daily operation unacceptable effects from construction can include but are not limited to blah blah blah so this really has to do with the aura the buffer zone and Riverfront um and that you know this is basically saying work done in those two areas can actually affect the resource areas um then if you look at 24 it kind of says in reviewing activities within the aura the commission shall presume the aura is important um because activities undertaken in close proximity have likelihood of adverse effect immediately or due to construction or daily operation the effects can include and so a lot of this to me is saying the exact same thing it's saying work in the buffer zone or in the aura could impact a resource area and we need to look at that work closely but I don't think we need to be saying it twice and the this exact verbage a lot of the same language is also in the back of the regulations in the OR AA section we have a whole section on buffer zone on aura that has a um because this is these are presumptions and the the aura section just like you know if you look at the back of the regulations bank has a whole section um bvw and ivw have a section and each of those sections has starts with a presumption section to it and then it gets to definitions and then it gets to um so this same language about fact that we need to certainly look over projects in the aura and the riverfront repeats again in the back of the regulations in the in the aura section so if you guys are on board I feel like we we take out some of this duplicate language um and and and all of this is added this is none of this was in the version that we voted in it's not in our current regulations this is all new new language that Miriam added in um with with her revisions that she did to our regulations I do like the discussion she talks about um let's see where was it climate climate change kind of you know there there should be some new new language having to do with uh with climate change under climate conditions predicted projects so like 21 I was okay with but I felt like 22 and two two4 and 25 just sort of repeat a lot of this this stuff about Riverfront and um the aura and then again both Riverfront and the aura have their own presumptions in their own sections in in the back of the regulations so what do people think I like the idea of having climate change introduced in into the thought process but I'm very uncomfortable with um trying to suggest that we have measures that are adequate for determining you know impacts into the future or even at present that are very uh that are very easy to gauge I think that's a sticky way M let's see what it says when making a decision to approve or deny a permit the commission shall consider whether proposes significant values of the bylaw including values pertaining to climate resilience and greenhouse gas mitigation such as local temperature regulations biodiversity and carbon storage under climate conditions predicted for the lifespine of the project climate change resilience on adaptation yeah do we talk up here anywhere about any of that so the only thing I want to say that so in 1.5 which are the resource area values we've got protection of biodiversity and Mitigation Of adverse effects from climate change carbon greenhouse gas storage and sequest sequestration um so that is all from the bylaw so we we did build it into the bylaw to be something that we would kind of look at and consider when we're reviewing projects Bob you have your hand out I just wanted to follow up on that so this is a part of the bylaw that's been approved this this 1.5 well these are these are the regulations but they're quoting yeah they're they're sort of because the regulations should really reflect what's in the bylaw um so yeah that language is in the bylaw it is regarding the uh Mitigation Of adverse effectum climate change yeah yes okay thank you I think to uh Janice's point it is um it is very difficult to to gauge that kind of um activity um you know we we have certain certain standards uh for um uh distance and and what's a wetland and what's not but to try and say um such and such an activity will interfere with sequestration of greenhouse gases that that's that's something I think that is a a much more difficult uh thing to uh to quantify yeah it is just breing it you know I think parts of it are easier to quantify the loss of biodiversity that that part is see here um but I I do agree it's could be difficult to interpret resilience or adaptation I mean I I think it is covered and I I forget exactly what the reg regulations do uh further on about replacing trees with X number of trees and so on like that where you're um ensuring shade so that temperature modulation can occur in your you know nearby Waters I I think there's some things out there but the way it's written right there it it just makes me kind of nervous if we have things built in elsewhere that kind of cover what we're talking about we can say we want these things and the and the and the general Spirit of what we're recommending falls into that category but yeah it's a little sketchy yeah well and it says the commission's decision to approve or deny shall consider the applicants avoidance minimization or mitigation measures which they should always provide that kind of thing and how how those address uh climate change resilience and adaptation um well I I remember reading somewhere that um if trees were taken down they would be replaced with the same kind of tree for example I I can't remember if it's where where that lands now um but for example I guess this the resilience aspect could be used to justify using a different species where hemlock for example might not be the right answer into the future I don't know yeah I think I think you're right I think in the rest of the regulations we have some things built in that we can kind of use as um you know based on sort of that tree section or other sections of the regulations we we can say we prefer this done um because it is in in the end a good to do with climate change happening you know um so I guess I'm okay with this paragraph uh we can maybe think about tweaking it a little bit but I'm I'm all right leaving this in um again because to me it is one of the only areas in in the document where there's sort of a presumption that talks about um climate change but we can tweak it if you guys want to make efforts to CH to change it I guess I have one more concern and that is every time we see um in the second line of 2.1 it says uh to have a significant individual or cumulative adverse effect um I'm not sure what cumulative adverse effect means is that on the particular project on the particular uh piece of property or if the abuts all cut all their trees down and then you want to come cut your trees done you can't because they did how how are we interpreting that um significant individual or cumulative adverse effect um I've seen cumulative have to do with the same property having different projects over time on that on that same property um that then so you know so if somebody's individual application may be just to take down three trees but then two years later they come back with wanting to put a deck up and take five trees down there's sort of a cumulative effect on a resource area you know or or you could think of it as um the work itself like different aspects of a particular project could cumulatively have an effect say there's an intermittent stream um you know and first of all the project seems to be kind of changing the storm water drainage around that stream but the project also is taking down some trees which will change the temperature of the stream so like kind of different aspects of the project can have a cumulative effect on a resource area but you're still looking at that as the uh particular piece of property that the owner has control of not adjacent properties and stuff okay yeah I don't think yeah I don't think we can be uh dealing with different properties in that way okay um all right so moving on to how do you guys feel about taking some of the repetition out that I that I see maybe you guys don't see it I vote for removing any repetition you find Bob or Scott how do you guys feel about that I just this this number 22 and then we jump down to both 24 and 25 seem to to me and then the fact that both river front and the aura have their own presump presumption sections in the back of the regulations um it just seems repetitive as long as um an average reader would be able to uh find um that reference U you know as as they're putting their thing together I'm fine with removing the repetition yeah I mean I'm assuming if you're if you're really in there reading the rags do your application you'd be looking at this you'd be looking at the table of contents and you'd be like well I'm you know I'm just in the aura what do I have to do I'm only in the buffer zone so then you find the section on Buffer zon which is here we go so there's there's Bank Wetlands FAL pools land underwater bodies land subject to flooding 100 foot adjacent Upland Aura go to page 40 you find this the section on on the buffer zone let's see what was 2 three to PR the commission shall avoid alteration feasible more alterations unavoidable this is about replication and again encouraging avoidance minimization and mitigation I mean that right there you have you have that two one to talk about climate change and then you have this almost General presumption about about all work um proposing avoidance minimization mitigation commission shall preser the or of the riverfront and other resource should be left undisturbed and natural to the greatest extent possible I think that's a great introduction 24 25 repeat repeat repeat wildlife habitat study yeah I'm okay with that being kind of up front I think that's also discussed in in the back in each section under each resource area so says yeah I guess I just have a hard time because this this none of this was in what we originally approved and what our current regulations are and I think what Miriam was just thinking was she kind of took like the key points of of all the rest of the document brought it up front which you know kind of makes sense in terms of this is what people are going to see but it's regulations I just don't feel like it's like it just shouldn't be that long and it shouldn't repeat things like you almost all of this stuff is repeated later in the document and she's just bringing it up front um anyway that would be my suggestion for that section is to kind of just take out the stuff that's later I don't know is that what you guys think I agree okay yeah I haven't I to be H I'm trying to look to see it is it truly repeated where is it Incorporated elsewhere but I in concept I agree with you Beth I I haven't it would be helpful just to look through each one to see where it you know like as we're pulling up is it concisely stated somewhere else yeah well you know it's like writing the introduction to a paper a lot of times you have to write your whole paper before you go back and write your introduction yeah yeah this is kind of like that in a sense we could get rid of an awful lot of this but maybe we don't want to do that until we go through the the meat of the regulations right star them or flag them or what ever you know and just confirm yeah that yeah that's exactly what yeah that I was that I'm thinking we do is we'll go through each article and when we get to these sections we can go back and say oh right this is where we're looking at the presumptions for a bank and the presumptions for the aura and kind of see if it repeats up front and maybe take it out up front or maybe it could just be like an introduction where you know we don't write it like a regulation up here but more like like an introduction you know we don't have to write all that stuff out because it is later and but but if people are just wanting a general idea the thing is it gets to be a slog to read all of this and that's hard on people right well and also for regulations um at least for me you know I think as miam said these are more for us than they are for the applicants applicants aren't and for me I've used them forever when I I need the answer you know I need to know what the regulations say so you go to the regulations and you look it up and you you want the answer to be right there and be clear and when you do this when you start repeating stuff in different areas of of a document it makes it more confusing and and it and it creates a situation where you might say something differently in different places and to me that's like just not what regulations are supposed to be regulations are they should be structured and they should just kind of state you know this is the answer this is the answer this is you know what I mean so when it gets too wordy or when you when you talk about one thing in one place and then talk about it again in another um I just think it opens up for having confusion too so we should be just careful of that I guess I agree with that I also think where it's I mean that the bound the bylaw itself is more General and the r should be more clear kind of getting the black and white in interpretation step down to the bylaw but where it's more vague or you know open to interpretation that that's also UNH helpful so I think you want to but I agree with what you're saying Beth it's not helpful to if if you have it written same thing several in several parts of the document and they may be worded differently or they say different things that would be UNH helpful yeah yeah yeah agree regulations should kind of get into the more details about things and be be very clear um all right so section three exemptions and exceptions this is this is for me again just to clarify basically the exemptions and exceptions only apply to public stuff like when we got new foam poles or something like that it doesn't this isn't about um individuals or homeowners or land owners right well there's the agriculture section um right 31 oh 31 right 31 right is is really for um uh what do you call like uh Public Utilities yeah that's what I was utilities that's the word I was trying to think of yes exactly Public Utilities so if we're going to keep something like that I wouldn't mind having something in there that says that right up front so I don't even bother reading it thinking I'm G to find an exemption for myself you know I don't know yeah it's buried in there but ever hopeful I look at something and hope to God that might apply to me and of course it doesn't mhm well let's see so there's there's the that's right is more General 3 five might apply to private projects so 31 is is really strictly Public Utilities so maybe it should just say that instead of existing structures or facilities maybe it should say Public Utilities I like that I'm going put that in here my and agriculture is clear you're either fman or you're not yep and then emergency projects have their own now again is emergency projects simply public interest stuff no so so anything anything any individual is doing if it has a health and safety benefit you know that right so you we will get to and you can read through when you want to Article Five of the regulations that's all about emergency projects and how that works so that's that's the emergency certification like what we issued for the dam removal um it it needs to be um declared an emergency by a public entity so DPW the town's DPW or in the case of the dam the so the emergency certification form that's one of the lines and one of the requirements to issue an emergency is that some sort of a public agency has declared it an emergency um so it's often the Department of Health like having to do with beavers and that kind of thing if there's a situation where we feel like it's an emergency or the applicant or somebody feels like it's an emergency so there's there's not time to file an RDA there's not time to file a no 710 we need to get this done and say it's a beaver issue often it'll be the Board of Health that is the one who gets written in you know somebody calls the Board of Health there's a beaver problem here um flooding uh people swim here people fish here people you know people are around this area and and um there's a beaver dam and it's causing health issues terms of bacteria or or a threat to the road whatever it's a threat to the road it's probably DPW who would be the one to somebody has to declare it an emergency I guess it has to be a public entity but it can certainly be a private person's property where this is happening so is there a a does it have to be certified before you can take action in that instance or any of those kind of instances so it's a certified emergency project yeah it is if there's if if somebody's got a a situation where they need to do something and it's going to impact a resource area but they think it's an emergency they don't have time to file an RDA or notice of intent um they most likely would contact us and we would say okay you know you need to probably talk to Department um Board of Health or DPW those in town those would probably be the two that would be the ones who would say yes that is an emergency um and then conservation we can issue an emergency CT anytime we don't have to have a meeting first like as as the chair I have the authority to issue an emergency certification without bringing it to a meeting um that's how somebody would do that so would it help to put certified in front of that certified emergency projects 3.3 um sure I mean the that's different than somebody thinking they have an emergency and just going and you know driving the backhoe through whatever yeah I think I think I mean it says right there provided that all conditions and requirements of emergency projects in Article Five Below are satisfied and Article Five gets into the whole process really you know like that there is an emergency certification form um and this is how you would go about getting that filled out and uh approved by the Conservation Commission yeah I hear you I'm just again I I zero in on that and think geez I found a way right see the application applications and Perms required by the B shall not be required for emergency projects necessary for the protection of human health and safety provided that all conditions and requirements of emergency projects in Article Five Below are satisfied I don't know I think I mean if somebody read that sentence then they'd go oh you know provided that and then they would go to Article Five and they would they would get the whole bigger description about whether or not they qualify I guess I hope I may be more eager um so yeah and 34 was in the um is in the bylaw so we're that got added in okay so then 3 five say about 35 okay so what I wanted to point out about 35 35 is the minor activities in the the buffer zone and Riverfront and so it it lists a lot of the minor activities that are in the wetlands protection act in the wetlands protection act regulations that are they're considered minor activities they're in the aura um most of them have to be I think them have to be over 50 feet from the Wetland line but they're all you know they're all basically allowed without an RDA or a notice of intent um and I'm I'm fine with that what I wanted to point out because I Scott I think you were the one interested in all this stuff that we do have in there activities that fall within the definition of 310 CMR 10.02 2be are not exempt from the regulations and that is the one he is the one that is um I should bring it up but it's accessory structures to houses and whatnot over lawn areas so I know you asked me about that recently having to do I think with the 70 L drive there are several that come I mean we have one right now the the carport that we talked about somebody they have a driveway um they just want to put a carport up on their driveway and so in my mind that could fall within this exempt activity it's small enough U and it's converting in this case to use a carport example um or maybe we should make it more generic but it's converting lawn or driveway you know into um into a accessory structure and so it's allowed under the Wetland protection act and I think the question we've gone back and forth on our that's true uh and what would be allowed under the bylaw and how much of that do we want to regulate and I think here it's carving that out and saying that's not exempt and then we're setting a different standard for activities within the first I think it's 50 feet and then a size limit and I did have comments on that when we get to that part I don't think that's till part seven but um so I'm I'm okay with with this um worded like in this way I just I I do think when we circle around to defining what would be allowed you know what what is truly minor exempt and and U or have we specified that correctly in the in the regs here yeah well I mean this is this is the section where we're saying um that we're we're uh going along with the minor activities that are in the wetlands protection act except for that that that e the last sentence there and E is is that one that that I just mentioned that and you were just talking about that's um accessory structures um I could read it to you from the wless protection act but um so that is my question is do we do we want to include e so we're reflecting exactly what's in the Wetland protection act or do we not and I guess I I um I don't really recall a lot of discussion about why we were taking it out why why it was one that we did not want to include has a minor activity um yeah well I just got OD because I was the one arguing have it mirror the state Wetland protection act and right I think I was in the minority here but I I think to argue the other point I think and and there's a there's a valid point to be argued on the other side which is well ultimately we may still um allow for those types of development to occur we would we have additional Protections in our bylaw that are more stringent than that of the State we have protected the aura as a resource area and so allowing for these types of minor exempt activities to occur within the aura um may go against the spirit of what we just approved at town meeting for the bylaw and um when and so maybe want to set a different standard and I just pulled it up I think it's later on where they get to I think it's 7.68 and they talk about no more than 120 square feet so that we've we've come up with a different standard there in these Rags so we're not we're still allowing for some conversion we're just saying it it has to be smaller um less than 120 square F feet and um and it also has has to be in the outer 50 ft of the aura so we could all discuss whether or not that's the right measure to have here or if we just wanted to adopt the the standard laid out in the Wetland protection act but um that's how I understood it I think um folks were interested in defining it a little bit more specifically maybe regular ating these a little bit more um than what was provided for the Wetland protection [Music] act Yeah so basically I think yeah we decided to to have it not be exempt here but then under the small projects section of the regulations we do talk about sort of similar projects where they're small in size and then people can submit a small project application instead of an RDA or an noi and that's a pretty simple process simple proc I think the other CH channeling those who had a kind of maybe a different opinion than I did um I think they also felt that this was a good service to the town too that um will take you know someone who's interested in doing a project and it's close to a wetland but it's converting existing grass to a structure or or something similar that this they may not always know if they're how close they are to a wetland and what the impacts could be and not automatically exempting it as a minor exempt activity but um facilitating that site visit from Commissioners to walk through with applicants would be of benefit to the applicant to help them stay compliant with the Wetland protection act and the bylaw both and so that was the other I think yeah if I were to kind of arguing against my previous argument um that's I think those are the other things that good J against yourself I like that but I I I mean for my own part I when looking at it I was just thinking through you know for all the work that we do do going through and looking at these types of projects more often than my belief is more often than not we end up looking at a lot at some projects that that really are minor exempt activities they don't have the impact on wetlands and we end up approving them regardless of whether or not we do a site visit or not so maybe it's a move point it's really about time at the commission spent going around and looking at these projects and then have the applicant having to coordinate with us [Music] too okay I just looked up that e 310 CMR 1022 be um and in there it in the Wetland protection act things have to be over 50 ft also so the 50 ft is both in the Wetland protection act and in I guess you were saying in our small project provision anyway I think the only restriction that we have in addition is we say it it has to be smaller um for the small projects it has right now as drafted uh we say that it has to be less than 120 square feet and I I don't think the same provision is in the wild protection act no yeah you're right you are right let's see no I'd love to hear I mean Jan or or Bob have thoughts that I mean you all weren't and Beth too but I think Bob and jam were part of those conversations when we had them originally too so they may have thoughts on it that are different you I thought I would have is when we get to that section you know maybe we can double back and make sure um however we're interpreting that lines up and feels good then any comments Bob yeah no just ju just uh trying to parse it out um uh uh the um so is potential for unaccessable significant cumulative effects in the resource area during constructions um I I I think we as a board would kind of know what what's what uh but it's it's um it does leave a lot to it judgment call I guess it would be my comment on it but I don't know how to but I I think that's probably okay because we good judgment okay I agree all right well um we will we will double back on I think a lot of this front section when we're in the in the more detailed well ultimately where I landed on that is I I I think the way it's worded is good I I do I can understand the U the benefits to taking out that part e u from the exemptions and then I think dealing with it in the small project section is a is a good way of going about it and I think we can talk about it when we get to that part so I'm just to be clear I kind of gone back and forth on this one but I'm I'm good with the way it's worded as is all right sounds good um and then the rest of this stuff there weren't there were not any changes the I think yep yeah look at that we got through article one and I think we're we are we are stipping definitions and coming back and I I I think I mentioned this before I a little bit of a fan of taking definitions out and putting them in as an appendix that way somebody comes you know if it is a an applicant who does take the crazy idea of going and looking at the regulations you know they've got their table of contents and you know they hopefully go to the sections that they they want to go to but you know they read that section one and it's a good sort of introduction to what our jurisdiction is what our values are here are the exemptions um you know and then then it should jump right into I feel like section three but you know again we can talk about this but taking all these these definitions out of just they're sort of sitting right in the middle of the document I've seen it in other towns where they'll they'll take it out put in the back but um anyway I think that's it for tonight is that all right with we move on for section three um at our next meeting I'd be okay with that too so let me just make sure we talked about what we needed to talk about tonight so we're going to have site visits next Thursday Two site visits next Thursday and a meeting next Thursday the 25th and [Music] then I'll send an email after talking with penny I'm finding out if the 29th or someday the week of the 29th would be good for the topof the Lake Conservation Area field trip um are you available that week Scott since you're are con Conservation Area ma'am oh you're muted there we go sorry about that what which week were we talking about uh it's Monday July 29th I will be can we if we could kick it back to August I'll be available I'm sure I I can find time but I won't be available until then you're way okay yeah I'm away the the first week of August August 3rd to the 10th I guess um so I'll just I'll tell Penny that it would be probably that second week of August you know I don't think there's a real time frame for this um yeah okay check in with her and let you guys know but all right that's all I have let me stop um for coordinating for the site Vis for next Thursday thinking the uh to look at the car port would be at about quarter to 4 um 4:15 I was thinking of meeting at 678 Pratt Corner Road at 3:45 okay and then going to that second one yeah I was thinking 4:15 about a half hour for a site visit I'll write it back copy it awesome yes oh yeah right that's right get in touch with her that would be great um yeah all right that's all I have motion to adjourn I'd like to make it motion to adjourn second I second all right Rowan hi Douglas hi KH hi and Wilson I all right thank you all thanks everybody have a great night all right thank you have a good night good night bye night Carrie