Good evening. Uh welcome everyone to uh the Conservation Commission's uh meeting today uh Wednesday the 28th of January uh 2026. Um we have a full complement of uh
commissioners in addition to uh town staff uh Aaron Jacqu and David Zomac. And uh today the main uh thing we'll be doing is uh discussing uh the conservation land use policy and
regulations draft that uh uh was put together by the um mostly by the uh uh the subcommittee um back a year ago or so. Um,
with that, um, I need to open up my, uh, my agenda. Um, but I believe that we're, uh, we're going to have, uh, some, uh, the director's, uh, report. Is that correct? Let me get that agenda open.
I'm sorry. >> Sure. While you do that, I'm happy to provide a couple of quick updates for the commission before we get into the land use policy. Um well obviously the the uh story of the week is the storm and um conservation staff, our land
manager and our assistant land manager are out there trying to uh you know uh open up conservation particularly conservation parking and trail heads. So um I was out and about a little bit today. We're having a little trouble with our plow, but um that is something
that our small staff does at Buffers Bond and Sweet Alice and PODC and Wentworth and and Stanley Street and and the list goes on and on. So, uh we're getting there, but um there's a lot to plow out and just like the the town in
general, DPW, and facilities and conservation, we're we'll get there. So, uh, look for all of those places to be open hopefully opened up by the weekend. Um, what else to to share with you
tonight? Um, the CPA process is moving forward. Um um uh Jason and I attended a meeting last week where the CPA committee is, you know, has done their their straw
poll and and really voted for the most part at least for their intentions of of what to fund. um of the 16 projects I believe u 14 out of 16 plus or minus um
uh are being considered for funding and next week uh a week from tomorrow the the CPA will um come together and we'll have some um we'll merge kind of the the the intentions of the committee with the
financing and how do how do we come together and try to fund all of those 14 or so projects um in the various categories and some of that will be cash capital available through the CPA fund and the rest uh will be bonded in some
way way shape or form. So we'll have more on that after next Thursday's meeting. Um let's see. It's also a time to kind of get planning for this uh field season. So, as an example, at Hickory
Ridge, we've got um a number of things that are moving toward uh getting out there uh to to put out there for uh bidding. Uh we're we're trying to get the uh major bridge over the Fort River out to bid and get that uh
reconstructed. We've also got some additional ADA trail work uh that we've got to get done there as well. And of course, as I mentioned before, it's budget time. So staff from all different departments will be working with the town manager and the finance director on
on um FI27 budgets. It's going to be a challenging year, as I said before. Um budgets are tight, a lot of costs are escalating. So um we'll do the very best we can to continue to fund uh the conservation department. And then last
but not least, we are um um something that that I initiated recently. Um we're going to be working with the Conway School of Design on an interesting project, an interdep departmental project, pulling in the DPW
and the conservation department. um uh into a project to really look at kind of Lawrence Swamp, the greater Lawrence Swamp area, that area between uh um the the uh active rail line, the Belchuretown line and Southeast Street
uh and then points north and then Bay Road. Really looking at that whole big swamp area that uh contains so many different parcels with so many different uh histories both of acquisition and conservation for various purposes. So, we're fortunate to have a threeperson
team from Conway School of Design uh working with us and uh we're going to be having a conversation. I believe Andre was invited to one of the initial conversations coming up in the weeks ahead as chair of the commission and we're going to pull in the Castro Trust
and um a few other stakeholders to really talk about that and they'll be producing maps and we'll have some interesting things to share with the commission in the weeks ahead. It's a short project about 11 or 12 weeks and um we'll be looking at land use, oh
access, you know, trail trail status, uh rare and endangered species habitat, and the list goes on. So, we've got some really capable Conway students, uh working with us on that. And it's it's a chance for staff and DPW and conservation to kind of just get our
house in order down there to really look at all of those parcels and see are there other additional parcels we should acquire, preserve, um uh what are some of the land uses down there that are working? Maybe there are some things encroachment, etc. that we're not
comfortable with around our wells or around our trails. So, uh it should be an interesting project. very very very fast uh moving because uh it's a short short 11week project for the for the students. So those are the three or four updates I'll share tonight. I don't want
to take up too much of your time. >> Thanks Dave. Um Bruce, uh you had a question. Um, I just wanted to note out of interest that of all the six different winter planning projects that Conway is doing, this is the one that got the most votes, the most interest
from students to be their project. So, I I don't know the students this year, so but uh very eager to work on it. >> We met with them once and they're very good. Erin and I both agree they're very
good. They are they're on it. On it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Super >> super talented folks. >> Oh, great. Very interesting. Thanks, Dave. Um uh as far as the chair's report, uh uh today's an exciting day
because we are going to finally get in uh to the conservation uh uh land regulations. Um it's been we've been uh looking forward to getting this done. It's going to be mostly a working
session. Uh we do have uh some uh some other uh business to uh wrap up here with some uh minutes and uh land use applications and uh so on. Um uh and
uh reminder that the hunting regulations uh will not be uh discussed here tonight. Um they will be coming in the near future um uh as a probably an
add-on to a regular uh meeting or uh we may uh set aside another uh meeting specific to uh hunting. Um I did have a question from uh for Dave. I
know that you've had a meeting with uh uh with the town attorney and the uh uh town uh one of the police officers there or uh a or the chief, I'm not sure. Uh would you mind uh updating us on that uh
now so that we have that knowledge before the hunting meeting, please? >> Um yeah, I'll do the best I can, Andre. I didn't really prepare anything. I know in a recent email you asked for um some
sort of written uh outline or written um summary of that and Aaron and I are happy to uh provide that for the commission. Um we had one so um and Aaron you may need to jog my memory a little bit. It's been a little
while since we met with town attorney on this. Um, we we overall I think we've asked them all along. Town attorney always has to review should always review any new policies andor regulations.
Um, they they went through that errand. They went through this document we're going to look at tonight and then they've gone through the u the hunting regulations. I think our focus with them was uh and I'm going to need some some help
here, but our focus with them was, you know, is the draft policy that was developed by the subcommittee are there any red flags in it? Any any concerns? I think the one thing that jumped out at uh the
town attorney and he had to go back and do a little more digging on this is that um let me see if I got this straight. His interpretation of state law is state law regarding conservation land is that
uh town city and town conservation land is actually not open to hunting unless it is and these are my own words affirmative affirmatively voted by the local conservation commission. So, by
default, uh, conservation land is not open. A town, any town that wants to have their land open to conservation or excuse me, to hunting needs to affirmatively vote those areas to be open. So that was his
that was kind of new information for us that we never excuse me never had uh with the the town subcommittee. Excuse me. Been in meetings all day. Did I get that right, Erin? Excuse me. >> Yes.
Um, so that was the one bit of new information um that the subcommittee as far as I can recall the subcommittee and Bruce was on that subcommittee as well. Uh, I don't think we ever consulted town attorney during that process. We were kind of
waiting to see where we would get and then share the draft with town attorney, our town's attorney. My memory is that it got subdivided out. Um, and whether the attorney looked at that
piece of it or not, obviously, we're going to look at the other part, the the non- hunting part, and there are attorney comments in that, but I don't know about the hunting one. >> Yeah, we can. Yeah, I was I was looking for a brief uh brief on it. We don't I
really didn't want to get too far into it. But I wanted to hear what you had to say. I'd love to see the uh uh the regulations that uh the the attorney's talking about. Um so if you can ask them for that, that'd be wonderful. So that we have it during the meeting.
Then we can talk offline. >> Sure. And then on on the local PD, we we asked uh through the chief of police, we in preparation for future conversations about hunting, we we had never reached out to the uh Ammeris Police Department,
and we queried um um the police department a little bit about their experience with concerns or complaints about hunting on on conservation land. And Aaron, do you do you want to help me out a little bit? Uh that was a a brief conversation with with Ron Young from
the um Emmeris PD. >> Yeah. Um I'm not really sure. So we we shared uh the analysis map that we that I created which has the setbacks for roads and
residences and then it highlights the conservation lands all of the conservation lands and their sort of geographic proximities to the setbacks and then highlighted the ones in red that are currently listed on our website as open to hunting.
um and just shared that with him and said, you know, do you have any comments on this or uh have you had any issues? Have you do you have any suggestions, things to make make things easier andor how has enforcement been? What is your
sort of position on enforcement and how you deal with it? Um he was uh Ron was very knowledgeable about hunting. Seemed like he had had a lot of experience with hunting. Um and he expressed
um just sort of uh suggestions that you know keeping the larger parcels that are further away from houses and roads in hunting um versus like the smaller parcels that are
you know more complicated to enforce the setbacks on like um I mean I think we specifically talked about Amethyst Brook because it's so small and it's so close to the road. Um, but just in general sort of those those conflicts where they
arise is close to roads or close to houses. And so we just sort of talked that through. He didn't really give any recommendations. We just sort of talked. I shared the map with him and we were going to have a follow-up meeting with him to hopefully get some recommendations from PD or get some
thoughts or ideas from them in terms of moving forward with the policy, things to share with the commission. But um we haven't been able to have that meeting yet. So that that is what I recall about the meeting. I if I could add the one other thing was just clear communication
because for the for the police department when they get a complaint or they you know we had that recent one up in north uh norththeast Ammerst um they need to be able to go somewhere to look for either the website or a kiosk or
somewhere where the regulations are posted because these things happen on a weekend. They have on a holiday. They happen on you know when when nobody else is around. So there's no one to call and say, "Hey, is it okay to do this at that conservation area?" So I think it speaks to clear communication on the website
policy and out in the field on kiosks and signs letting people know what they can and can't do out there. So that's all nothing really earthshattering, but clear communication to the public. >> Great. Thank you. um
to continue. Uh then I'll uh uh we are still, believe it or not, with all the uh snow that we've gotten, we are still uh in a drought status. Um we'll see what happens once this uh
melts down. I'm sure uh it's going to be a a big charge for uh for the reservoir and our uh uh streams and such. Um and uh with that uh I'm done with the
uh with our director's report. Um Aaron, is there anything uh else that uh we >> Yeah. So, so we have minutes. We could table the minutes until after the discussion if you'd prefer. Um there is
um a one land use application and there's a member or the applicant who submitted the land use application is is with us in the um waiting room. So if you want to um review that andor if they have any comments to share um they're
here. So >> I think that's a fair uh fair way to proceed. We can uh table it until after the uh table the uh minutes until after the land use uh applications if you want
and then we'll get into uh our discussion of the uh regulations I think would be the best way. >> Okay. Um so I'm just going to pull up the land use application. Um >> yeah.
>> So, uh the application request was for um using a snowb blower to um clear a
ice rink at Owens Pond on um Wentworth Conservation Area. Um so that is the re the request. Um, and I had spoken with uh Brad and and Dave about this ahead of
the meeting. I uh Dave, I don't know if you have any comments you want to share. >> Well, isn't the applicant here? >> Yes. >> Well, I would recommend we hear from the applicant first if if that's okay with Andre and the commission and we can we can share staff comments.
>> Okay. Do you want me to um allow them to to talk, Andre? >> Yeah, please do, Erin. >> Okay. >> Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you, Michelle. Thanks for uh thanks for joining us. I I'm supposing that your name is Michelle.
>> Yes. Hi, I'm Michelle Wilson. Yes. Hi. Thank you for for uh receiving the application and and giving me a chance to speak. Um my name is Michelle. I live on Pestal Lane uh relatively close to the Wentworth Farm Conservation Area and
um my husband, myself and my our two children uh frequently ice skate on the pond uh Owens Pond at Wentworth and many of our neighbors do as well. And what we're actually hoping for is to be able to occasionally use a snowb blower to
clear the ice when there's a significant amount of snowfall. Um, obviously we know that shovels can be used, but given the number of people who like to skate there and the space that is required to clear enough space for, you
know, significant usage, um, using a snowblower is just super efficient. And um it also just creates a smoother uh skating surface for for the kids. Um one of the really wonderful things about using the pond for skating is we've just
seen like a tremendous sort of increase again in like the number of people going out and using it. And there's just building community. You know, there's just more kids out there. There's more families out there using it. every single person that we've interacted with who's used the pond after the snowblower
was was used um thanked us for for doing it. And then we were asked by the conservation commission actually to stop doing that and put in an application. We didn't realize we weren't allowed to. So that's why I'm here to get formal permission from the conservation
commission to do this again fre not frequently but occasionally when there's significant snowfall so we can clear the ice quickly and people can use the pond for skating. >> So uh just to make it clear um you're
not asking for permission to uh to clear an area. You're asking for permission to get a snowblower out there. >> Yeah, just just to bring the snowblower out on the ice, clear the ice, and then bring the snowblower back to our house, park it there. It would just be, you
know, like I think it usually takes about an hour or so um to clear a big enough space. So, it would just again be >> just when there's significant snow on the ice. >> Would you mind describing that snowb blower to us?
>> Sure. Um, actually my husband knows the make and model. So, let me just ask him real quick and I'll get right back to you. Hold on one sec. >> Two stage. >> It's a Toro 28 in two-stage snowblower.
>> Gas operated. I I I assume >> because gas operated. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um uh right now Aaron or andor Dave for the town's uh view.
>> I guess the I have the unfortunate uh role of of trying to give just some advice to the commission. So who doesn't love skating? I love skating. I I love Owens Bond and and this is, you know, I think Michelle
has described it quite well. It's, you know, we have so many activities out there that are magical. I guess I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't say that, you know, unfortunately from the broader towns standpoint,
um, this activity comes with liability. You know, if you are affirmatively giving permission for someone to do this, then you are creating that liability for the town. Um, if somebody goes out there and
shovels, you know, they're doing it at their own risk. Um, we don't they could do it on a weekend, they could do it at night. For all we know, we don't know. But, you know, as much as I support, you know, these activities, how do we know
when the ice is safe? I mean, if something were to happen to, you know, Michelle or her family, either in the pond or with the snowblower, by affirmatively approving this activity, the town assumes that responsibility and
some some of the liability for if something were to happen. Again, you know, I I it's hard for me to say that because I, you know, I do agree with her that it creates community and it creates a a wonderful opportunity for children
and families to come together and and and uh recreate outdoors. I also think it creates a precedent. If you do it here, you do it, do you allow it at Buffer's Pond, which is a much different pond than Owens Pond? Do you do it for,
you know, the pond at Sweet Alice? Do you do it at Cider Mill Pond? I I think once you open that door, it's very hard to say you allow it one place and not the other. So, um I'm just sharing with you my concerns
and uh other ponds are shoveled. This is the first time I've ever had anyone apply. I think it's wonderful that they did apply and go through the formal process and approach you all. Um, but I think those are my comments from cautionary comments from the town's
perspective. >> Thank you, Dave. Um, I appreciate that. Um, all right. Uh, I I think uh I'll open this up uh for discussion uh with the uh other commission members. Um, I
mean the only the the one of the things that I'll say is that it um that we're talking about having a uh a gas operated machine um a heavy machine somewhat heavy. I
have a a a large um snow blower myself and uh they're absolutely awesome. They do a great job. Um, but they can leak and they can um have issues and I've had mine actually leak. Um,
and uh just another quick note, I mean, we prohibit um the use of uh of uh motorized um boats on the ponds and this uh or mo this is a
motorized uh um uh conveyance as well. Um, so I'll I'll with that I'll turn it over to the uh other uh commission members and uh I'd love to hear your thoughts.
>> Sarah, >> I just have a question. Did you say that shoveling is permitted? I'm just I just didn't quite catch that. I I think that's what uh Dave said and I I believe that's what Michelle said they've been doing for some time. Uh
Dave, >> yeah, we've never prohibited we've never prohibited shoveling. Again, it's similar to um or instant. Yeah, we we don't again
affirmatively say go out and shovel, you know, upon Puffers or or at Sweet Alice or Cider Mill or Owens, but if people want to do it and take that risk, they do it at their own risk. Um, but we don't affirmatively give them permission
to do that. >> And you, you're being asked to give permission to snowb blow and use a piece of uh equipment on this pond. Uh Sarah, go ahead with your >> Sorry. I just want to be absolutely clear. I understand. So I understand
we're not now being asked to give permission to shovel, but Dave, would you have the same advice for permission to shovel as well that it's the giving the permission that's the issue? I mean, people shovel they they skate on Gulp
Pond near me every year that there's, you know, there's somebody always going out there and I think somebody I think they sometimes use a snowblower, but then they use shovels. In fact, there was the hockey team practiced there and they had a little sign saying congratulations for being the place
where the winning hockey team practiced one year. Anyway, I think it's pretty common for people to skate on the ponds. I haven't particularly noticed what they use to clear it. But >> my question is, >> do would you give the same advice that we shouldn't be giving actual
affirmative permission to shovel or and and I guess the flip of that is is it are we saying it's not allowed to use a snowblower on on the on a pond or the you know is it against I'm just unclear
what the rule is. I you know I think there's a clear difference between shoveling and snowb blowing. Andre referenced the the policy you're about to review. Most of this policy is not dramatically different than what's been
in place for two or three decades. So the use of motorized vehicles like ATVs, motorcycles, etc. on conservation land is prohibited. So, putting a gas powered
um piece of equipment out or or andor boats, right? Andre referenced um motorized um boats. Um so, watercraft. So, again, it's I'm not trying to be
uh the the the you know, the the that person, but it is a difficult line to cross, I think, to affirmatively give someone permission to do this. We're also talking about a a piece of equipment that can be they can be dangerous. Accidents happen with
snowblowers. So, I'm just putting it out there. >> Yeah. So, uh in essence, um skating is not prohibited. Uh but to uh to have someone uh request
a permit to skate, that might uh then uh put the uh town into a liability issue as well. Um, when you take that a step further, in this case with a snowblower, you're you're introducing a uh a motorized um
implement uh onto the pond that can uh number one, it can uh it the extra weight could uh could weigh down um uh certain areas and it could end up down in the bottom of the pond or something
might leak out of it. Um and also uh if you uh if we are to um and this is again from my point of view uh as a fellow commissioner um uh bringing in a motorized uh implement on
top of a pond is the same to me as bringing in a motorized uh watercraft or a motorized vehicle. in the message to I'd like to say something. >> If you don't if you don't mind um uh muting for uh a second, we'll call on
you uh after you raise your hand here in a little bit, but we're going to have some comments here uh uh from the commissioners. We'll give you a chance to speak again. Um apologies for that misunderstanding. Bruce,
>> I'll yield to Jason first. >> Okay, Jason. Bruce, um I think my my questions are are somewhat similar to the ones Sarah had that what it Andre you said that
skating is not allowed. Skating is not prohibited. >> I said that skating is not prohibited. >> Okay. Not prohibited. Okay. So, it is allowed. >> It's not prohibited, but it's not
allowed. Is that the gray area that we're operating at? >> I I would I would defer to uh to the town um town staff and uh town attorney on that. Uh but essent essentially um if
it's not prohibited then um there's nothing against it so to speak. >> Yes. How else to put that? Um, so I don't I understand I understand the potential of saying if somebody applies
for this then and we affirmatively approve it then the town is somehow taking on some sort of liability. So if they're not as if somebody doesn't apply for it and just goes out and does it,
does that still mean that I mean the town has no liability then in doing it and then why were they told to stop and apply for this? Like I understand the whole argument about I'm not talking about the motorized versus shovel. I'm just
talking about anybody doing that activity, going out and skating, whether they clear it with a shovel or a snowblower. >> I I I think that uh the circumstances under which they were told to stop and
what they were told to stop doing needs to be discussed here. Um >> and who told them to stop doing it? >> Well, let's hear that. Uh Michelle, oh, I have a Erin, would you mind? Uh >> yeah. So, so what happened was um I I
was out doing an inspection um and I saw the snowblower sitting out on the ice. Um I drove by and saw the snowblower out there just on the ice. And so I was like, "Huh, that's weird." Um and so I
went and did my inspection. I called Dave while I was out on the inspection and I said, "I just saw a snowblower out on no one's pond. It's kind of weird." Um, and so Dave said, "We'll go back and um speak to them and let them know that they can't they can't do it without
permission." So I went back um and uh approached uh the the gentleman who was doing the snowblowing and said, "I'm sorry, but um I have to ask that you stop." and I said, "There's a formal
process to apply for permission to do it, but I don't have the authority to um allow you to continue." And so, at that point, he said he would go, and that was basically the um interaction.
>> Thanks for enlightening us. Um there's your uh there's your answer, Jason. So, uh what they were told to stop is snowblowing, I guess. Is that uh do we have that correct, Michelle? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, cuz it wasn't
clear when you uh when you mentioned it before. It wasn't very clear. >> It sounded like you were told to stop skating, >> but >> No, no, no, no. We were not told to stop skating. I was just explaining why the snowblowing was happening was so that we could skate.
>> Okay. All right. and and it is a a really cool thing to be able to skate on your local pond. Um I could see I could see that and the beauty of having your neighbors uh sharing that with you. Um Bruce,
so I have two things. One is it it would set a precedent to approve this because then people who had motorcycles with gritted things on the rear tire or ATVs or I don't know other motorized vehicles
who like to go around on the ice. So there's an a precedent of escalating to other types of heavy machinery. But that's part one. But also, I can imagine I can picture if there are this many people who love skating on this pond.
There's that many snow shovels >> and maybe there's some kind of a call. Let's go clear the clear the space. That's a form of building community, too. That is relatively is pretty actionoriented. I can see a picture of that when I look over the top of my
computer. So, thank you. We can always count on you for some uh great perspective there, Rose. Thanks. Uh any other questions, >> girls? >> I'm sorry. Just
>> Sorry, we're just The kids are the kids are getting ready to go to bed. I'm just >> All right. So, is there anything else then? Uh you uh Well, I I mentioned that uh we would give you another chance to speak. So, go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. My husband's here, too. He just wanted to say one more thing. >> If you don't mind stating your name,
please. >> My name is Nathan Wilson. The only other thing I have to say is that I grew up in Minnesota and Wisconsin and this is a normal thing and that's all I got to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Um well, uh
is this uh this is going to be this is time for for a vote. Is that uh is that right, Michelle? I mean, Michelle, uh Erin, >> uh yes, if you could just um make a determination as to whether
you're going to uh issue the approval or not. >> All right. Uh um but it doesn't have to be uh as a as a motion and a vote or um All right, let me uh do a quick straw
poll. Uh, all those in favor of allowing uh the Wilsons to uh take their snowb blower on uh Owen's Pond uh raise your hand. All those against raise your hand. All right. Uh do we need a motion, Erin?
Um I uh I think that that's probably fine to just have a consensus. Um >> yeah, >> I I think this isn't a formal um you know hearing or anything like that. So I think that that that is fine.
>> I appreciate that. Um all right. Well, uh, Michelle and Nathan, um, we I think we all appreciate the, uh, what what you folks, uh, are doing there. Um, I love the idea of, uh, getting your neighbors
together, each one with, uh, uh, with a snow shovel and, uh, you know, putting more hands to, uh, to the job there and and and clearing it together if that's something that you guys uh, uh, decide to do. But um uh as far as getting a
machine onto the uh pond, uh uh it's not going to be approved. Uh I appreciate your time and I appreciate you uh actually applying for this. >> Uh thank you. I just one last thing I just wanted to say and I I I know that
this was acknowledged during the call but it feels a little bit harsh to um basically if we hadn't asked for permission we could still go on doing this without you know the conservation commission's approval and I just I just want to just say that I think that if if
the process is going to be like this and again I'm not I'm not going to fight your decision. I just it feels a little bit like asking for permission is the wrong thing to do and I don't want that to come like it just for future reference it just feels like the better
thing would have just been to not ask for permission and keep on doing it and pretend like we didn't know that it was against the rules. And so I I I just as as as you're as you're thinking about these decision making processes going forward, just the act of asking for
permission feels a little bit like we're shooting ourselves in the foot to some degree. So and and I don't mean just my request, I just mean the request in general. So that's that's all I want to say. >> Yeah, you said enough. The fact the fact of the matter is that you didn't ask for
per permission. You were doing it and you were caught doing it. You were seen doing it and you were told that you can't do it. But if you want to, you can ask for permission. I mean, this is >> this is all right. So, let's not mince words then. >> No, no. I I appreciate I just wanted to add that additional thought. And I thank
you all for your time. >> Well, that Yeah, I think that thought was a little bit uh mis uh misguiding. Thank you. All right. Uh well, with that, we'll we'll move on to uh the minutes. Um
or do we want to do the minutes uh afterward? Yeah, here we go with the minutes. Yeah. Yeah, I guess we did have uh uh the discussion uh planned for 7:15. So, let's go ahead and uh do the discussion and we'll do the minutes later.
Um, so why don't we bring up the um I think what we're uh the plan is uh to uh put up the uh draft um policy page by
page um and go through it uh uh go through it um one uh paragraph by paragraph. have. Um, so, uh, Erin's going to, uh, put that up on the screen for us all to see.
Um, we have a first page, which is essentially an, uh, an intro and a, uh, table of contents. Um, do we have any comments on uh on that? Just raise your
hand. Uh, Tina. Um, yeah, I have a comment in that I didn't see, unless I missed it, anywhere referenced in this policy, how the Concom would address a right of first refusal on chapter lands. And I don't know if that's addressed in town bylaws elsewhere or if that's
something the Concom has purview over, >> a rate of first refusal to to uh for to purchase it, you mean? >> Yeah. So when land goes out, so when land is enrolled in any chapter 61A program, if there is a change of use, the town has the right to to buy that
land before it changes into whatever use is proposed. That's not a chapter 61 use. C >> could you could you uh verbalize chapter 61A? >> Yes. Yeah. So, it's a 10-year period in which you could be doing agriculture,
forestry, passive recreation. As land is as long as the land is in open space, it saves the person enrolling the land. Um, it it gives them a reduced tax rate and in return, the land has to be in that use for 10 years.
>> Thank you. Um, I'll uh I'll give that one to uh to the director of uh conservation and Thanks, Andre. >> And development. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. Thanks, Dina. I mean, there's two options, I think, for the commission. You know, we could add a
uh we could add a a short section um in this policy. It is fairly well spelled out, you know, in in the town of Ammerst that though who gets and by state law who gets notified uh if chapter 61 land
is coming out as Tina you know well from your work in agriculture. So, um, uh, assessors, planning board, concom, and in this case, the town council all need to be notified. And then in Ammer's case, the town council looks for a
recommendation from the planning board and concom to whether uh either body or both bodies would recommend to the council exercising our right of first refusal. But it it wouldn't be a lot to
just add a paragraph in in one of the one of these sections under you know agriculture or whatever to do that. So I you know we could we could make a note of that and and possibly come back to that you know because I know you have a
lot to discuss tonight. >> Right. Great. Thank you both. Um Sarah >> um yeah my comment is just um I didn't see anything about um mowing or just basically how um conservation land is
managed and it seems like from my reading of the statute and the um the mass uh I don't know what exactly but the conservation groups handbook that um the conservation lands really in the
custody and control of the commission. So it seems that even what the town staff itself is doing should really be at the direction and approval of the conservation commission in you know including things like mowing practices which is something I've been
concerned about for a while. Well, that's a really good point. And uh it does say it does say in there um uh that uh that it is uh under the care and custody of uh the conservation
commission. Perhaps um perhaps diving into uh some pra uh into the practices would be a good idea for us uh as we move through this then. Definitely makes sense. Thank you Sarah.
Um Dave, >> I would I had something to say, but I know Bruce's hand is up, I believe. So he is >> It went back down. It's back down. >> Oh, okay. Um yes, thank you, Sarah. So, it's interesting thinking back all these many months uh when the subcommittee was
first um uh uh formed and and I believe I think it was my recommendation or suggestion and hope um to the commission that we set up this this subcommittee to look at all the uh land use policy and regulations. And one of the things that
I put first on my list was in fact let's look at land use practices such as uh forestry such as um uh early successional mowing. We could put in pond and lake management etc etc. Unfortunately,
we got into a lot more detail and you know, it was it was a heavier lift, shall we say, than I think any of us thought and it took us many many months to get as far as we did and we actually didn't spend a lot of time uh on that
particular topic, Sarah. So, I think it's fair to say again we could add a section to this policy in the future. I mean, this is supposed to be a living document, I believe. So, we could add sections. I could see inserting sections, you know, in the future as we
spend more time talking about some of those uh other practices on the land. And and Bruce may recall similar things in that working group that that subcommittee. It was a it was a long over a year of our work.
>> Thanks, Dave. Bruce. Well, if Sarah has a followup, let's take that and then I have a comment. >> Sure. Um, so I have a s I figured that that might have been might have been a concern because after you talked about how long it took to get
to this point. So I have a I just have a suggestion since we have a conservation staff like there's a procedural thing that could happen. I mean, I think it is a good idea to add land use practices as a category in it, even if they're not
spelled out, but but but what could happen is that the staff could present what they, you know, to the conservation commission and then the conservation commission can just decide to approve it or if there are concerns then the staff can, you know, go back. But that I guess
what I'm talking I guess my comment is that um ultimately it's the conservation commission whose custody and control the land is in. And so it seems that that the conservation commission should be this sort of it's sort of like the board
of directors of a corporation and the the staff or the imple the people who implement it. But but there should sort of be this this sort of um you know there should be that process. But it doesn't mean that we have to wait until we've figured out every last detail. We
can just have a policy of of sort of getting things, you know, discussion approved at a concom meeting. That was my suggestion. >> I think that's a great suggest suggestion. Um, just uh to cut in real quick, Dave, is there um do do you have
a uh kind of a procedures uh type thing on on how to on what you're doing with mowing and so on on uh conservation lands? >> We have, you know, we have
mapped all of the lands that we mow. We generally, again, it's weather dependent. So, um, we have, you know, certain fields that we mow earlier in the season, some later due to, um, you know, concerns about terrestrial turtles,
things like that. But I like Sarah's suggestion of us putting together a short, uh, policy section on early successional mowing, like I was looking at forest management chapter or section 11, that we could put together kind of a
parallel um, um, section. And it might it might be a page long. It doesn't have to be long on what is currently happening and then you all could respond to it. >> Yeah, I think that's a great uh that's a great start to it. Yep. Um that way you
know let's see what uh what you what you're doing what you have uh in place and uh we go from there uh as a commission what uh what we are going to want uh you know what we want um to to
keep there and uh if we think that there's uh uh you know something that needs to be you know certain mowing is uh maybe needs to be done at a at a different time or uh certain other uses and so on. Um then uh we fulfill our
part uh by uh uh you know our part as being the care and uh care people in custody folks for it. >> Sounds good. >> And each one does our does our part. Thank you. Um Bruce, >> so as the only member now who was on the
subcommittee um I want to raise three things. One is it whatever is done should be done and it should be concise and expeditiously uh arranged because we also have to have
a public hearing about this document. It would whatever gets put in here has to go back to the attorney then it has you know then we have to talk etc. So I would be very concerned. It took us a long time to do this. And I'm not saying
don't add the other things, but I am saying make it concise and get a paragraph here and a paragraph there because if you waited and now for hunting, that's different. That's we have already agreed as a commission. We're doing that separately. But for the
things we're talking about here, let's let's do it quick so that we can get on to the hearing so that we can actually use this thing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good point, Carol. >> Um, I happen to live near the arboritum
and I have been at arboritum meetings and I know that questions or issues of mowing do come up. So, I think it's a good idea to address it. >> Thank you, Carol. I think I I think many of us agree here. Jason, >> I just want to clarify when you say that
we're going to we're being the stewards and you know we're going to look at what the town's doing or their process. Um is there like is there a certain level of expertise that we're all supposed to
be bringing as far as like early successional mowing in fields? And I I I question whether or not that we all have that expertise and or are we just what is the purpose of it? like
>> the purpose of uh determining when when the mowing specifically is done or the >> what's the purpose of the town or like if you told me that we're going to mow the town says we're going to mow this field because there's concerns like
I I don't think that I have the expertise to be like whoa you need to not do that because this particular animal might be there and is nesting and I like I don't know. >> So, uh I'm I'm questioning not that I
want to question anybody's expertise in this commission, but like that's that's just my my I'm not comfortable saying yes or no to any of that. >> Sure. I mean, it's uh kind of like when
uh when we're talking about uh uh and I I won't be the one the only one to answer that, but uh uh when we're talking about uh uh the flow, you know, water flow on a uh over over a certain
area um or the BMPs and so on. Um I'm not an expert whatsoever on that, but I do know about wildlife. Um, and so, uh, I know that at certain times there are certain, uh, uh, there are birds that, uh, require, um, fields like the ones
that, uh, may be mowed at certain times. Um, and that would be, uh, negatively affected by, uh, by a mowing during that period of time. Um so I think because of the fact that we have a uh a diverse uh
group of uh of commissioners here each one uh brings some of their uh expertise. I I I know I didn't answer your question specifically, but when uh you look at the f you know when you look at our document that we're going to uh
be going through here as you have already it is on it does fall on on our it is our responsibility to ensure that the town as a we are uh separate from the town right I mean uh that uh you
know we are we're here because of a state law uh Not because the town invited us but because the state uh has put us here to ensure that uh um that that the wetlands are protected and the uh uh lands as well. So, uh, each one of
us has we we serve as oversight as well as, uh, um, a team with the town. And, uh, you know, I think that there, uh, there should be, um, a little bit of back and
forth between the town and the, uh, conservation commission. Uh, this is me answering two questions uh, in in one shot if you don't mind. Now I'll uh with that I'll pass it on to Sarah unless you have anything else Jason.
>> No I just was cur more curious about like what that back and forth I guess kind of looks like. It's here's our plan. Here's how we're going to handle this land and the mowing and then yes go ahead and do that or here's what we've worked with a biologist a wildlife
biologist and they recommend this. >> Do you agree with that or do you find any issue with that? like what is that going to look like? >> Right. Well, I think uh you could see some of that uh in the uh in our prior discussions uh on the on this uh
document and in some of the discussions that the subcommittee uh had um where uh each one kind of uh put in a little bit of their own uh knowledge. Um and it's a good point. Um Sarah, >> yeah, I just um I appreciate what you're
saying, Jason, and I just want to respond. Um first of all, um there isn't a requirement that the conservation commission have a particular expertise. It's just that the conservation commission is charged. Um the the
handbook says who speaks for the land when it can't speak for itself. Conservation commissioners do. And so if if if we collectively if there's nobody within our group who feels that we have the expertise and we have some question
about what say a mowing plan that's being presented to us or anything else that's being presented to us um is you know we have some question about about about whether it's it's appropriate. then we we have the ability to engage in
expertise to help us the way you know we do all the time when when people come before us asking for permits. So it's it's not that we're expected to all have the expertise, although I completely agree with Andre. Many of us do and that's why we're interested in
volunteering to be on the commission. But I we all have different kind of different experiences. But but I think but it's the question of who has the sort of ultimate responsibility and I think it that la you know rests with the commission and so I think there should
be commission oversight over things like mowing. And then just one example so I'm a burer. So, for the last two years, um the town of Ammerst has basically mowed uh Wentworth flat. And what it does is it removes all the um all the the br all
the brush and everything that that birds use for shelter and feeding over winter. It's also they've modeed all the way up to the vernal pools. There's no there's no um you know repairarian but there's no buffer of the burn pools cuz I walk in that in these areas daily because I
live right near there and and also I am concerned because the woodcocks which is a particular kind of bird we have around here come up very very early. They come back and they they breed very early. In fact, often there's still snow in the ground and and in previous years when it
wasn't mowed, you can hear woodcocks all over Wentworth and there there's no habitat for them. So I I you know I'm I'm giving an example from you know my concern of this this place that I dearly love with the you know the birds that I
really love. But yeah, so that's an example. >> Great example, Sarah. Um, we it is 8 o'clock right now and we've um we've we've uh made it to uh the portion
that says table of contents. Um, so I believe that we are going to need to uh uh move this along a little bit, but uh but let's hear from uh Dave, Rachel, and Bruce. Dave,
>> sure. Um, I don't want to belabor this. I think there there clearly there's a lot of interest in this and I'm I'm again going back to initiating that subcommittee. One of the things I wanted the commission to really delve into was early successional habitat management.
And I would, you know, mowing to me has kind of a negative connotation. It's really are are we going to uh sustain and maintain early successional habitat in town or not? And that is a policy question for the commission. There's also a climate change uh implication on
that. We use a tremendous amount of fuel to maintain over 300 acres of early successional habitat for a a wide array of wildlife, butterflies, insects, birds, etc. So, I think that's the
policy question. So, I don't want to belabor it tonight and get back and forth on Wentworth Farm or or whatever, you know, whatever particular uh uh habitat we're maintaining, but I think if we keep it at the policy level and the science level, then I think uh we
can proceed. And I think Erin and I would be happy to take a stab at at writing up uh something for you to respond to. So, I'll keep it short tonight. >> Sounds great. >> Thanks. >> Thanks, Dave. Rachel. Um yeah, it just zooming out a little bit further. Um it
occurs to me that we have we're mixing language around policy and language around regulation. And I think that's where it gets a little confusing um to to read or as a user because and some language is very prohibitive and very clear like thou shalt not do this and
then other things are policies. Um, so I wonder if our, you know, as we go forward in the discussion if we can, the title of this is conservation land use policy and regulations. Um, if there's some way that we could flag for the discussion, is this a policy or is this
a regulation? Especially if we're I I don't know, are we able to direct the town to do something? um when the if the town doesn't have staff or or people to do that, you know, is that then a policy if there's no way to enforce something
that we're requesting like mowing or managing me habitat or things like that? This is just a question. >> I would venture to say yes that we can direct the town. I mean it's uh town is
uh needs to uh abide by the same uh laws that uh uh that individuals have to abide by. Um you know we do this uh we do this uh we would you know what
we're again we're the ones who are responsible for uh for the you know proper uh um treatment of the uh of the resource um and then um the town is the one that uh implements it. So there, you know,
there's a limit to uh uh to uh to what we uh can do, but we can uh uh we can uh require things that are within the law. Um and for more on that, um well, Dave's
got his hand up here. He's got something to say. Go ahead, Dave. >> No, I agree with you. For the most part, Andre, I think my job is to figure out budgetarily how to achieve some of your goals. We probably, for instance, I don't know if
you if you decided from a policy standpoint, we don't want to maintain any early successional habitat. You could say that and then we could implement that. But if you said to me, Dave, we want 300 more acres of early
successional habitat. So, we want you, again, I'm I'm using just an example here. If if you if you said we want 300 more acres of our 2400 acres of conservation land to be early successional habitat, I would say budgetarily there's absolutely no way to
do that. And it's that idea would not move forward because there is no budget to clear 300 more acres and maintain 300 more acres. So, I agree with Andre, you know, that the policy is important. You may decide, for instance, of the 300
acres, we we don't want we we there's six small fields throughout town that we just want to let nature take its course. And then we stop mowing those. We stop maintaining those as early successional habitat. And your policy and your
guidance to me directs me to do that. Does that make sense? And >> apparently it does. >> Yeah. >> All right. Great, Bruce. Bruce. Uh. All right. Well, um I have
one uh one note here. Uh under uh Dave Zom's name. It says director of conservation and recreation. Is that that's incorrect? Right. So, it needs to be uh corrected to uh conservation and development, right?
>> Yeah. And Aaron's title needs to be corrected, too. >> Oh, yeah. Right. >> She's the conservation agent. >> The newest. Yep. Awesome. Um any other comments on on this page?
Okay, let's move to page two, please. I have one just it's no discussion but there is a question about copy editing throughout the document and the first one is the example in the middle of the first paragraph where there are quotes around something where it's not clear
where the quotes came from and there's two extra periods. I'm not going to note the rest of them but that's an example. So we know that Erin's going to take care of by some mechanism the copy editing of the of the document once it's done. Thank you.
>> Thanks Bruce. Um I'll just say after on the very first sentence uh care custody and control of the conservation that's not a big deal. Um on uh paragraph uh number two,
>> I'm sorry, Andre, could you repeat the one you just said? Just so >> the very first sentence says uh town of Ammeris conservation land is under the care, custody, and control of the conservation commission. Um paragraph number two, uh says Ammeris
conservation lands are open to the public for passive recreational use. I would like to see a definition of that unless we have it in the uh appendix and I didn't see >> I think it is. >> I'm sorry. Um so uh on paragraph number two the
first first sentence for passive recreational use um we should define that if uh if if I I couldn't find a definition but we need to define that. >> I I thought I saw a definition later on. I could be wrong.
>> You did in the appendix. There's something in general rules and regulations that says passive recreational uses such as canoeing, cross-country skiing, vacation, hiking, jogging, >> kayaking, leash dog walking, nature
study, photography, picnicking, snowshoeing, and wildlife observation are permitted. >> Yeah, it doesn't. But it doesn't define what passive recreational uses are. And I've seen hunting defined as uh and fishing as passive recreational use as
well. So if it's left out of that, does it uh does it not any uh a definition, not a bunch of examples is what I'm talking about. So we can uh put that in the appendex or
whatever, but it's a note to be uh uh to be defined if we're going to be uh drawing regulations off of these. Anyway, um uh
on the last sentence of that uh same uh paragraph, it says the commission supports and encourages trail etiquette whereby horses are have the right away and cyclists yield to people on foot and horseback. I would remove that whole uh sentence because that's uh that sentence
is uh put in later. uh when it talks about mountain bikes and and so on and it doesn't really when I'm read when I was reading that it doesn't really fit there. Uh that's up for up for discussion. It's just a recommendation. All of my comments are recommendations.
>> I would I agree with it. >> Yeah, I do too. I agree. >> Okay, let's uh if any if uh people agree, then we we should just uh zip that out of there. Any other comments on
page two of 25? Uh Rachel? >> Yeah. Um the sentence that says some land is still farmed. I feel like that that has like a a strange strange uh connotation.
Um I wonder if it's better to say some of the conservation land is farmed as a fact rather than a judgment. I don't know where it is. Where where that is. >> Sorry. First paragraph. Yeah. >> Um. >> Uhhuh.
>> We're not having a we're not make passing judgment on whether or not it's being farmed. We're saying just just as a fact that some conservation land is farmed as a fact. I mean that's >> when we say
when we say something like some land is still farmed, it seems to suggest the author is against it or for it in one way or the other. >> Just want to take out the word still, you think? >> Yeah. Some land and it's conservation
land. Some conservation land is farmed. >> So, if we can add conservation in front of land, that would uh >> Yeah, that would be clear. >> That would be descriptive. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any others? Uh, any other comments? >> What if we say some land, some
conservation land is reserved for farming? >> I'm okay with that. >> Sounds a little more positive. I agree, Rachel. >> Sounds good. Um and then the second paragraph,
hunters and farmers using equipment. Do we need using equipment in that? Is it just farmers? >> Why am I not seeing it? >> Okay. >> Oh, I see. Yeah. farmers using equipment meaning uh as opposed to uh
>> farmers who might be digging by hand. I mean, >> yeah, >> I don't need that level of specificity. Just delete using equipment. >> Mhm. >> Sounds good to me. >> Delete using equipment is the
>> Okay, >> great. Anything else on Oh, Jason has one. Um the under the bullet points for the commission shall endeavor two. Um second
bullet point uh improve the functions and values of individual parcels. I don't think values is really well defined. Um, so if we're talking about definitions, the word that functions and values is used a number of
times throughout the document, but and there is one that talks about like habitat and things like that, but I think it just is a bit broad and should have a better uh better definition and either specifically not include value as like
monetary value >> like value. Con how about the word conservation values or conservation value of uh individual parcels? That's a that's a term used within conservation.
>> Yeah. But some of them say that you know the actions that decrease the value the conservation values are discouraged. Actions that increase the conservation values are encouraged. So just defining either defining those actions that
should or should not be done very clearly or defining the values. >> Um I think is important. I think it's important to define the values. >> Sounds good.
>> Bruce Carol. Um, I think that phrase comes out of the the state manual and and it's defined very specifically in there. Um, so it's it it it's not just a
a general term. >> That's that's a good that's a great >> there's a whole section on values. Would you mind uh uh sending uh that just refer to that section to uh in an email
to us all or or to uh actually better yet to Erin and uh we can go from there. >> Okay, it's there. >> Thank you. Uh Bruce, >> as a I have a process question. Uh Erin,
is there any reason that it's problematic for us to now be going back and changing things that have already been approved? >> This has been going on literally since 2021. Um three commissions ago. Um so this has
very much been a living document as we've edited it. Um >> I I don't think there's really that much. I think my my hope though is let's try to be as um you know these are things that we that are necessary and
that you know are essential before we move to to hearing. Um so if we could just keep that lens on >> thank you. >> All right. Um All right. Nothing else on page two. All right. We'll move to page
three. Um, anything on paragraph uh on anything on um paragraph uh one under conservation land rules and regulations. Rachel,
>> I understand the inclusionary statement in in sentence number two that everyone is encouraged to explore and appreciate these resources. Um, but the especially peoples and populations who have been underserved or historically may have felt unwelcome on these lands. Um,
suggest that it's being written from a place of privilege. Um, and a reader may be trying to figure out if they're in which category they fall in. I think it might just be easier to say everyone is encouraged to explore and appreciate these resources. But
>> agree. >> Yeah. And for contextual, if I could just the um we had discussed including a a statement uh for sort of an indigenous um
population statement. I'm not going to get the terminology right, but some organizations do that. we had discussed including that and we ended up defaulting back that that was something that the town as a whole should really champion as opposed to the conservation commission. So it could be that that's a
um >> hold over from you know some of that. Uh but I don't have a position one way or another just con contextually it may have been in there from a previous discussion about that. >> I'm good with removing that. I think I
can see your point and I can see that it uh it does sound when when it I read it I just left it be but uh I could see that. Any other comments on that one? Why don't we go ahead and remove it then and
that that portion? I do just want to make a quick comment since Aaron um mentioned the indigenous people's um note. Um I do know that indigenous groups have rights on land that often some people don't recognize and I don't
know if that needs to be stated here just kind of like the hunting on weekends thing. Like there are examples of indigenous people have the right to collect wildlife and they're sometimes discouraged by other people. So perhaps that's something that could be
noted somewhere. >> I think that's a good point. >> Yeah, that's >> um where why don't we find a placeh where we can put that? >> Does it make sense to put it right there at the top? Um, I mean because that I
mean I feel like that sentence that we just removed had some contextual connection to what Tina just said. >> Yeah. I mean I wasn't thinking of removing the entire sentence. I I liked what uh the suggestion Rachel uh made of
uh you know everyone is encouraged to explore and appreciate these resources. Um >> oh I'm sorry I missed that. Let me sorry. Uh let me let me fix that. Um maybe uh some type
of a statement such as um uh the you know the public is reminded that uh uh native native peoples of uh from this area or indigenous people uh
uh you know uh originally from this area or something like that. um uh have uh certain rights that uh I'm not sure uh Tina maybe you're
>> I can yeah I can try and find something because I've been to a couple talks now and I I can jog my memory and come up with some verbiage that references laws and regulation. >> That'd be great. That'd be great. >> Yeah. Thank you. So Tina's going to find
uh find something that Okay. Uh any comments on uh paragraph two? Uh Bruce >> um mine is with paragraph one. So Tina, I would be interested to talk with you
um about what you've discovered and make sure that we find a pathway to talking with indigenous people about what to say. Um it's not um there as I understand their interest it's in direct actions not
statements and if we know that there are certain rights they have on in Ammerst we should document that and and say so but if they don't then I I just think we need more information before we put in overly general things. >> Yeah I know
>> I'm happy to work on it with you. I don't I'm not saying that >> yeah we can talk more um >> okay >> offline. Thank you. >> Y >> great. Thanks. Um I uh I would just add on uh at the all the way on the right
side uh of uh line three on paragraph two where it says the mission of Ammerst's commission. It's missing conservation. Ammerst's conservation commission. Yep. Now, same uh paragraph, the second to
last uh uh sentence says, "Activities that harm or interfere with these values, processes, or passive public enjoyment are prohibited per these regula or per the regulations
herein. I'm gonna spell this wrong. >> H E R E here in Yep. Uh H E R E N in Yep. Um
the milk the commission may contract the the next um anything else on on that paragraph? >> Yeah. Uh Jason, go ahead. >> Just the statement that activities that protect and enhance natural resource functions and values are encouraged.
Um I I don't know. I read that and it's just like, yeah, go out and do this stuff. Like we encourage you to do it if it's good and it protects it. Like I think that should probably be removed. >> Agree.
>> Okay. >> I'm sorry. Which line is that on? >> The last line of the second paragraph. >> Good point. >> I mean, so just devil's advocate here. Um
I don't like to say that but um I mean activities that protect and enhance that could mean like habitat restoration projects or you know um like covert removals or um
>> you just say with permission of the commission or something. >> Yeah, I think it we're just we're saying what like these regulations there's policies >> like I don't I it's it's it's >> it's not in the right place.
>> It's not in the right place and it's not necessary. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We don't need to encourage people to do things. We're this is not that's not what this is for. This isn't to encourage people. >> Gotcha. >> And I think words like those like encourage and so on are are are just
words. Uh at at times it kind of seems that way, right? Yeah. >> Fair enough. Um next sentence uh the commission may contract with others to undertake certain management actions.
Then after that it says these regulations may change uh they may be be made more restrictive as deemed necessary uh by the commission uh blah blah blah blah that uh
I'm sorry uh the regulations may also be less restrictive if the commission determines that the level of restriction is unwarranted. I think that whole sentence uh or two sentences uh don't need to be there. Should
we keep these regulations may change and then go? >> You really don't need to. I mean, yeah, just you just change them. >> So, just >> but nobody ever will because it's taken so long to put in the first place,
>> assuming they ever pass. >> If if ever implemented. >> Yeah. >> So, if particular uses will be the beginning of that sentence. Is that right? >> Okay. Yes, >> that that's great. I had a note that seemed arbitrary that you know like what
are we doing here? That whole paragraph is just sort of arbitrary like what we're saying doesn't matter. Um so yeah, I think what you just suggested makes sense. >> Great. Yeah, it's uh you know uh the the subcommittee put in a whole lot of effort on this and I think I could you
could see by uh by this how difficult it uh it was when they're trying to uh get these uh get these points across and so on. So >> I'm not going to take this personally now. No, no. I'm but I but I
>> until you get to the agriculture one then now then now then now then we're talking >> well I could put myself in in the in the situation of having if I had been putting this together I can imagine that I might have been quite wordy at times
when um it's uh when another set of eyes or uh eight other sets of eyes um uh could could uh help it a lot more. That's That's it. I appreciate that, Bruce.
Um, general rules uh and regulations. >> I agree with the passive recreational problem because I would advocate to take out number two entirely um because we don't have a definition and to me many
of those things are not passive, they're active. And I I think it just makes it confusing. >> Yeah. >> So, I think one >> Oh, sorry. >> Sorry. Uh when I've looked up uh passive
recreation, it's anything that doesn't destroy the uh or that doesn't um Yeah, I mean, that's that's kind of that it doesn't um you know, you're not driving a vehicle through and uh
destroying things. you're not cutting uh wood uh you're not cutting the uh uh the trees down and so on. Um I guess it depends on where you find that definition as well, Bruce. Um
but it's it's kind of uh this this if we don't have it defined uh somewhere then we don't we're just we just have examples is is >> so I have a I have a proposal which is
we allow Carol to find the definition from MACC >> if there is one no if there is one and stick it in there and not use the examples. Oh, >> so I I can't raise >> I can't raise my hand when I'm sharing my screen.
>> Go ahead. >> Um I just wanted to say one quick thing if I could. Um for some reason when I'm sharing screen I don't have um the raise hand thing available. Um just to say one thing is you know a lot of and I don't
have an opinion on this one way or the other. I I'm a regulatory person so I don't mind the you can you can't do this all the time kind of language. it doesn't bother me at all. But I know um for example like with with organizations that I've interacted with,
conservation organizations that I've interacted with that own conservation land, one of the things one of the reasons they include comments like this is because sometimes when you're reading the rules and regulations, it it sounds like you can't do this and you can't do that and you can't do this. And so sometimes it's like nice to include
something that you can do like as a positive thing. Um, and that's just again reiterating from other organizations like Kestrel Land Trust. They like to list things that you can or encouraged to do rather than these are all the things you can't do on their
signage to make it like a more positive welcoming kind of thing. So just a thought. >> Uh, why don't we take out the word passive? >> Can I say something? Uh yes, absolutely can. >> So all right, I happen to have this
right nearby and some of these words, this ninth edition of the environmental handbook, a lot words such as value, such as passive recreation are are defined and referenced
in this book. um section 8.3.1 defines pass of recreation. So I guess what I'm my thought is these are not these are terms words that
are being that have a solid reference and and why not leave them in because they mean something and they mean something in terms of enforcing the state regulations and that's why they're in this book. I don't think
>> we have to go back though. I mean, this this isn't a a major thesis. We don't have to go out back and pull recreations definitions for these words. >> So, so then uh it would make sense then that we would know what passive
recreation uh means before we decide that uh that's something we want to approve, right? >> Yeah. And you know, and if you want to look it up, here it is, you know. Well, you have it in your hand. >> One point. All right. You want me to read it? >> Sorry. Before you read it, Carol, can we
I mean to simplify this, can we just say passive recreation as defined in MACC handbook such and such. >> Perfect. >> I I sorry, but
the lawyer and me because you want people to understand this document. You don't have to put it right there, but you could put the definitions at the end if you wanted to, but there should I think they should be in the document. >> Yeah. >> And part of go part of going through
this is identifying the terms that need to the additional terms that need to be defined. So there's no problem with us adding a definition for any of the words you find in here that need definition. We can just write define and I can get the definition. And also I have the handbook. I know where to find these
things. So there's there's not really a need for anybody to go out of their way to find the form. >> You can and you when you're writing it, you can say define below. You know, you can have a definition section that doesn't have to be up front. So not everybody has to be bombarded with it.
>> Yes, you have a definition. >> It's in the appendix. Um there's there's a very long appendix attached to this with a definition section. It it documents that things in italics with a little asterisk ask the first time they're used send people to the appendix.
>> Oh, great. >> So, you could you could highlight P put passive in italics, put an asterisk after it, and then put the definition at the end. >> And I'd be f I withdraw my my suggestion
with this new suggestion. >> Okay. there's going to be a bunch of terms you're going to be doing that with then, right? >> And that's completely fine. That's completely fine. >> That's normal. >> In in uh yeah, I mean in in the regulations that uh that I used to
enforce uh uh the C code of federal regulations, um the beginning of each uh uh of each section had a subsection. It started with definitions >> and then you go uh from there. Um any
way that we do it uh should be good as long as uh the definitions that we uh that we need are there uh are within our uh our document. Um you know we don't have to define every single uh thing.
For things that aren't defined uh they look to Black's Law Dictionary. If not, they go to uh I think it's Webster. Uh maybe Sarah knows better than I on that. >> Yeah. Basically, if you use a capitalized term, you should define it
except for proper names. Thank you. All right. Um we're all right. So, we're uh we're at the general rules and regulations. Um, let me just throw something in here. Conservation uh lands are on number one are open dawn to dusk year round. Activities after hours would need a
permit from the commission. Um, what about uh people who go in there to fish? Um, you know, uh, state lands are open to uh to to fishing uh uh at
night and so on. Um anyway, I would I don't know what uh how we would address that, but >> uh perhaps uh we put unless engaged in um I don't know, we could just leave it like that.
>> Isn't hunting something that generally happens early early in the morning, potentially before dawn? Uh yeah, when I hunt behind my house, I uh I I go out um uh well, dawn dawn is essentially half
hour before sunrise. That's when uh that's when you're allowed to uh actually uh use the uh the implement that you're using to take the wildlife. However, uh
for certain hunting like deer, uh people get there an hour before that so that they're not scaring everything on their way in and out of there. >> Um >> yeah, so those >> it's a little bit dicey that number one there, >> just their being there is regardless of
them using the implement or not. >> Yeah. Yeah. So they would So a hunter would uh essentially want to be there uh an hour prior to dawn at least. Um well depending on who it is and and what they
uh you know what they're hunting and so on. Um you know I would I might uh you know we do have this discussion on hunting that we have to that we're going to be uh uh taking off at some point.
uh perhaps uh make a I don't know perhaps uh except for uh except for uh legal hunting and um and fishing if we put that in there. Conservation lands are open dawn to dusk year round except
uh while legally engaged in fishing or hunting. >> Mhm. or hunting or fishing, whatever. That's what I've got so far for uh for one and two. Anything else?
Oh, two hands up. Uh Rachel. >> Yeah, similarly on on number one, I was thinking of um just how great our night skies are at a lot of the conservation lands and I've spent many nights searching for the Aurora Borealis. I have yet to see it,
but um >> or trying to find, you know, it's fun to look at the constellations and all that. And um I I just wonder how to get a permit to do that on conservation lands every single time you want to pull into
the parking lot or look up at the sky. That seems a little bit restrictive. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Perhaps we need to think about why why is that there? Why is this why is it only open dawn to dusk? I take hikes out in the middle of the night.
>> Yeah, I do too. Actually, I mean it it gets dark at 4:30 in the winter. I walk twice a day every day through the conservation area. That's my one of my favorite times to walk is at night through the conservation areas with a full moon. >> Absolutely. >> Do So, do we want it there still? I
mean, what the only >> There aren't that many people doing that. It's probably just us. >> Yeah. Uh Dave, can you provide some perspective because you got your hand up there when is it Are we talking about
like uh uh parks where people are uh partying and stuff at night or what's going on? >> Yeah, I mean honestly this is pretty standard language for conservation land that I've ever, you know, experienced or
been on. I think in part the exceptions that you've uh that you've you know used. Let me go back. I I think from an enforcement standpoint, we need to think about who's actually going to be out there enforcing any safety issues that
might arise, illegal fires, um camping, you know, people who discover things that shouldn't be happening. Like if we have if we have uh routinely we have uh campfires at Buffer Pond, it's not something I think that the conservation
commission wants because it's open fires and that danger. So if if the people are out there, the police are normally the the the enforcing agency. So I think it gives the police some sort of boundaries. If you're out there, you
know, looking for owls or something I might do, I don't think a police officer would say, "Hey, what are you doing?" "Oh, I'm just calling in. No problem." >> But I think if you're out there causing mischief, then this gives the police something to work with and says, you know, the conservation areas are
generally closed after dark. But I I think it's kind of that 8020 rule. 80% of the people are are just going to be fine, but there's there's going to be problems out there and and we we see them. point taken. >> Um
>> Jason, >> yeah, I just uh you know to Dave's example there about the th we have open fires are prohibited. >> Yep. >> Camping is not permitted. >> Y >> uh the next number three disturbing the
peace is not permitted particularly by loud noises, disruption music, aggressive uncontrolled domestic animals. I do think that we have a number of those things already listed as being prohibited. And like we did go see
the Aurora Borealis. Like we gathered up like a bunch of people in our neighborhood, friends and our kids, and we drove up to Mount Pollock and it was beautiful and it was absolutely nighttime >> and like just going to Mount Pollock to
stargaze >> or anywhere, right, is is beautiful. So I I I think if we're talking about the value also, value is irrespective of time.
>> The value to me might be that I can go there and stargaze, right? And now you're saying that I can't use it for my value at night because it's closed, right? And it's it's I think you get into a lot of thing where we list a lot of these other things very specifically that are
prohibited. So, I would be in favor of removing number one. C >> can we just have a quick uh show of hands? Uh who would remove that? Because I'm ready. I'm ready to remove it. And if we don't have to uh uh do much more discussion here. All right, let's get
rid of it. Um that way we don't have to talk about it anymore. I mean, not not that there's a problem talking about it, but um but we have a lot to do and I think that we're all uh or we're mostly in agreement that um uh the police can
uh that we can enforce these other uh these other rules. Um uh perhaps Dave um in uh perhaps it would be uh productive for us to speak with the uh um
with the uh uh PD and they might have a suggestion on okay this park is closed that park is closed that park is closed. I mean uh I don't know but that uh that might be something that you can uh look into there.
Otherwise, I I really don't, you know, I think if people are causing uh causing problems, um them the the mere fact that they're causing problems is going to be uh the the the regula the laws that the
uh police are going to uh rely on to uh to to address the problems. >> Jason, >> yeah, we we've been saying conservation land and Andre, you just mentioned parks. Just for clarity, like Mil River
Park is part of the conservation land, correct? >> Mil River is a recreation recreation. >> Yeah. So, it's connected to a conservation land and there's a number of um like I mean, well, Mil River is a
good example like uh there's the wreck area which is managed by the wreck department, but then there's also the conservation area once you enter the trail system. That's that's Mil River is managed by the conservation commission. Um there's also like at Grath Park
there's a trail uh that's managed by the Concom the Emily Dickinson trail on Ammerst College lands. So there's there's there's confluences I guess if you will like conservation recreation but when you say park I think recreation
land and when I say conservation land I'm thinking you know public space. >> Yeah me too. And I think that that's if that's I don't particularly recall if that comes up in this document, but it's something we should be uh aware of that
parks are recreation and parks can be closed, right? But you know, it's not recreation. That's a whole different group of people that can labor over a document, not us. Well said.
>> All right. Um anything on uh former uh number three which we have as number two now. Um all right so next page is uh page four or former page four. Uh,
I'm not a smoker, but why is smoking prohibited um on conservation land? >> I mean, are you saying that uh that somebody who's uh who's out there uh on a hike or whatever and uh sit down and
have a cigarette uh shouldn't be allowed to do that? I can I I think the subcommittee I I believe they discussed this but it really has to do with um you know the start the unintentional starting of
fires uh was one concern and then the second concern for instance at Puffer Pond it's probably after dogs it's the number one complaint we have is people don't want to share the beach with people smoking. I would I I would love
to uh change that to smoking on in uh uh at Puffers Pond Conservation Area is prohibited, but I frankly uh you know, I can tell you that that I don't I don't I don't think that's a a
good law. I think it singles them out. Uh Jason, >> yeah, I'm gonna disagree with you, Andre. I think it's good to have um smokers aren't I I think there's also I have a concern about just people
littering, throwing their cigarette butts down, stomping on them. Um >> there's a law for that. Oh, sorry. >> There is a law for it. But um also, you know, I don't People go outside. My kids have asthma and like anytime they walk
past a smoker, it's annoying to them. And it's people go outside to enjoy the fresh air and nature and somebody smoking a butt in a conservation area is in my opinion
not a conservation value. It's a it's something that decreases the conservation value as opposed to uh increasing it. And I'm concerned about fires and littering. And I think that it's a good I think it's a good thing to
have in there. And then, you know, similar to the conversation about open fires and camping not being permitted, I think it's important to note that it's not permitted. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think uh the open fires and so on is uh good, but again, I
think that we're discriminating against smokers. Um >> I don't know. You you make a choice to smoke. I don't know if discrimination like, you know, where do you draw the line? I
I love to have open fires. I love having a bonfire. That's my choice. And you can tell me where I can and can't do that in town, right? Like, uh, I like to camp as well. And there's all this beautiful conservation land. I
should Why can't I camp? Now, you're you're discriminating against me as somebody who likes to camp. I don't know where we draw the line. Or I'm an alcoholic and you're telling me I can't drink wherever I want. Right. So, I don't know if we should have habits or
potential addictions determine what can and can't be done on conservation land. Okay. Um, well, I guess you have uh we we we disagree with each other here, Jason. Um, Rose.
Well, um, keeping in mind that it's almost 9:00, um, I have a process suggestion that when there are differences, we take a quick straw poll and unless there's significant um,
disagreement with the primary suggestion that we just go with the primary suggestion and then move on because I I I'm fear we're going to be here at midnight. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good. a good idea. We'll do that. Carol has a quick
uh >> I I agree. >> All right. All right. Those uh all those in favor of removing um uh the hunting prohibition, raise your hand. >> Or smoking. >> Smoking.
>> You said hunting. >> That's uh >> you can see that's on my mind. >> Back in my mind somewhere. Right. Okay. All of those in favor of removing the uh smoking prohibition uh raise your hand.
All right. Well, I guess it stays. We'll see what happens later with the uh public comments. And uh comment on former number 10, which is nine now. Um I would take the So if we look at the
the the second sentence that says littering is prohibited that should be the very first sentence. >> Mhm. >> The rest of it remains as is far as my my uh recommendation.
All right. Um, so we have all these things that are prohibited and then when we get to camping, it says it's not permitted. Let's change that to be uh consistent with the rest. We have a violin in the background.
If you don't hear it, that's good. Um, I would ask uh on number 13 or former number 13, um, it says no motorized vehicles including ATVs, ebikes, or motorized scooters allowed.
Um there are a lot of folks who uh uh who are relying on uh ebikes to get around on their bicycles uh or on bicycles uh elderly folks or people who are uh aging or are uh have
injuries and so on. So I just wanted to point that out. Um, I'm not at that point right now, but uh I could imagine I know that there are people who uh who are relying on that more. Um, I will say
that the state prohibits um the there's two types of ebikes. One type that uh has an essentially an accelerator and that's it. And it doesn't uh and it doesn't uh have uh human locomotion in it. and that's
prohibited. But, uh, for DCR, they do allow the ones that are pedal assist. Um, we can discuss that some other time or whatever. But here, that's that's my quick um, uh, opening of that for
discussion. Tina, >> oh, I was thinking more about number 12. Um, but I agree with you on the ebike in terms of accessibility. Um, in college I did a lot of camping on Ammeris conservation land and it was really
magical and I'm wondering if we could allow for I don't know just periods where we do allow for camping or stake out some areas where camping is permitted. It's it's just a really nice way of enjoying the land.
>> Right. any any uh comments on that on uh allowing camping um in some form or fashion. Um >> so I I don't want to speak for Dave because
this is a policy I think that was already in place. Um I think it's hard to distinguish. We've we've had a lot of issues with um folks setting up campsites and and living there basically. Um and it's difficult
to distinguish and there have been I think a lot of situations where a lot of trash and um refuse is left. So, I think that that was established just as a a a catch-all because it's it's
difficult to regulate like you know in some cases if somebody like you know somewhere where camping is allowed gets a park a camping permit there's staff there there's bathrooms there you know there's um facilities and so this has
become a more complicated issue because of um folks experiencing homelessness and um stuff like that. >> I don't know if I've answered that properly, but Dave might have more thoughts on it, but just
my understanding. Yeah, I can tell you having been having worked in natural resources, uh I I you know um I don't I don't feel like we have uh the
capability of uh of of regulating camping to be within what one uh w within uh possibly what uh the kind of camping that uh you were doing, Tina. Um you know, I can see people going uh
going and spending a night out there and uh uh after they're after they're gone, nobody can tell they were ever there. Um but I can also you know I I can't you know some of the
nightmares that um uh that have occurred after a camping uh uh incident. Um I don't think it's you know I don't think it's uh something that uh we would that we want to be uh
responsible for. Uh sorry to say. Um, >> I I figured that was the rationale behind it. I'm just thinking of like the National Park Service model where you're backcountry camping and like you have to check in and then you have to check out and >> Mhm.
>> I don't know. Just backpacking on the Robert Frost Trail was really cool and that trail is kind of hard to enjoy in a day. So, my my two cents. >> Yeah, got it. Um I I could say also that uh for example on the Robert Frost Trail,
some of it goes through uh conservation land, but uh most of it uh is going through either state uh state land uh some of it through through Quabin, some of it through uh or a lot of it, you know, at least locally, a lot of it
through Kohl's property and so on. I think on Kohl's they welcome uh the use. uh state I think uh does not pro uh does not permit it. Um anyway um
yeah um anything else on camping? >> Yes. >> Yes. I um I I sympathize with what you're saying, Tina, but I don't think that that the
Conservation Commission is really going to be set up to handle camping, you know? I don't think that's under our purview and try to keep it simple. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think if if going back to the sort of 8020 thing
that Dave said, like if there's if there's people who go out on the Robert Frost Trail and they camp and go on their way, you know, and they don't disturb anything or whatever, but then there there's people who set up camp along the trail and they're hanging out
there for a month, you know. And I think when when enforcement comes into play, the folks who are going out and finding these camps and stuff, they're distinguishing a difference like they've been there for months. So I think it's there, you know,
um and it protects the town and you know, if people if people don't follow it and they go on their way, it doesn't really, you know, it is what it is. But if I don't think we can really say it's permitted because then I think we're
opening a box there that's uh li liability situation. Um I don't know. Just trying to trying to figure this out. >> So uh do we want to take a quick straw poll?
>> I mean it could it could be this the language the language was different on that one which is interesting. I don't know. >> Okay. Um, uh, one last, uh, comment, Rachel, please. >> Yeah, it occurs to me, Tina, hearing you talk about it was something that was
structured. It was structured camping through an organization and there was a checking in and checking out >> and we could I could see foresee having a um a land use application with some some organization wanting to take a certain number of people backpacking
along the Robert Frost Trail. So at which case we would look at we may look at our regulations and policies and say oh no camping's not permitted but is prohibited versus not permitted. That might that might be the difference to the nuance in the language. So camping
is not camping is prohibited unless otherwise approved through a land use application could be another another language as long as it doesn't open up the town to a lot of um a lot of conration. All right. Thanks, Jason.
>> Yeah, I was actually just going to make the same suggestion rather than saying it's prohibited, say, you know, something along the lines of camping is only allowed by permit or, you know, via land use permit. >> Yeah, >> I would love to see I would love to see
an actual campsite like the conservation having an actual campsite. I think that would actually be a boon to the town um in many ways and potentially be a way to raise some funds to manage some of the other conservation areas, but uh that's probably a much longer conversation than
this document. >> Thanks. >> I'm for allowing by permit. >> Okay, J Dave. >> Yeah, I think I think a lot has been said. This is really just it's a capacity
issue. We don't have the capacity to oversee a camping program. You know, we have two people out in out in the field and we have 2500 acres and 140 miles of trails. Um it's there's just no capacity
to kind of manage that. Um so there there may be a way through a permit. Um, but I, you know, overall I think Aaron outlined we have camping, regulated camping, and then we have people that do
set up camps and and that is very problematic for for my staff because we end up having to go out there and clean up those areas and this is not camping like any of you have ever experienced. I imagine it's
>> it's dangerous. So, um, so anyway, um, I think those are my thoughts. >> Yeah. And I, you know, if we open it up to permits, then we're going to get, uh, I I frankly, we can't even, I don't
think that we're, uh, that that we're set up to even do it by permit. Um, that's my that's my two cents there. But um yeah, I don't I just don't see uh I can't imagine us uh attending to uh a
bunch of pe a bunch of folks uh applying for permits uh to camp in this place or that place or the other place. Um if we open that door up, um we may be sorry. And I I I would be sorry. So, uh I don't know. Uh
if you want to take a straw poll, we'll do it. Um but I I'm you know I I think we should leave it as being prohibited. Um why don't we uh All right. Uh uh anyone
in favor of uh allowing camping um under permit uh raise your hand. All right, that's three. All right, I don't think that's going to change it. People against or people uh in favor of prohibiting. That's three.
One abstain. Is that right, Bruce? >> Dane. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I'll that's not fair to to you. I'll go with the with the permit idea and if it down the road it becomes ownorous, we'll
we'll change it again. Okay, >> there we go. I would do accept by permit. um issue I would uh maybe issued by the conservation commission or whatever you whatever I mean so that
nobody says that somebody else permitted me to do it >> just then do we have to add regulations or rules about how it gets permitted Seems like >> that would be done through through the permit application. Uh I would I would
imagine Carol >> J >> I think you can add permit issued or like except by land use application permit or you know whatever the official title is for the land use applications if that's the permit we expect them to
fill out. >> Makes sense. Could you just repeat that, Jason? uh except by >> Yeah, I think you can say except by issuance of a land use application permit by the conservation commission
and that would be issue ins issue and CE. There we go. We good? Yep. >> I have a comment for the next one. If you >> go ahead. >> I think we should probably just add no motorized vehicles or equipment
>> based on our last based on our land use application permit from tonight. Yeah. And uh that that also includes uh uh that also includes leaf blowers. Um, mountain bikers are uh blowing the
leaves off of uh some of the trails and that uh that that encourages uh erosion and uh yeah, it's pretty bad. And I'm a bike I'm a mountain biker, too.
And uh just a quick uh comment on number 14, excuse me, which is now 13.
At the very bottom, it says on a leash for one household. I would do on a leash from one household. Um >> by >> why >> by >> because I'm sorry
>> no B why >> not why on a leash by one household. >> No it's on a on a leash that's coming from one house. These are um
dog walkers. >> They're like hired dog walkers. >> So when you look at the purpose of of that sentence, what it's saying is that somebody a surrogate dog walker can take two dogs from one house uh as a surrogate and be and be paid or
be compensated for it. Uh but if you say uh on a leash from one uh uh for one house uh someone could be uh taking care of some other people's uh dogs or so on. I I
that's that was the reason why I I uh ch uh suggested changing it on a leash from one household rather than on a leash uh for one household. It's not a big deal. two comments. Uh, Rachel.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to if we can scroll back up. I think um number number probably about number four now. Users should avoid farm fields. Um, could we say where conservation
lands abut or coincide with farm fields, users should walk only around the edges. >> Yeah. >> Can you um restate what you just said? I'm just going to put it in a comment to refine later. Where conservation lands
abut or coincide with farm fields, users should only should walk around edges. Should we add users may not hop livestock fencing because that's something that happens a lot. >> Okay.
I think should that go up that that sentence might be more appropriate for number current number three talking about the respecting private property the rights and expectations of private property owners who allow trails through their property.
>> I think nobody should traverse pass go over under or through a fence. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think um to this because of we're anticipating potential future use of possible, you know, a
licensing um if in the future the the town or the conservation commission ever licensed land to an agricultural um entity to do some farming on conservation land and or also like our our um community gardens. There's there
have been situations like uh where you know dogs run through somebody's garden or you know or uh toileting in the going to the bathroom in the in the in the garden or
in the farm area um in the field area and it's caused damage. So I think that's why it was written that way. Um, >> so yeah, I I have an aversion to the word should. If we're prohibiting it, it needs to be
shall or just make a statement that something's prohibited because if somebody should do something, it's not it's a suggestion. So, I think I guess what I might suggest
on this one is to let me work on this a little bit and um try to figure out how to word this because I think um I guess I'm I hear Rachel's comment. I guess it it may have a little bit of overlap with what Jason's saying. So if we're saying
conservation lands if if there are locations where conservation land does abut private farmland and if what we're saying is yeah you can walk around the farmland um it might be unclear to people that where the property
boundaries are. And so if we're saying oh but you can walk around the farm fields um people might not get it that oh that's not conservation land that's private property. Um, I think that's why we said avoid the fields, but I So, let me let me wrap my
mind around how we can address both comments to try to um refine that a little bit. >> Yeah, I was I was I was wondering if it if the farm fields are farm fields that we have under conservation land that are
being actively farmed and we're asking people to avoid them. You know, that's that's another point of clarity I think would be good to know. >> Okay. Uh Jason, >> yeah, my comment I I was going to comment on the
dog. >> So, if we're done with this one >> Yeah. >> Um just you know the that That comment about the dog walking is the intent to just limit Are we saying that a
surrogate dog walker are we saying essentially we don't want a surrogate dog walker to have more than two dogs at any one time? >> No, it's commercial. It's commercial ventures, >> right? But with a surrogate dog walking of no more than two dogs on a leash from
one household. >> So no more than two dogs from one household. But I have eight dogs with me because there's two dogs from one household. There's one dog from this household. So a surrogate dog walker of
no more than two dogs at a time at any given time regardless of how many households they come from. You don't >> That's even better. >> Yeah. >> To me. Yep. >> Okay. Ah, this laptop wants to tape where it wants
to tape. There we go. >> Now, sorry, Aaron. I think you can remove uh from one household. >> Yeah, >> because it's just two dogs at a time. Mhm. >> You don't want a surrogate dog walker
out there with four dogs or six dogs. >> Sorry. Um could you just repeat that? I'm a little >> get everything after that time. >> Sorry. >> Okay, got it. Sorry. Thank you.
>> Ra Rachel, do you have another comment? >> Yeah, I just wanted to talk about the ebikes quickly. I support uh ebikes with pedal assist as being uh something that is allowed for users on trails. Um and I don't know if that's something
that we comment and word smith later but I think it's important. >> I agree. Um, again it's uh if you look at the model of the state um it uh they allow pedal assist but not uh not
the ebikes that are um full uh I forget the term for it but um >> yeah there's ones that are presumed to be um sort of a mobility device uh or that they are acceptable to be used as mobility devices and then there's and
that's due to sort speed and power. Um I think and then there's ones that are considered to be sort of beyond the scope of a mobility device. I think that's why we included the mobility device language, but um I can look at what the state model says to try to
tease that apart more if we want. >> Yeah, I think you'll uh you'll find a good go by there. >> Um all right. Uh, under 15e echo, um, modifying trails to enhance mountain biking and horseback riding experiences
is prohibited. Um, I would just put uh, for example, leaf blowing. I just I really uh I I've I've hiked these trails up. Uh if you go
to the Houston Gage Trail, um that one gets uh leaf blown and that's what I know it's outside of uh Amoris, but it is part of the uh anyway, when I've gone up there, um the the
damage that that does over the winter um is is pretty bad. uh when you don't have leaves on the uh trail, they don't um hold the water and the water just uh runs down uh where there's a slope and and we'll tear it up it. Anyway,
uh I have some more comments, but I need to be able to read them. >> Andre, while you're reading, can I >> Yep. Go ahead, please. We state here that mountain bikers and horseback riders use conservation land at their
own risk. I assume that's because the town doesn't want to the liability of somebody potentially getting hurt. Why are why don't we just make a general statement that everybody uses conservation land at their own risk? Why are we singling out? So there there's a
state law that basically says that conservation lands um there's limited liabilities to to towns for public use of conservation lands as long as we're not hiring uh charging a fee for use. Um
we so this is another discussion that goes I mean you could look back at the subcommittee meetings we talked about it multiple meetings but to sum it up to try to just give a a thumbnail uh snapshot
there were in the previous regulations there were um there was this distinction mountain biking is allowed on some trails prohibited on other trails horseback riding is allowed on some trails prohib hibited on some trails and but there was never any well there was
there was like horseback riding can be done on this trail and that trail. There was like all this nuance of where it could be done and where it couldn't. And we discussed everything from prohibiting it to outright allowing it and sort of came back to this if people are going to
use it. We're not going to say it's open for these uses. We're going to say if you use it for this use it's at your own risk. So, if you're injured um or some injury is caused by being out there doing these activities, you know, we're
just really asserting that it's a the town is not accepting liability for for that. Um it's it's a little bit of a distinction, but you know, we're not saying it's prohibited. We're just saying use at own risk for those purposes to try to make
it a little more clear with all these caveats that the trail is not damaged and they can't alter it. And um you know, we're trying to find a way to not make it because it's when you say you can go horseback riding on this
trail but not that trail, it's a very subjective subjective decision-making process. like there's wetlands, there's stream crossings, you know, um and so and it becomes very complicated to try to figure out where it should be allowed and not allowed.
>> Yeah. Um good points. I I don't see that that uh hurts anything at this point. And uh uh yeah, I I I see what you mean, Jason, that everybody uses it at at their own risk. >> Uh
>> I'm fine with that. I don't I was just >> Yeah, it's a good point. Yeah, >> and it and it does single out the folks who are here. Uh well, kind of along the same same lines, I'm going to uh switch over
to to Gulf. Um the commission encourages mountain bikers to practice trail etiquette of yielding to others. I would put mountain bikers, hikers, and horse riders because we're going to because what
we're doing right here is we're launching into um uh the International Mountain Bike uh association's uh uh trail etiquette where uh we're going to be talking about hikers
and horses. So bikers stop for everybody, hikers uh uh and bikers stop for horses, etc. So I would uh not just single out the mountain bikers. Um there we're all practicing trail etiquette since we're going to be talking about uh
that in the next uh you know one two three and four. Does that make sense? The commission encourages mountain bikers, hikers, and horse riders to practice trail etiquette of yielding to others. Or you could take
horse riders out of that. Um because the in the next sentences, it does not uh include horseback riders as having to yield. It's up to uh it doesn't matter one way or the other, but
uh yeah. Can you just say everyone encourages everyone to use trail etiquette? >> That's great. I was just wondering. Um, so I I go on the in the uh trails up
behind Applewood and there are many mountain bikers in there and I've been nearly run over any number of times and and I was thinking, "Oh, that would be nice if the bikers paid attention to people on the trails." I mean,
it's it's dangerous sometimes really to be to be hiking there. >> Well, so one of the reasons why we're trying to move these regulations along to get passed is because we want to get them on signage and posted on kiosks at all the conservation areas. Right now,
we don't have that. And the exact situation you're describing, uh, Carol, is, you know, if we can get them up so that people understand what the rules and and rags are on these areas, we can't guarantee that everyone will
follow them, but we're hoping that it might um encourage people to be more um thoughtful. Bruce to follow along with that. Um, getting
us to the public hearing gets it to the public. Even if there are some changes that from suggestions from the public, it will get reported in the press. And so it's really important that we get this done and to the public
hearing and then into the system that would allow the signage that Aaron just described. >> Um so >> Andre, I'm sorry to interrupt. I can't raise my hand when I'm sharing. Um I'm
just thinking whether we should do a quick time check because we still have some other business to take care of. Um, >> and I'm I don't know where we should sort of stop here or just checking in on that at this point. >> So, uh, obviously we will be needing to,
uh, uh, come back to the, uh, come back to this and it seems like we're going to be spending, uh, more time on it. I would like to, uh, see us, uh, come back to, uh, this document as soon as possible.
Um it's getting late enough so that uh we should all uh close up um soon. Uh and I agree. Uh yeah, I was looking at the time before and and thinking we we got to find a stopping point. Um how
about we stop at the end of um at the end of uh this one or at the end of plants, nuts, and seeds? I don't really want to get into dogs um uh until uh until we're fresh again. Um and we do
>> a very wise fellow um we spent a lot of time on dogs. Let me just say whole meetings were done with dogs and >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um so >> for years >> for years.
Let's finish up with um with the mountain biking and the uh number 16 and um uh and be done with the document for now. Um uh we can have a short discussion on when we can uh come back
to this. Uh again, I I uh agree with um Bruce's uh take that the the quicker we you know, the sooner we get this uh uh to the attorney or to the uh public and the attorney, whichever comes first, the
better so that we can imple you know, actually get them out and implement them. Jason. >> Yeah. I just So, moving forward with this, the last line before bullet point number one, G1, common courtesy for
bikers, I think you we can just change to um you know, trail etiquette or >> common trail etiquette for all and then go into the bullet points. I I I would go a little further and say uh
trail rules. >> Trail rules for all. >> So, are we going to change trail etiquette above to trail rules? >> Uh well, you know what? I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Um, this is the
>> Could we just uh >> remove that and stop at others for the list? >> Yeah. I mean what what what we're this is the the the comment that I think Rachel was making earlier or somebody
made you know where we're mixing >> we're mixing uh uh policies and regulations >> regulations and it gets confusing. Yes. >> Yes. Exactly. And to me, um, you know, uh, the commission encourages,
uh, the practice is great for policy. And if we want to leave it as policy, that's that's cool. If we want to make it rules, then we need to, uh, have it, uh, stated as rules. That's that's uh, the only thing that I was uh, trying to address. Um, so
I think I just uh opened up a little bit of a can there. Um, also we're encouraging mountain bikers to travel at a safe speed in control and not jeopardize others. I think we ought to encourage horse fighters to do the
same. >> Not that people are necessarily flying through these trails on their horses, but I can see somebody wanting to do that. And it's probably a lot harder to stop. I've never ridden a horse. I got to imagine it's harder to stop a horse than a bike. But I don't know.
>> Yeah, >> horses have free I had to jump off of. It was my neighbor brought a horse over and it I got on it and I it took off and I had to jump off. >> Yeah. So, horse riders should be in
control of their horses. Again, as much as you can be in control of anything with free will. >> Yeah. Great. Good idea, Erin, on on on generalizing that. Um uh and I and uh when you do I do have a
suggestion uh on uh uh on that number uh two uh bikers passing uh should announce themselves as well. You know, don't scare somebody. Um anyway, we can uh we can talk about
that another time. I think we're unless uh any other suggestions on on mountain biking. All right, let's move to uh plants, nuts, seeds, and fruits. Um
uh toward the end of that, the second uh second to last um line authorized uh case by case by the commission. I would uh clarify that authorized through
um through a permit uh or through the land uh the the proper uh verbiage for the permit that Yeah, there you go. Yeah. And uh that's all I have for that. Uh
anybody else I see Sarah's got uh got a comment. >> Yeah. Can you go back to the language for Well, I can look it up online. Um, is this >> There it is. >> Yeah. So, this is what people are
allowed to do. So, are you saying that people are allowed to cut invasive species? I I'm not kidding you. I say this because there was a an older gentleman. So I walk through all the time through Wentworth, over the
bridge, through that further field and then along the bike path. I go in a big loop. So for a bunch of days, it was a while. One spring, every time I would walk through across the railroad track and then through that land to the bridge, there was this older gentleman
just hacking away in there. I mean, I didn't say anything. I didn't. But I mean, he just he was just cutting and cutting and cutting. I think he was probably cutting bittersweet. I don't think anything was blooming yet. But but anyway, I don't think it's like a great
idea to just let people loose to hack away at things on conservation land personally, even if they think they're controlling invasive species. That's just I'm That really did happen. I'm not kidding. >> Yeah, if I if I could I mean throughout the year, it's a great example. Thank
you, Sarah. Um I if if it's the gentleman I'm thinking of, he's one of our longest standing volunteers and he was actually hacking away at there's a massive stand of autumn olive on that trail if it's the trail.
>> So he had permission. >> Yeah, he's working closely with Brad Borderick. He is an amazing volunteer and he has dedicated probably thousands of hours and he absolutely despises invasives. So, um,
>> yes, he is very, very dedicated. All right. Well, I'm glad to hear it was, uh, something you knew about and he was doing it with permission. I will say that there's very few people out there that will spend dozens of hours or hundreds of hours on their own actually
taking out invasives except for in organized groups or under the under the watch. >> It just looked a little odd, right? I just I let him I let him go do his thing, but I just thought I'd comment on it. >> Maybe
maybe he needs a badge. >> Yeah, right. But probably don't Dave you want to have authorized people to do it. That's the only thing I worry about. This doesn't require, right? Or does it? Does the permit?
>> I I think I think we'll have to talk about that in the future. You know, Erin and I have talked about a management a notice of intent for management of trails. I mean, we certainly I certainly don't want to get into authorizing the
removal of every, you know, stand of autumn olive or Japanese notwheat or something like that. We've got to have some sort of broader approvals to to move forward on conservation land because I think we'll get certainly get bogged down in, you
know, we're going to do this trail on this day. You know, there's again, we are overrun by invasives. It's is something I I I think I added to my list. In addition to early successional management, invasive species management needs to be its own section, too. But we
we'll have time to talk about that. >> That's great. >> All right. Well, um we've uh progressed uh uh four play four pages plus the um intro page. Um so, Bruce,
I'm sorry. I'll I'll get to you in a minute. Um, we I I think we've had a wonderful uh back and forth and discussion on this and I think everybody's uh done a great uh great job to move uh or to to uh give good
opinions and insight. Um uh after uh Bruce's comment, we'll move on to wrap up the rest of our business for the night. Bruce, I >> think we need to seize our opportunity of 26 inches of snow to have more.
These meetings can happen now because nothing else can happen and let's just Well, not nothing, but you know what I mean. Let's seize our moment here. >> Yep. All right. Well, since we're there, um,
uh, Aaron, uh, when do you see that we can, uh, when is the soonest we that you see that we can, uh, uh, reconvene on this, uh, topic? >> Um,
>> or or let me let me just back back up one step. Uh, if if it's something that uh that's better done offline, maybe we do that. Yeah, I think I think we should check in offline and figure out a strategy for
how to move forward with this. Um, I mean, I think it's it's it's wishful thinking to assume that we're going to have meetings where there's no hearings. Um, so if we dedicate an hour to each meeting to try to burn through the
remainder andor if we want to schedule special work sessions or something. Um, you know, these are all options that we can consider, but I think it's it's challenging when we've got hearings on the agenda. You know, I there's never been a time when we haven't had a
hearing on the agenda in the last year. Um >> so uh why don't uh let me propose um that we uh carry out this administrative conversation offline on uh uh through
email. Um uh and uh we we aim to uh to get uh as much of it to to get it all done as quickly as possible, including uh considering a uh
an uh another meeting that's not uh that doesn't coincide with our uh Wednesdays and so on. Let's just throw that conversation uh back and forth um and um and and get something figured out within the next uh
week or week or so. Is that uh you think that's a possibility there? I think I think we should do that. Okay. Well, um now let's go back to our agenda. Um we have um minutes and we
have um certificates of compliance. Land use application is done. We have two certificates of compliance plus the minutes. Is that uh is that what we've got left? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh let's hit the minutes. Uh if we if we could um Andre I move to approve the minutes from 813 2025 1022 2025 112 2025 and 123
2025. >> That's Jason on a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second the motion. >> That's Tina with a second. Tina, >> hi. >> Carol, >> I >> make sure you uh unmute yourselves. Um
Rachel, >> hi. >> Sarah, >> hi. >> And I'm an I. >> Just because I wrote them, I don't get to vote. >> I'm sorry, Bruce. >> Hi.
>> I'm an eye as well. >> Bruce gets two votes. Thank you all. Um, now uh let's go to uh uh certificates of uh compliance. Uh Erin, would you mind introducing the first one?
>> Sure. Um well, so um I guess on both of these there's there's questions um related to time of year. So we're going to we're going to continually get these um through the through the winter as long as we've got snow. Um, and we've
got snow covered frozen conditions which prevent my ability to conduct a meaningful site visit where I can sort of assess compliance. Um, so there's that question and how you want to handle certificates of compliance for the remainder of the
winter. And then the other question is um this is the second and third time with um operation maintenance logs that were so in the case of north service road there was no logs submitted. the
project was permitted at the end of 2024 and the work was completed and it's like they're completing work and they want their certificate of compliance, but under orders of conditions were required to have three consecutive years of documented operation and maintenance of
the storm water system. Um, and so how to proceed in cases like that when we get a request for certificate of compliance on a project that's just been completed and they want a certificate. Um, we can either issue a partial, which
some commissions do and some commissions don't, um, because it basically removes the encumbrance from the deed, um, and also doesn't really provide incentive for applicants to come back to us with their logs to demonstrate that they've
done the work. Um the other thing is um you know we when we issue an order of conditions we have there is actually a log that's in the order of conditions. So we say when you submit an order of condition when you submit a certificate
of compliance this is the log we want you to use and this is the information we want you to gather when you conduct your inspections and your maintenance. Um what happens in situations where that log isn't used and the information that we require on our maintenance log isn't collected. Um as is the case with 70
University Drive, we have the date, the time, the temperature that the that the inspection was done, but we don't have any information on what structures were cleaned, what the inspe what inspection was conducted, what um maintenance was conducted, and we're supposed to have
that for three years as well. So there we're there was we're we're going to start getting more of these because there was quite a few projects that were wrapped up um right around the time I started. And so when we we should start thinking about policywise how we want to
deal with these types of situations, what the commission will hold strictly to in terms of requirements in the issued order of conditions and um how to deal with these exceptional circumstances. Thanks, Aaron. Um, so that's a policy uh
question there, Jason. >> Yeah, Aaron. Um, I don't want to necessarily put more work on you, but would it be beneficial for us to create a required
inspection form? >> We already have one. We already have one. It's it's already we have a standardized form that we require. I I instituted that when I started. Um these are ones that were permitted prior to my
arrival. So um but yeah, we have one. So like 110 North Service Road has a standardized form. >> Um 70 University doesn't because they were permitted prior to my arrival, but yeah, we do have a standardized form. They they so to be clear, 70 University
Drive had a form that was approved in their order of conditions. They just didn't use it and they didn't submit it to us with their certificate of compliance request. >> Sorry. They had a form that was approve. And just for clarity, when did you start?
>> Uh the end of 20 uh 2019. >> Okay. >> So I can show you to make this a little easier. I'll try to go quickly here. >> Yeah. Sorry. So my point like this I I I agree with you like I think this form
that they is inadequate and doesn't say anything and then there's these two storm water inspection reports that are blank. They say nothing. >> That's the approved that's the approved form. So the two blank ones were the ones that were those were the forms that
the commission approved in the order of conditions to be used for the inspections. And then what was submitted to us, that word document, that was what they're calling the inspection report, which doesn't really have any information in it. I sent a correspondence back to the applicant
saying, um, hey, this this document tells me what time and what temperature was, but it doesn't tell me what structures were cleaned or what was done. Um, and they just sent the same one back to me again.
So I um Sorry, I'm really tired. >> No, you No, it's okay. I mean, I'm I'm just I don't understand. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't do what they were required to do. >> Yeah. I requested like do you have rec
like um uh receipts from the folks who did this that you could provide the the receipts saying what action was done and then the report was just sent back to me. So, if we're I guess the question is um do what do we want to ask of the applicant? I just want to be really
clear and where the commission's drawing the line because I have to communicate with applicants and I can't say I can say I need this additional information but if they don't provide it to me, okay, the commission is not going to issue an order of conditions on this um
until you do X, Y, and Z. And so I just need some clear direction to give them of what you will where you're gonna hold firm. >> I think that they need to provide evidence that this these things were actually done that the maintenance was
done who performed the maintenance. Do they have I mean at the very least show that they have a contract with somebody a competent contractor that can do the meat like and and then use the forms that were approved for that use. I mean
literally this is just a date, a time and a temperature and it says nothing else. So, >> right, >> I I I advocate for not issue like for saying you we're not going to do this until you use the forms that were
approved and that you show that this work was actually done. Um, now they're going to have to show that I don't know, I guess with a contract, some sort of invoicing from a company that's well >> capable of doing this.
>> Okay, hang on a minute here. Go ahead. I'm done. >> Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, a certificate of compliance is uh something that we certify that they complied. You g they
have not complied because they haven't given us the what they should. And it's it's as simple as that where when I consider it, I'm I'm just going to step back. Uh I I buted in there in front of Sarah. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say that. Um, sorry
I wasn't following exactly what they were supposed to do, but they they um if it's not possible for them to go back and re recreate what they did, whatever it was that what they were doing was supposed to achieve,
they should be able to hire someone like an engineer or some professional that would be able to go and inspect it and make sure that the end result was achieved, if you see what I mean. >> Well, they're and they are willing to do that. They said they would be willing to do that. It's just I just want to make sure that the
commission realizes if you're saying here's the log that we're approving you use and we're requiring that you fill this out for 3 years when you get your certificate of compliance. If we then say we're going to um wave that requirement and just allow you to have
an engineers inspection. >> Yeah. But yeah, but you I understand but you can't have a cloud on their title forever. And honestly, it doesn't actually achieve the goal. I mean, the the log is not an end in itself. The log
was to show I don't I don't exactly know what it was that they were supposed to be doing, but whatever they were supposed to be doing, there's some substantive thing that was supposed to happen to protect the resource. And that that maybe I mean, you know, you should
be able to determine whether the resource was in fact protected. And if if it wasn't and may maybe not, but I just think if too much time goes by like going forward there might be things not these projects that you've inherited, but going forward there might be
procedures to put in place that would make it less likely that this happens like requiring them to regularly submit these logs, not wait until some, you know, long period of time has passed and they can't rectify it any further. Do you know what I mean? there or there might be something else that to
procedurally that will make it less likely that they'll default in this way. But if you're trying to clean up past ones, you know, you could make it very clear that you're just cleaning up this past one in your decision or our
decision that because of this the fact that you inherited this thing and it's kind of a mess and there's actually no way to go back and recreate what happened. in this particular instance, you're gonna allow some independent person that you feel comfortable can come in and assess and rely on that
instead. Do you know what I mean? >> Yeah. I And and if you guys are comfortable with that, it's totally fine. I just want to >> as a word of caution when you allow that, it basically provides well, you don't have to do the maintenance then,
which is required. We're just gonna allow an inspection at the end and then we're going to call it good and give you your sign. >> I understand. You can make it clear that but how are they gonna ever comply? Like what what is the end? >> They didn't comply. >> What? >> They did not comply.
>> I understand. >> We cannot certify that they comply forever. >> That's how it is. It's either they mean >> Yeah. that that that doesn't seem right for >> so then so then then our our regulations are uh are not have no no uh value to
them then >> no you've got to set up a regulation that's achievable because the problem that you >> a certificate of compli I mean excuse me an order of conditions is a cloud on title potentially they won't be able to f I don't know maybe not but it's
potentially it's a cloud on title that you can't you know you I mean it it affects their title. So yeah, I don't know that it it ultimately uh serves our goals if they just never did what they were supposed to do and
there's no way for them to fix it and this that you know what I mean like >> so so what we did what we did last time with um the at the last meeting was we issued a partial certification and we said we're issuing you a partial
certification but we're still requiring that you submit get 3 years of maintenance logs prior to getting a full certification. We could do that. Um, >> but that's even a little bit worse because when you don't you release the certificate of compliance when you issue a partial certificate, aren't you
releasing? Yeah. >> Yeah, you are. There's an attachment to it that says these are the additional, you know, these are these are the things that are incomplete and we're going to require you to do this to get a complete certification. So, um I mean I don't
really know how else to handle it. Um I mean we could say follow Jason's um suggestion and say have the forms filled out and provide you know back backdate the forms fill them out accordingly and
provide um a contractor a contract from contractor from that would be great >> then you know that's that's an option. I'm just um yeah trying to trying to figure out a solution. >> Yeah, if they can do that, that would be
better. >> All right, >> let's move on to the next uh the next commissioner, please. Um and I'm sorry, Jason. Uh it sounded like you had something to say about uh about what what you had suggested. I'm not necessarily suggesting that they
go in and backdate, but like show some other form of proof that the work was actually done by a qualified person or company. I don't I think backdating is not I don't want to that's not what I was suggesting.
>> Right. I mean it's So you weren't suggesting going back and inventing stuff and you weren't suggesting >> Yeah. Yeah. And you weren't making the suggestion that Sarah was making either, that is to have somebody go in and and
certify that that even though they didn't do any uh maintenance logs and so on, that there was no damage done, so to speak. I mean, that am I right, Sarah, that that's kind of what you're
>> I don't know because I don't I'm sorry. I was not clear about exactly what they were supposed to do, but just that if there's some alternative way to show that they did what they were supposed to do basically to achieve whatever the goal was of requiring them to do the logs. Do you
know what I mean? >> Maybe there isn't. >> Okay. Yep. Okay. All right. >> Um I was going to say I don't think we should release them for their from their obligation to do three consecutive years of these logs because I think the logs provides a very clear framework of what
they need to be doing. And then I think, you know, to Andrew's point that it is three consecutive years, but if they could come up with a hardship as to why they didn't do it the first years, maybe someone else is coming back on scene and picking up where they left off, I think
we could issue a certificate of compliance once those three consecutive years has passed. >> Thank you, Rachel. >> What I was gonna say, Tina, yay. Um I was and and also just that a lot of
times the logs are inspection related. So inspecting if they're storm water related, inspecting systems and making sure there isn't sediment and things are functioning correctly. Um and some so you can't you can't recreate those. I I don't think I mean some engineers might
be willing to but I think there's a code of ethics of um going back and creating things that didn't happen. So going forward, having a system to go forward from the point three years from the point that they they start up again um is something that makes sense to me.
Thanks. And uh you know along the lines of uh what uh Rachel has uh just said and what Jason mentioned earlier, you can't just doctor up a bunch of uh a bunch of logs from the past and uh
and and uh say that fine, we're going to you know, this is what uh this is this this will uh this will quiet them down and this will get us uh uh through to the uh certific certificate of compliance. The fact is that the people
did not that the uh these companies did not um fill out the logs properly uh as they were uh supposed to. So they didn't comply. So, we can't certify that they complied.
I don't feel right uh putting my name on a certificate of compliance when people are not complying uh or when a company's not complying. So, I think a uh you know, from my point of view, um I would be satisfied if uh they took
another three years of uh uh of maintenance logs and uh filled those out. But I'm not going to uh personally vote for um uh vote for either a full or partial uh certificate of compliance for
anyone who hasn't complied. Period. It's just the way it is. Uh it's you you either comply or you don't. We have rules and regulations and uh they weren't they weren't followed. So they didn't comply. That's the end of mind.
Bruce, go ahead, Bruce. trying to get them. So, let's let's just say that uh Andre's point is taken and we don't issue it.
From the the applicant point of view, what happens? Does it mean they cannot sell the land? Does it mean that they cannot use the thing that they've built? um what what is the practical outcome of
not giving them the certificate of compliance for three more years? >> Yeah, it would it would be an incumbrance on the deed. Um so it's the deed >> it doesn't prevent them from selling it. It's just the buyer would know that
there was this incumbrance. Correct. Um yeah, sometimes you can't get a like a mortgage or you know take sometimes sometimes they won't accept an unclear title like a >> the reason I asked this in part is
because what happens with the the applicant who comes in doesn't do any this part of it for a year but their project is done. they have to wait two more years of before they can sell the thing or use it or
>> well so in the case of like um of 110 North Service Road just to use as an example I don't I don't feel comfortable really doing an inspection right now with snow on the ground like I'd want to go out and do the inspection you know in the spring >> at that point they will have done some
of their maintenance logs so we could say okay your m some of your maintenance has been completed We still want two and a half years of maintenance logs. And we could issue a partial potentially because they've shown compliance and they've done their inspections up till
that point. or one where there's no evidence that they've done maintenance, we would either need, I think, the suggestion of a contract with the party that was certified to do the maintenance and potentially an inspection from an
engineer might be some middle ground. Whether the commission wanted to require to issue a partial and require three complete years of the maintenance logs filled out, that's an option. Um I'm just I'm I'm just trying to figure out a bridge to you know um once they
get the certificate of compliance the deed is cleared for the sale. So um whether it's partial >> up their sale. Did did they say that >> there is a sale I believe coming. Um usually there is with these.
>> Yeah. This gives me some guidance. Um, but I mean the commission's okay. Like in the when I can't do an inspection because of snow kind of anticipated that we'll have till spring at least to to do an inspection.
>> I mean, I don't see how they do their logs and do their inspections and what have you when there's this much snow either. >> Yeah, it depends on the structure. Um, like Okay. >> A catch basin you could inspect. A detention basin might be a little more
challenging if there's sediment in it. Yeah, >> but that would be put in that would be put into a uh into the log itself, right? I mean, uh couldn't inspect this uh month because >> that's a good point. >> I mean, it's the fact that they don't
have it is just I mean, >> yeah. >> Anyway, I believe the point, >> Jason. >> Yeah. No, I was just gonna say these are quarterly inspections, so >> right. So, it's like, you know, I I if
it's if you can't inspect one quarter because of 26 inches of snow on the ground, like it's likely you you just state that in the inspection log. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Right. >> That gives me guidance that I need. I
think I can um hopefully communicate with the applicant from here with some some level of suggestion for how to move forward. Um, let me throw something else in there. Um, I mean, we have two two
different cases here. One of them that didn't uh that either didn't do them or doc or or basically provided minimal um information uh on on their uh logs when
they did and another that didn't have the opportunity because not enough time has passed. Now I think in the one in the uh case where uh where not enough time has passed
um I I think I don't know uh would there be uh you know we're talking about encumbrances if you would on um on a deed. Um you know I think uh merely having a uh
statement from the conservation commission saying that this uh uh cannot be that the uh certificate cannot be issued yet but that they are complying up complying to date and that uh this compliance needs to continue through the
uh first two years or whatever amount of time of uh of the new owner's uh ownership. um would probably satisfy a uh uh a lender or um I don't know. I'm I I don't
really know but I I'm uh interested in exploring that because um you know again issuing a partial certificate um on paper actually releases them uh of or
at least on you know it kind of releases uh the owners of having to do uh any further um because they can sell the place and so on. But um is uh maybe we can uh find out
um whether making a you know giving them some kind of a certificate that they have been complying and are continuing to comply. I don't know. >> Yeah, I could talk to the the town uh our town attorney and see what they might recommend too. Um that's also
another option I could look at. >> Okay, thanks Rachel. >> Yeah. Um and in in another town in our area, um you were allowed to close your permit if you were complete with complete with the work prior to the end
of the permit expiring, but you had to present all of the all the monitoring logs um at that at that hearing, at that meeting to close out your permit. And then you are required in forever to keep
3 years worth of logs unfiled. And so if that person ever comes back or that that entity ever comes back for another permit, they have to present those monitoring logs and maintenance logs as part of their application. Um,
and that's how it's been handled in at least two other towns. Um, and then there's another town where someone has to report and that's more handled in a storm water um permit that they have to submit their monitoring and maintenance
to the to the municipality once a year um forever and that's that's a different model altogether. >> Yeah. and and uh we do have a new storm water bylaw and so um and I believe that Southeast Street project that we're in the currently reviewing is going to be
the first and so they will be required henceforth when they get their permit to to submit annual operation and maintenance loggers records to the town. Um and yes, you're what you're saying is totally correct like they're they are still required to keep those three years
of records um as part of their you know in perpetuity. That's a requirement that they do. Um, really we should I I write into all of our permits that I've issued. You're required to have all of your monitoring. Like so they're really
required to have them available to us a a maintenance log at any time demonstrating that they've been conducting their maintenance since the structure was installed. Um, so anyway, but these ones are hard harder to address that are like um one-off
situations, which we have two of tonight. >> All right. So, you you got some guidance now. Are we going to are we looking to um uh vote on these two or you're going to Okay. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, that uh I'm hoping that that's uh that's the end of our um conversations here. Carol, you have your hand up. >> You do. Uh this is going back to December and you told us that you had
uh requested um from the I guess archipelago after the Olympic place fires that they give some information about replacing erosion and sediment controls and soil testing and
the conservation area. And I know it's winter, but so back in December, you said there was no response. Have you had any response? >> I have not. Um, they did install erosion controls, which I saw in the photos that
were taken by the Switi for the project that was under construction right next door. So, I I could see that they addressed my they got my email and they installed the erosion controls. They never responded back about the cleanup of the conservation land or the soil
testing. So, um, yeah. >> Isn't Isn't responding to requests a good thing to do? >> Yes. Yeah. And I I've been a little just
uh passive about it right now because it was such a major >> catastrophe. And I know they're working to make the site safe right now and right like right now they're doing the demo and so the fact that they're getting the material out of there and
they're stabilizing the site I sort of have been focusing on they're probably trying to do that you know as the next step but I think come spring when the site's thawing out we should you know uh you know give them a little bit of lead time to take care of the emergency
nature um of the situation but maybe revisit it with them. Well, you know, I'm asking because I hadn't heard anything. We haven't read anything about it. So, >> right. >> That's a great point, Carol. And uh what I would ask about that is what is our what are our what is our recourse right
now? Um uh you've asked we've asked for the uh uh we've asked them to provide us something. Uh we haven't heard back. Um, how about
we give them a date? We need we a a date by which they should uh uh respond. >> I mean uh the good idea. >> There's a concern there's a concern there that uh that that that there's uh
that there's damage done to um conservation land that they're responsible for. Um and we want to make sure that's addressed. I mean they they need to uh wouldn't we want to have that
addressed within uh within a certain time frame? Yeah. Um I you know um I know that they're doing other things uh but they're they they have recourse uh you know resources. Uh
somebody could at least answer your letter, >> right? um you know and if they don't answer the letter then what's the next thing? Uh it's an enforcement uh you know we get into enforcement. Is that aren't we
right or am I am I right is my question. >> Yeah. Um if it's okay I'd like to look into that a little bit more and I'm prepared maybe to talk about it more articulately the next meeting. >> I think that's wonderful.
>> Okay. I I just from this was from before I was on the conservation commission. I I did not feel that this uh corporation was very respectful of the conservation commission. And and I think, you know,
no matter what you're doing, you can always answer a letter or write an email. >> That makes sense, Carol. But I think what we need to be careful of is we need to uh ensure that we address each issue as a as an issue on its own.
>> I get it. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion uh to adjourn? >> Um so can I just really quickly before we adjourn, I'm very sorry. Um we did get a request to modify the monitoring
for 195 um Monu Road. I'm completely fine with it under the parameters that the commission has already discussed. I just wanted to put it on the record that the request came in and hopefully the commission's okay with the reduction in monitoring under the parameters we've already discussed.
>> Straw poll or uh or uh motion? >> I don't think we need either as long as we just have general consensus that folks are okay with the reduced monitoring during the winter. >> Okay. If anyone's opposed, uh, raise your hand.
All right. No one's opposed. >> Okay. Thanks. I'll second. >> Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I move we adjourn. >> Second. >> Jason on the motion. Tina, on a second. Tina, >> I. >> Bruce, I don't want to miss you. Bruce,
>> I >> Jason, I don't want to miss you. >> I >> Sarah. >> Hi, >> Carol. >> Hi, >> Rachel. I >> and I'm an I. Good night everybody. Great job. Thanks for your uh
collaboration and cooperation. Awesome. >> Good night. >> Good night.