Uh good evening everyone. Uh this is the Amoris Conservation Commission. Um it is 7:09 on uh the 11th of February 2026. Um and today we will have a couple of uh uh
couple of hearings um are planned and after that we will be uh discussing the conservation land management policy and regulations. Um and after that we'll be talking about whatever other business uh uh we've got.
Um as far as the chair's report uh not much to uh say other than we are still uh in a drought situation uh until probably this uh snow melts. Um
uh let's see if any commissioners uh would like to have anything put on the schedule um for discussion uh please uh please let me know and I will uh ensure that the uh whatever it is gets put on
uh on the schedule. Um and that's it for me. I'll pass it on to Dave Zomeck uh for the director's report. Dave. >> Sure. Thanks, Andrea. I really don't have much tonight. Excuse me. Um,
we did still dealing with a little cold here. Apologies. Um, we did last night hold um a Meepa U review meeting for the Puffers Pond project. Um, I believe there may
have been a commissioner or two in the audience. Um these are uh this is really the the very start of the um process to look at dam and dyke and other improvements up at Puffers Pond very early in the process. We do not have any
funding as I've said before beyond uh design of imp of maintenance and improvements to the dam and dyke at Puffers. Uh the meeting itself it was virtual. It was attended by about 22 different people. um a number of people
from North Ammerst, you know, very good comments about, you know, the importance of Buffers Pond, the value of Puffer Pond to the public, to wildlife. Um um our our um consultants Fuss and O'Neal u
um showed some of the um design plans for improvements to the dam and dyke. Really not substantial to the dam at all. The dyke does need uh a little bit more work in terms of armoring the dyke.
Uh it's an earthen dyke that hasn't really gotten much attention over the decades. So uh we're very early in the process and this was one of the first steps is to hold this required um um meeting with MEPA reviewers and other state agencies there. So much more to
come on that. Obviously notices of intent will will come your way uh many months from now. So, it's very early, but nice to get that process going. The first phase of that process will be really dam and dyke improvements. The
second phase or two pending any funding from the town or state grants may involve things like dredging, beach improvements, trail improvements, and I think we've Aaron and I have mentioned this before. So, it was nice to get that that process kicked off. The other thing
that happened uh late last week, Thursday night, the CPA committee finished their um review and voting on the CPA proposals across the board, housing, uh conservation, recreation,
and historic preservation and um they voted and and made their re excuse me, completed their recommendations. So, those will now go on to the town council for the council's review. um that though on the conservation side that included
uh um $100,000 for trail improvements and $100,000 to keep uh to to continue uh funding signs for conservation and recreation areas throughout town. So, those are my two quick updates. Um
moving processes along, it's kind of nice to see things that we've been talking about for a long time moving forward. That's all I have tonight. Thank you. >> Thanks, Dave. Uh Bruce has a question. >> Dave, [clears throat] um with regard to
the Conway School Lawrence SW public meeting, [clears throat] I can't go. I would encourage other members to go, but could you just speak to that and just very briefly? >> Yes, thanks. Thanks for the reminder, Bruce. So many things going on and that one slipped my mind. So, as I mentioned
before, we are we are working with the Conway School of Design. And this is a little project that I initiated um um working in part with Bruce and some of the staff at Conway to look at um look at some history, some land use, uh
conservation status of land uh in the greater Lawrence swamp area. Um working with our DPW, of course, they manage uh control and manage a number of acres, hundreds of acres of land down there as well for our wells. Um so um we we do
have a meeting on Thursday. Um we invited uh it's a it's a smaller meeting. We did not invite full boards and committees. Uh but we did uh put that out to Andre and Bruce as chair and vice chair. I believe Andre can be
there. >> I will be there. Um and then we also have representatives from the water supply protection committee because of course they work closely with our DPW on water uh supply um issues and and
protection. And then we have some stakeholders uh we have the Hitchcock Center for the Environment, Kestrel Trust, uh Department of Conservation and Recreation and then our three consultants from three students uh uh wonderful students. are doing a terrific
job from Conway school. So, um if Bruce cannot make it because of other conflicts and there was one other member of the commission who would like to attend, we'd be happy to have you there. Uh Erin could maybe remind me of the time on that or I could look on my
phone. >> 1 to 2:30. >> 1 to 2:30. Thank you, Andre. If there's one other member of the commission who would like to attend, um we'd be happy to have you. You can get back to Aaron if if you'd like if you know if if you don't know
tonight. Um >> it sounds great. >> Um uh Bruce you have another question or comment? No. Um uh Dave, would you mind uh touching on the status of the signs?
I know we heard about that uh while ago. um what uh what do we have going on with the with the signage for the uh conservation trails and so on? >> Yeah, we've we've actually made a lot of progress. It's been it's been a bit of a
slog. It is much uh more complicated than frankly than we anticipated when we started. But um you saw the family of signs and um that has not changed. We have a number of signs um
in in various stages of of development and design. We're working with a wonderful designer from Northampton, Seth Gregory. Um and you know when we So these are signs both for street
identification of conservation areas. Um, but they are also signs to replace and populate replace existing signs and populate uh new kiosks that we're proposing to put up at major trail heads
around town. If you think about, you know, populating the Sweet Alice uh uh uh kiosk, Podic Con, Katherine Cole, Mount Pollock, there is a kiosk. So, this funding from CPA will buy kiosks.
the actual production of the signs, fabrication and production of the signs and then uh this is both for conservation areas as well as recreation areas. So um give us another month or so and we can come back to you with more
details on this, but we would be putting this out to bid to sign companies later this spring and we can we can have an update for you with some visuals in a in a month or so.
All right. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Um, next, uh, we'll discuss, uh, the minutes if there's any discussion to, uh, to have. Um, we have, uh, which minutes there, Erin, if you don't mind.
>> Um, we have the minutes from, uh, January 14th and January 28th. >> Okay. And these are this is um we're we have a um uh somebody who's assisting with us in town hall with um giving some
administrative support to put these together. So um she's just sort of getting the hang of it. So if you're noticing anything that was missed, feel free to add it in. I did um do a quick update which was on the I think it was on the 14th if I remember correctly when
Rachel joined at 8:15. And I just added that detail in um on the last set because I think it was left off the original um version. So that was added in. Other than that um if anyone has any edits, I'm happy to incorporate them.
Bruce Rose. >> Yeah. I just asked that the the the pattern of having the name of the person who wrote the um the minutes put at the bottom the way we had done before and noting that Aaron
reviewed them. >> Sure, >> that makes sense. So with that um with that addition um or that uh edit, do we have a motion to approve the
minutes? >> I move to approve the minutes from 114 to 2026 and 128 2026. >> Thanks uh Bruce. Bruce with the motion. >> I second the motion >> and Jason seconds. Uh Jason,
>> hi >> Rachel. >> Hi >> Carol. >> Hi >> Sarah. >> Hi. >> And Bruce. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I.
So the minutes are approved. Um, do we have any updates on uh land for land use other than the fact that we're going to be discussing the uh the regs and uh policy? >> Uh, no uh land use applications or
anything for this meeting. >> All right. Um, with that then uh we're going to move into our hearings. Um, we have two today. Um just so we have uh so it's clear uh the
general procedures for fairness uh is that each hearing has 20 minutes uh dedicated to it. Uh the applicant uh will have five minutes to present. Uh staff uh will have five minutes to
comment and the public will have uh five minutes to comment or two minutes per person and then uh five minutes for conservation commissioners. Uh all submitted uh all submitted and
revised materials need to be uh sub submitted by Wednesday, the week before the meeting at close of business. Uh presenters, please uh give your name uh address of the project and who you're representing uh and if you have any uh
preferred pronouns. And for members of the public, uh state your uh name, address, and uh if you have pre uh preferred uh pronouns. Um Robert's rules of order. Um, all attendees uh including commissioners
should be uh muted unless they're speaking. Uh, anyone wishing to speak needs to raise their hand before they're uh they have the floor and I will call on them when it's uh it's proper time. Um,
and that's just about sums it up. Uh our first uh meeting I mean our first uh uh hearing is uh notice of intent um
Stonefield Engineering and Design on behalf of Mir Mikchi of Fort River LLC for the proposed construction of a mixeduse structure housing and commercial with proposed parking, storm water and associated site work and
landscaping. ing at 126, 140, and 148 Southeast Street and 43 Beluretown Road, map 15C, lots 7, 8, 9, and 48. So, do we have uh someone um
who will be speaking to that? >> Erin, you're muted. I'm sorry. Sorry, I can I can pull in the uh representative. >> Okay, >> Josh Klein. Hello, Josh. You're muted
right now. >> Hello, Josh. You're still uh just >> It was just letting me in. >> Yeah. So, uh, did you hear the Robert's rules of order? >> I I did. I'm gonna introduce myself. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Josh Klein, Stonefield Engineering and
Design partner, licensed professional engineer. Um, we're representing the applicant for River LLC. Um, I don't I don't have too much to say. I'm going to turn it over to Aaron. We did meet with her in advance of the meeting. Uh, we kind of sent a response in um kind of in our review of the peer reviews. we kind
of gave our our feedback um which I saw she posted to the website um and we're looking forward to kind of working with with Aaron uh the future peer reviewers um and we hope to be back I think we requested a continuous to April 8th
that'll give time for the commission to onboard the peer reviews the peer reviewers to conduct the review and for us to um get him back in front of this commission. >> All right Josh, thank you. Um, if everyone could please mute yourselves uh
until it's time that you want to speak. All right, Erin, [sighs] I don't um have a a ton to add. I'll say that we did meet um Josh and I met with the uh assistant planning director uh
last week to go over some um potential plan revisions and we discussed uh the uh peer review and sort of their timeline and um the applicant requested that we try to move forward with seeking
quotes for the peer review um while they're working on revisions so that we can try to sort of um keep the timeline or the um just keep keep the process moving along as quickly as possible for them, which I'm more than happy to do.
Um, so I tried to um ceue up a motion on the PowerPoint basically that um sorry that uh seeks authorization from the applicant for the commission to
employ the outside consultation for the draft scopes and I sent the draft scopes to the commission as well as a list of requested information um that's needed in order for them for those peer reviewers to complete the peer review. Um, and then just use the timeline of
the four weeks from tonight's meeting to uh give the applicant an opportunity to prepare their revisions and um submit requested information. Um, and in the meantime, I can seek out uh quotes from the peer reviewers so that we can try to
get the review um moving along as quickly as possible. >> All right. Thanks, Aaron. Um, now there seems to be a slight discrepancy between the um, April 8th and March uh,
25th um, dates that uh, are that Josh mentioned in the uh, and what we have on our um, on our hearing PowerPoint. >> Yeah. So, um, uh,
Josh mentioned in his email that he needed, uh, 3 to four weeks. So, I just assumed four weeks from, um, tonight, he said, from tonight's meeting. That's how much time they would need in order to prepare the revisions. So, I um used
that date as the date for the submission of the revised materials. And then I believe they requested to be heard on the first meeting in April. So, um, that's where the or I'm sorry, was it
was it March or April? Did I miss up mix up that date? I thought it was Was it March 25th you requested or was it April? I thought it was March. >> Uh, March March 25th. I might have mentioned April. I I think I I saw online a different application requested
April, but no, March 25th is the meeting. >> Okay. So, they submit the materials by the 11th and then the hearing would be on the 25th. >> Okay. All right. Makes sense. Uh Bruce, uh we we can >> when when we get to the commissioner
time. >> Thank you. All right. Um do we have any members of the public uh who uh wish to comment for this hearing? Let me see hands.
I see a hand. Oh, that's Bruce. Um, I don't see any public uh attendees um raising hands. So, with that said, uh Bruce, why don't you uh go ahead? Carol, can you mute yourself until it's >> Sorry, I thought I was.
>> Thank you. No problem. So, um, Erin, can you walk us through the the, uh, aspects of the Mullen rule if that how that might influence all this? >> Um, yeah. So, I I just have been keeping
track of commissioners who have missed this hearing. Um, so, as of tonight, we have three commissioners who've missed the hearing. And the significance of that is that commissioners can only miss a hearing once and if they miss it more
than once, they can't vote on the project. So, it's really just my way of um as we move forward because we know this is going to take a couple months between the extension and the peer reviews to just make sure that I'm keeping a a tally on attendance of um
meetings that folks miss so that we can ensure that we have a quorum to vote at the end. I think this is a really helpful little graphic that we could use in every hearing if it's relevant. Thank you. >> Thanks, Bruce. It's a great great
comment and thanks for doing that, Erin. Uh Sarah, >> so I just have a question about the email that's in the file for this hearing. I just since you guys are here, maybe you can explain it.
um from Tuesday, February 10th from Stephen talking about wanting the commission members to walk through. >> That's a different hearing, uh Sarah. >> Oh. Oh, okay. >> That's for the second hearing on the agenda. >> Oh, got it. Sorry about that.
>> Never mind. I'll hold on to that. >> You got it. All right. Um well, with that then I don't see any more commissioners uh hands up. um with questions. So, uh we have uh two
motions written up here. I think the one that we're looking for is the first uh long motion if I'm if I'm not correct. Uh Erin, is that uh what we're looking for here?
>> Yes, we'll need to make both of the motions. >> Both of them. Okay. The uh writing is pretty small. if there's a way that you could uh perhaps make it a little bigger for us. Uh just for now, >> I will uh I'll make the motion. We're making both motions. You said, Aaron,
>> I'll make the motion. Uh, conservation commission moves to seek authorization from the applicant to employ an outside consultant under MGL part one, title 7, chapter 44, section 53G to review revised
application materials, requested information as noted in January 30th, 2026 memo from the conservation agent regarding requested information needed prior to initiation of peerreview services and staff
recommended scope of work under chapter 44 section 53G in accordance with the proposed three drafted scopes of work for engineering hydrogeeologic and licensed site professional services to determine compliance of said project with the
Massachusetts wetlands protection act wetlands protection under the town of Ammerst general bylaw Massachusetts stormwater management standards and the town of Ammer stormwater management bywall by law and regulations. The applicant shall submit requested
information and revised plans by no later than March 11th, 2026 for review. Peerreview contract shall not be executed unless requested information is submitted and revised materials are received in a timely manner by noted date.
>> Thank you, Jason. Uh while you catch your breath, we're looking for a second. A second >> Rachel with a second. Um Rachel >> I >> Bruce >> I
>> Jason >> I >> Carol >> I >> Sarah >> hi >> and I'm an I. >> Now we have a second. I'll also move to continue the public hearing for D number
089-0765 to March 25th, 2026 at 7:20 p.m. >> Second. >> All right, Jason with a motion and Bruce with a second. Bruce >> I. >> Jason >> I. >> Carol
>> I. >> Rachel >> I. >> Sarah >> I. >> And I'm an I. Um, well Josh, thank you. uh for uh coming again uh today. We'll see you uh March 25th and we're looking
forward uh um to the revised the information and revised plan uh by no later than March 11th. >> Thanks again. Good night. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> All right. Um,
our second meeting uh or our second uh hearing is a notice of intent uh Goddard Consulting LLC on behalf of Roxanna and Dakota Freeman for the proposed construction of a new single house single family home with associated shed
utilities driveway and associated mitigation within the buffer zone of bordering and isolated vegetated wetlands at 750 West Street, map 22B, lot one. Um,
do we have someone here uh to speak to this? >> I don't believe the applicant is here this evening. Um, they did request a continuation. Um, they they requested a continuation
to April 8th, so I put them on as the first hearing on the agenda. Um they also have requested a site visit um to be conducted uh prior to hopefully that
hearing um to walk the site again and uh potentially sort of recategorize the isolated wetlands. Um so they're they are requesting um the opportunity to have the meet with a commission out there and and go over the um the
delineation. Um I I mean I again I I didn't actually go through this one to determine um the uh attendance for the hearings, but as we're continuing to April, just wanted
to flag that. Um we're probably having similar um issues with attendance on that hearing as well. And um it might be worthwhile. I I put this in there for the commission to consider if we are extending this to April 8th, which is
several months out, that the commission may want to consider requiring that a plan be submitted um prior to the next hearing um so that you have an opportunity to review any revisions uh
prior to that hearing. And specifically, I know the commission has already advised the applicant um on keeping the house outside of the 100 foot no work zone um and you know, potentially reducing the footprint, moving it closer
to the road. So, I don't know. You know, those are things that the commission could consider requiring so that for the next meeting we're better prepared to have something to review as opposed to um kicking it, you know, and kicking it forward and not having revisions um to
consider at the next meeting. >> Okay. And um they're what they're requesting is that we go and do a site visit um prior to that meeting. um is it? >> Yes. Um and and certainly it'll be
dependent on snow melt and and everything, but um >> they're in hopes that the ground will be thawed out and that the snow will be thawed by then so that commission can walk the site. I also did not have a chance to confirm the delineation for
this site. It was filed in late October and I did conduct one site visit, but the day that I was scheduled to go out to really bushwack the site, it snowed pretty significantly. Um, so that also still needs to be done.
>> All right. Thanks, Aaron. Um, if there's any member of the public who would like to comment on uh on this proposal, um, please uh put your hand up now. I see we have three attendees from the public. Um, if there's anyone who uh has a
comment, please raise your hands. Okay, I see no uh no members of the public uh raising their hands. Uh so we go to Bruce. Go ahead, Bruce. Is it fair to assume that the site visit
opportunities are April 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th? Because we would have the plan in our hands in order to go out there to look at it in under the current framework that's being requested. You're on mute.
Sorry about that. I think I requested a week ahead of the hearing date that they requested a continuence to. Um, so yeah, I think you know it would be fair to schedule a site visit on the second, third, sixth or seventh.
>> Okay. If you can do it on the 3rd or the 6th, it would be better for me. But don't hold it up. Just go for that. [snorts] >> Could you say those um days again? >> Third schedule. Say >> sorry. The third or the sixth, the Friday or the Monday? or 6th of April. No, that's really
helpful >> for me. >> That's really helpful, Bruce, because I can get that on the calendar ahead of time and um you know, be prepared. I mean, uh the other piece is, you know, just it's it's entirely up to you. When
I word these, I'm trying to cover all the bases in like a draft motion. You guys can always modify these motions. Um just in the instance that and uh revisions are not submitted.
Um I when I give a deadline, you know, it it basically gives you the ability to make a decision as to whether you're going to act on it that night or not. So you can always allow more time if you choose to or you can, you know, eliminate that requirement. It's totally
up to you. um just trying to ceue it up to give you guys the opportunity to to act if you feel you need to. Like for example, if they come back and they don't provide any revisions to the plan and you guys are feeling like we've given you plenty of opportunities over
months to revise this and you haven't submitted it to us, then it gives you that opportunity to act that night. >> Yeah. And as I remember uh Erin, we did request uh revisions um of them in our last uh meeting with them or a previous
meeting. Is that uh am I >> the last two meetings we have requested revisions? So that's why it's at that point >> and uh and they're not submitted yet, but do they plan to I mean uh obviously before we go out and do a site visit,
we're going to want to have those revisions. If not, we're going we're going to be going there semi- blindly. Um, okay. Well, uh, Sarah has the next question or comment. >> Sorry. Yeah, now I have the question in
the right meeting. Um, I just have a question about this email because I don't understand. And I mean there's not somebody here from the Goddard to explain it, but when they say they want the commission to go out there to see if
we can either connect the small isolated wetlands to the larger wetland, making them borderline vegetated wetlands, or eliminate them all together and then if they I don't know. He seems to be talking about making a I don't
understand what he's saying. Do you can you explain, Eron? Um, yeah. I mean, I I responded back and said to that email and said basically, um, I I wouldn't feel comfortable
reclassifying the wetlands or removing the wetlands from the plan to accommodate the house. Um, I would feel more comfortable if we could revise the house location to make sure that we can approve it under the regulations. So, that was my response to that. Um,
>> what did he say to that? I mean, are they planning to do that? >> Um, he so he didn't respond yet. It was only sent out late this afternoon uh that I responded to that this that email was just received. >> Okay. >> Um, and and I'm sorry, what was the
second part of your question? I was just what you just said is h is what it sound I mean I'm not so familiar with the terminology but that's what it sounded like to me that he was saying we have the authority to sort of make
changes to what exists on the ground which doesn't seem right. I mean we wouldn't do that >> right you're you're reading it like I am as well. Uh Sarah, it's uh it sounds to me like um
like u an attempt to reclassify uh the wetlands for uh whatever reason. And uh yeah, I [clears throat] >> I just wonder whether um since people are saying that he's been asked more than or they've been asked more than
once to re redo the plan, maybe they're not hearing that somehow. Do you think they need clarificate like >> Yeah, I mean I've communicated them to them twice in writing saying, you know, the commission said they weren't going
to um grant a waiver for the putting the house within the 100 foot no work zone uh to the isolated wetlands. uh the the response has been
wanting to discuss that and I think they're having a hard time figuring out how to get the plan where they want it to be um and still meet the regulations. So, I kind of gave them the best guidance I
could with what I see on the lot. this is like the the one place you really have to work with to put the house and and really have the commission give some flexibility and not have to grant waiverss. Um uh >> that's what you said in your response.
>> Yeah, but I think the the motion is really what that motion by the commission is what is going to give you sort of the regulatory authority at the next meeting to say we've asked for these revisions. We've given you a deadline. we need it by this date, you
know, and we're will obviously the commission's willing to do a site visit to go back out there and take another look. I'm more than willing to look at the delineation again, but um they also have to do their part to get us revisions in a timely way so that the
commission can make a decision. >> So, yeah, I mean, uh really we're uh we're in the driver's seat here. we can give them the benefit of the doubt. Whatever they're trying to um communicate to us,
it it we can leave that aside and essentially uh make our uh make our requests or demands uh prior to a site visit. We've asked them for revisions um and we can set a deadline for that and uh move move
from there on. Um you know I you know their request uh uh or the the comment about um merging merging different kinds kinds of wetlands and reclassifying and so on. I think we can just leave aside uh and uh
focus on what uh what our um authority is. Thanks, Sarah. And uh Carol, you're muted. >> So, I have the same concern that Sarah did. Um
and I don't think I think I've heard before applicants make requests that we somehow change the rules to fit their needs. And as far as as I understand it, that's not what we do. Um, I also
wondered uh if we were going to look at recategorizing isolated wetlands on a site visit in early April. >> Um, you know, would the ground
conditions be um amendable to that? It's probably still going to be pretty wet. I'd imagine so. >> That's all. >> Thanks, Carol. Bruce, >> so um Erin, I want to go back to the
Mullen's rule. So, in if the Mullen's rule material in red were on this one and it said Tina was absent, if given that all we're doing is moving to continue, it doesn't matter, right? We're in a
hearing. If she misses any aspect of this hearing tonight, then that's one little that's the time that she can miss. >> Well, >> despite the fact that we're essentially doing nothing. >> Yeah. So if if you guys were just making
a a straight continuation and not doing it make uh not having any discussion, I would say in that case um it would be it wouldn't impact Mullen rule because you're not taking any public comment, any testimony, any discussion in this
case where you know the commission's discussing it. I think >> it it does um >> okay >> open that door. That's the fine grain distinction I was looking for. Thank you. >> Thanks, Bruce. Um, any other uh comments
or uh suggestions? All right. I don't see any any others. Um, with that, we're looking for a uh for a motion. Um I mean I uh I believe we should be
requiring these uh and I would imagine that most of us uh believe that. Um so we have uh two motions there. Uh who's uh brave enough to go for that first one.
I move to require submitt of revised plan design relocating the proposed house site and associated work outside [clears throat] of the 100 foot no work zone to isolated vegetated wetlands. The commission may approve the house footprint within the 50oot no work to bordering vegetated wetlands. If the
house is moved closer to the road, the driveway length is reduced and mitigation is provided. The applicant shall submit revised plans by no later than April 1st, 2026 addressing the commission's required revisions or the commission may deny the project for lack
of information. >> Thank you, Jason. Um, with that, we're looking for a second. [clears throat] >> I second it. >> That was Sarah. >> Yep. >> All right, Jason with a motion and Sarah with a second. Sarah, >> hi >> Carol.
>> Hi >> Rachel. >> Hi >> Bruce. >> Hi >> Jason. >> I >> and I'm an I. Um first motion is approved. >> I move to continue the public hearing
for D number 089-0766 to April 8th, 2026 at 7:15 p.m. >> Seconded. That's Sarah. It's uh Jason with a motion. Sarah with a second. Uh Carol >> I
>> Sarah. >> Hi. Sorry I had trouble getting it back. >> No problem. Rachel. >> Hi. >> Uh Bruce, you have your hand up. >> Hi. >> Okay. Uh Jason, >> hi.
>> And I'm an eye. >> Now If I may. >> Yes, please. >> I object to our lackluster performance in forcing Jason to read these incredibly long uh motions. I think
other people should step up in future. Thank you. >> Well said. All right. With that, uh so we will be continuing uh this hearing to April 8th at 7:15.
And now uh we will move into a discussion of uh conservation land management policy and regulations. Uh I see a couple of hands up. I don't know if Bruce yours is up from before. No. Uh
Aaron's got a hand up. >> Sorry to jump in. I just had a couple one question. Um and it was because I was taking notes during the motions. Just want to make sure for the for the 750 West Street there was two motions.
One for the information to be submitted prior to the next continued hearing and one was for the continuation itself. But for the for the previous hearing, the Southeast Street project, was that was the second um motion also made on that one to
continue? Okay. I didn't get it in my notes, so I just wanted to verify that both motions were made. >> Yeah, Jason made them both. >> Great. Thank you. >> Mhm. And I believe the second on those were both Bruce.
No, >> I I didn't. But it's in the not it's in the recording, so they'll pick it up. >> Got it. Okay. Um, so we left off last time I
thought on page um five. Is that correct? We can all unmute ourselves now. Uh, since we're all going to be having a discussion unless you you [clears throat] care to mute yourselves. >> Yes, >> Sarah.
Um, I just wonder whether process-wise we might have a different system of getting through this. Like for example, if we all provided our comments to Aaron and she compiled them and circulated it. Do we do we No, you're shaking your
head. We have to do it like this. >> Uh, well, we're still going whether we do that or not. Um, we're still going to have to discuss it all all at the same, you know, all of us together. Okay. Um,
>> yeah. Anything we can do to to refine it? >> I'm losing my voice somehow. >> Um, [clears throat] >> yeah. What page were we on? I mean, am I making sense, Sarah? Please uh correct me if you if if you don't agree. I'm sorry.
>> No, it's okay. I just was wondering if we could there was some way to shorten the process. >> Mhm. I wish we could. I I I'm not seeing it right now. Bruce, >> one way to do that is to make sure we're talking about substantive things and
leave the copy editing for later because that isn't nec we don't need to talk about or or even point out that there's a missing capitalization or something else. Let's just stick to the the substantive matter.
>> Okay, makes sense. >> So, um the version that we're looking at right now um is the edits that we made at the last meeting uh up until this section G um I have gone through and
made edits uh to those. Most of those have been updated um with the exception of a couple things, but this is where we left off was this uh number 16 we didn't talk about yet. >> Okay. And >> Erin, could you make that a little larger? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Agreed. [clears throat] >> There we go. >> Nice. That looks good. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Um and uh Jason, were you wanting to discuss something here? Um
>> on number 16. >> No, not specific to number 16. I forget what we were talking about. Uh >> uh previously we were talking about public comments. >> Mhm. And just um you know I asked
why we are receiving both public comments through the public comment portal and then why Aaron's just getting emails then from people asking her to forward it to all of the members of the conservation commission and then she has to redact information and then forward
it to us. Um, I personally think that we ought to just adopt a policy or I think a policy of public comments need to go through the public comment portal if you want the commissioners to see them and that Aaron
should not be tasked with having to redact and forward emails to us if they're not going to be public. If if a comment comes to us, it should be a public comment and we should not be accepting just emails sent to Aaron any further.
>> Thanks, Jason. I I I agree with that. Um there are some instances where uh applicants might send an email and um I think there was an issue where an applicant sent an email and wanted it to go to the commissioners but then didn't
specify that. But that's another story. I think that any kind of public comment type >> uh that are received um yeah should should should should go through the public comment portal instead of having
uh having this editing >> and maybe you can uh have a a standardized response that you uh send back to them with a uh with a link to the um public uh comment portal. any do we have other uh idea I mean ideas or
opinions on this or agreement? Um I mean just to I I think I mentioned this the be at the beginning before the meeting started but I follow the same process that Athena follows for the town council which is you know if we receive
an email and there it's intended for the conservation commission I will respond to them and say we have this public um portal this public comment portal if you'd like to submit your comment through here. Um otherwise, you know, I
don't forward it on unless they specifically ask me to. Um so like I'll receive a lot of emails that are clearly intended for the conservation commission, but they're directed to me and those I typically field because um they're not specifically requesting that
they be forward. But if somebody sends me an email and says to the Ammerst Conservation Commission, I feel a little conflicted when it doesn't come in through the portal because I'm, you know, uh, it's obviously intended for you guys to be the recipient, but it's
also may contain um, personally identifiable information that I'm not authorized to post on our town website. So, I just share it with you via personal email. Um, I guess, um, it's challenging because sometimes I'll send people the portal
link and they don't resubmit their comment. Um, it's kind of like, you know, forcing somebody to turn on their TV camera if they don't want to. Like, if they just want to send an email, can I tell them, well, we're not going to accept an email. Um, it just, and you
know, if that's the policy you guys want to initiate, that's fine. Um, it's just it's it's awkward for me, I guess, to try to be the intermediary of communication. >> Thanks, Aaron. Jason, >> yeah, I think you should do that, Erin.
Meaning, you should just essentially respond back to them and say, um, please send all comments through the public portal. Like this, this email is not going to be forwarded to the conservation commission. If you wish the conservation commission to see this communication, please send it via the
public uh portal >> and just have that be a standard response. Now, that's for non-applicants. I understand that with applicants, you have to you have to have that back and forth with them and that's fine and and those emails, it's my
understanding those emails generally always end up in our packets anyway, >> right? So, [snorts] um, those are public as well, but those people, there's a difference between, you know, you doing things with the applicants for, you know, that's your job and that's what you're supposed to
be doing versus fielding some public comments. Um, >> and I do think that if you're going to make a public comment, you fill that out and and it's public. It's all, you know, >> Yeah. Yeah. as opposed to uh emails that
are coming to us that don't get put put out to the public. Um I mean that's still uh that's still uh communications that probably should be um made public anyway, meaning they should be going to the
portal. Just a thought. Sarah, >> this is not I have a a question. So finish with this first that's not related to this. >> Mine is related to this. Bruce Erin, I have a suggestion about the
language that when you send it back to them and say I think you should say the commission has instructed me to send back emails and ask that you put it in the portal. So they're not thinking that it's sort of your personal
decision about whether to do it. that you're acting on our behalf to make to ask them to put it in the portal. >> I I was Yeah, I I'll I'll suggest uh I was about to suggest that we actually just take a vote on this and um and uh
have it be policy >> that way per per policy blah blah, you know, per uh comm uh conservation commission policy so on. Uh just one situation that was a standout. I had one uh member of the
public come to me and they didn't want their comment posted in the packet. They wanted it to be shared with the commission but not not posted public facing um regarding I think it was an incident that happened at conservation
land and they were concerned for their own safety or you know it was an issue related to walking and having a uh some type of a negative um interaction with another trail user. So that would be a
situation where that particular person might be sort of disincined to share information that the commission may want to know um if they're unwilling to share it through a public portal. So just food for thought that there may be occasional situations where
um things like that happen, but if that is your overall policy, then that's you know that's completely up to you. >> Yeah. I mean, uh, that would be sort of like somebody uh making a public comment without uh providing their name.
I mean, it's it's supposed to be a public hearing, public meetings, I mean, right? I mean, what what do you what kind of guidance would we find from uh uh the state uh you know, the attorney general's office on public meetings?
What what would with that kind of communication? That's what I kind of wonder we would we would be falling that that's where we would be guided by. Right. >> Well, I mean, yeah, I don't want to get too deep in
the weeds with it, but it's like it's kind of a one-off situation where people who may may feel the need to share some sort of information with you about something that happened on conservation land, for example, and not related to a hearing or an open meeting or anything
like that. Um, they might, for example, let's say somebody got bit by a dog or something and they knew the person who had the dog and they said they wanted to talk to the commission about it, but um didn't want it to be public. Um, I mean,
it is public. It's all public record, but it's just not in a packet that's on the internet with their email. Um, so again, it's it's just sort of a one-off situation that I've encountered. Um it would just it would mean that I wouldn't be sharing that information with the
board. >> All right. Well, maybe we can uh discuss uh individual, you know, uh individual uh issues like that uh as they as they arise. But I think in general they uh we we don't want to uh
have a two lines of communication is what we're hearing here. Bruce had his hand up. Bruce, are you still you're set? Jason. >> Yeah, I would just er on the side of transparency. Like I understand if if
you know we talked about the hunting previously and we looked at some of the rationale for banning hunting and in my opinion it was all hearsay and just anecdotal. So if there is something we need to know
to make a decision, it can't be based on hearsay or anecdote. It can't be, hey, this thing happened to me, you know, but I don't really want to make it public. like I feel for that and I understand that position, but if we're going to be making a decision on something, I think
that um it needs to be clear and it needs to be it cannot it cannot be or appear to be anecdotal or hearsay. >> Thanks, Jason. Carol, >> um, do you think, Erin, that sometimes
people send emails because they're really not familiar with how to use the public portal? >> Yeah, definitely. I mean, we're it's it's an educational process and that's one of the reasons why I put it in my
>> uh email signature and for a while there I had a spe separate slide on our PowerPoint presentation making people aware of the portal for for public comments. Um, and I do, you know, respond back to people and let them know if they submit a comment that we have
this portal. So, I think as time goes on, it'll become more commonplace, but not not every department has a portal. Not every town has them. So, you know, ordinarily [clears throat] people would just send an email. So, it's a little >> kind of a special
>> and that's my guess. That's why you might be getting some things as emails. you know, people who've been more familiar with the way the town government works. That's seems normal. But, you know, emails are what also seem normal to people who are not familiar
with it. >> So, maybe some instructions on the uh on your responses then. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. Yeah, I think in general we're that's what we're uh looking for is is uh general policy that uh
uh that sends um comments and so on um to the uh commission through the public comment uh portal and perhaps some instructions to go with that. And if there are some exceptions, then uh we you can discuss that with uh with the
chair uh or the the chair and the vice chair at the at the time and we can figure things out, whoever it is. >> Okay, that sounds good. >> All right. Well, thanks. With that, um Sarah has uh has the floor with your question.
>> Oh, wait. Not muted. Um I just had a qu because you're saying that this um draft incorporates what we talked about last time. Is that correct, Aaron? uh she's muted right now, but uh she did say she did have she did incorporate in
the in the materials that we've already reviewed, she's incorporated what we our comments that uh we made during that review. >> Okay. cuz I really was hoping that in the that there would be a discussion of um the conservation departments manage
of management of conservation. I mean I see a thing here about having drafted a um a man a mowing practices management plan. Do can we see that or what is
that's going to get included in here? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um I drafted uh So, yeah. So, this this version includes the uh track
change edits that I've made addressing the commissions um all of the commissions requested edits or my attempt to address the commission's requested edits from the last meeting. I did insert a right of first refusal policy under
chapter 61,61A and 61B which is inserted directly into this document and that's taken directly from statute. Um, and then separate from that, I did start to assemble the makings of a sort of um, mowing policy, I guess you would
say, which I've shared with Dave Z uh, to um, uh, have so that him and I could uh, review that and bring it back to the commission. >> So, just so that I'm clear because I thought we were going to put something in here, but that will get put in. It's
just still in process and we'll be looking at it at some point. Okay, got it. Thank you. That's all. >> When are we going to see that? >> I don't know, Andre. We We Aaron just got it to me. So, we'll we'll work on it as best we can among all of our other
priorities, and we'll get it to you as soon as we can. >> All right. So, but uh that's going to be part of uh that's is that going to be part of uh part of the policies that we're discussing or is that Okay. So, sometime
prior to to the votes, >> we'll see how you do. We we actually >> Well, we're going to give you some time, I'm sure, because this is going to take a little while. >> Yeah, we actually have to have a public hearing on whatever you produce anyway. So, there's quite a bit of time here
before these are put into place. Thanks. >> I can't raise my hand. I think we should take a look at it though before it whatever the management practices are should get approved by the commission and then put into this document before
it goes out to the public. So, >> yes, that is the plan to have us. >> We just want to make sure >> it didn't sound that way when you were just saying that. And it's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it'll just be a section that can be cut and pasted, put in, you
can review, go back and forth on, and then that whole presumably this whole document with or without hunting goes to a public hearing, whatever the commission decides. >> Right. Thank you, Carol.
>> Um, I thought about I've been thinking about the uh vote that we took to include camping by permit or not to say it was refused or not permitted permitted. And there's
I just point out that there's three other things that aren't permitted that kind of go along with camping. open fires, smoking, alcoholic beverages, all in that same list. And I'm thinking
about what Dave you said about um difficulties in in pol, you know, policing all of this. Is that going to bring up more problems? That's all >> it. What kind of problems uh are you uh
referring to? Do you mean uh fires and uh drunk people and um >> Well, you don't have to be drunk. Um smoking. Yeah. ammunition >> you know yeah when there's a I I I I
would I could say that uh when there's a regulation that uh you know there's no one to enforce uh then sometimes you end up with uh confrontations between different users who uh
try to enforce it but I don't know Dave uh has some has a comment here >> I think the short answer is yes it's going to make it more complicated You know, there's right now you're again, this is just draft. There's no open fires, but when you're camping, you either have a fire or you have a keros,
some sort of something to make food or boil water. So, there's a flame. I I would recommend you keep going through the 24 page draft policy. Erin and I have some thoughts on the
discussion two weeks ago. we'd like to see how how you do and and and we might respond when you get through the 24 pages and say here's three or four things or four or five things that we just want to bring to your attention before you finalize these but I know
it's you know getting a little late now 8:15 so >> and we're at page five >> still yeah thank you Dave and so uh the last uh last thing that we discussed was G And now we're looking at
uh the old page five number 16 that starts with plants, nuts, seeds, etc. um to con um
right okay so uh is there any comment on on number 16 Jason I thought this came up previously um is there any
do we need to put any language in here regarding indigenous peoples being able to utilize plants, nuts, seeds, fruits. >> Yeah. So, I did incorporate um and and this is I would encourage the commission to before maybe before the next meeting
take a look at the edits that I made and I didn't I know Tina was going to get me something uh but I didn't hear back from her. So, I did do some research myself. Um, and this is what I added in um,
which is um, under that first sentence where folks are welcomed to the land. It notes um wino hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering rights are protected federally via uh United States verse winn and then the reference and then by
the commonwealth of Massachusetts resolution recognizing and protecting ancient and aboriginal claim of the Indians of the commonwealth. Um, and we could there's I found a couple documents relative to that which we could include as um in the appendices of our uh
document if the commission wanted to or not. So, uh >> I can >> I would make it a little more I can help you with that. I'd make it a little more general than that. You know, just indigenous these things are protected by federal and actually state law. You know, you
could just say federal and state law. you don't have to worry about anyway. >> Sure. >> And actually, um, you know, the, uh, town council probably has an idea about that also. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, I'm happy to edit, however, I just like I was trying to
come up with something to address the comments. >> That's good. That's good. >> Thanks. Thanks, Aaron. Um, so back to uh 16 there. Um, I do have uh just a an addition here
real real brief. Um on line uh four, well if we start on line uh three, it says or or for scientific purposes to control invasive species or other purposes authorized
case by case by the commission. I would write uh through through a permit on a casebycase basis >> rather than you know as opposed to verbal or or whatever. I mean, uh, if someone's contacted out in the field,
uh, they would need to have a permit rather than Yeah, somebody told me. >> Can we just state Aaron? I thought you said land use permit. The specific permit. >> Did you want the land use permit
referenced in there or just permit? land use permit is a is more is more specific. Uh >> okay, >> like Jason just said, >> sure. >> Um dogs, >> I I would uh just just a quick note
before even changing uh or anything or whatever, I would put be first because that's the beginning of it. Essentially, dogs must be leashed at all times >> rather than they're not allowed at Puffer Pond. Dogs are not uh must be leashed at all times. Blah blah blah.
Puffer Pond is secondary. I don't have anything else on those first two. Does anybody else have something on the first two? Uh uh on A or B? I don't see that. I don't see anybody uh
saying anything. So, we're gonna go to uh Andre. >> Yes, >> Rachel. >> Uh just had a note the comment on C especially elderly and children. It sort of negates the power of the statement before. Um we just we want we don't want
we don't have different rules for elderly and children. >> Absolutely. Um I uh have a note that we should define what strict voice control is and we can do that offline. >> Okay.
>> Um Aaron uh we can find something some kind of definitions. Um and then uh during off leash hours, dogs should be put back on a leash.
Um >> shall >> could you just uh for I just want to make a note of this Andre. So um offline uh discuss >> definition of strict voice control. >> Okay. The definition of strict voice
control. Just want to get that in here so I don't forget. Okay. And uh what was the next item? >> Uh line three where it says dogs should be put back on a leash when in the midst of others. That's a suggestion rather than a uh
I mean if we want to leave it as a suggestion I I I think we we should put shall >> uh this is under C. You said >> uh under C line three. >> Line three >> starts with dogs. >> Should
we say shall there? >> Shall or must? Yep. Okay. Um D. If if the conservation department determines dog waste bagged or not,
left on the trail is rather than becomes. [sighs] Sorry. Okay, got it. >> All right. Is rather than becomes and then the next uh unleash dogs are rather than become.
>> Okay. >> Uh after the comment says the trail, I would say the affected trail or whatever. Uh it it doesn't matter but and I thought we were looking for uh you know periods of more than a month rather
than I mean of up to one month at a time. Isn't that the way that we said it that we wereing? >> Just add at a time at the end >> for periods of up to one month at a time. Got it.
>> Rather than a period. >> Got it. >> And andre, didn't we say that it may be closed? I think that was at the discretion of the um director of conservation. Isn't that
>> Yeah. And that's kind of why I wrote in there. Um the conservation department determines or why I suggested why I'm suggesting conservation department determines. >> Okay. Anything else for D? Sorry.
>> Okay. I just didn't know if I missed anything there. If I did, please let me know. >> Do we need to say may instead of will. >> Yeah, that's a good one. Yep. >> So, yeah. >> Yes, absolutely.
>> Okay, cool. >> Um, E, I have no comments on E. Anyone else? F. Uh yeah. And I guess F will uh will be uh
discussed at some point with uh along with the hunting. Um G uh it says the animal control officer will enforce. There are others who who uh who have
that authority as well, right? That's the like the PD and uh perhaps um the conservation uh Brad. Is that correct or am I off?
>> Uh, so maybe just add in police department and uh land managers. >> Yeah, that's cool. 18 motorized watercraft including electric motors. Is that something that we want
to do? I would say yes. >> I I agree. But is that is that a distinction we need to make over and over again or is that um something that can be put in like a glossery or definition like motorized
just includes all mechanical. >> We we had this discussion at length during the subcommittee meeting. Um, we went through, I think, a multitude of ways to, uh,
describe motorized watercraft and ultimately decided on this. Um, a ton of thought went into it is all I can say. Um, yeah, >> fine. That's that's that's fine. And I
was just looking to give it a little more uh what are craft >> crafts. >> Yeah. If if however you guys want to change it. I think it was really like the the the language of how to um refer
to like boats, jet skis, you know, like we tried to do an all-encompassing language there. But um however you see fit in terms of editing, I'm totally fine with. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm just seeing I'm just imagining some dude with a uh or somebody with a canoe that uh they
attach an electric motor to and they're putts around there and uh next thing you know they're in violation, but they have an argument. Uh anyway, uh well, what's I mean, what's the general purpose of this
is to prevent people from going at a rate of speed that could be deletterious to others. the noise, the potential pollution from oil and gas, or the disturbance of wildlife. All >> the above. >> I think I think it's Yeah. Right. Bruce
was there. >> So, I would also say that uh I mean to keep it uh as a uh humanpowered um place. I mean, we're talking about uh in essence, we're talking about uh puffers, right? I mean,
>> well, it's all of them. So I was going to also ask is there any water body that it where it is allowed? >> No. >> So you know we can list them out. Motorized.
I think saying motorized is good in that it's an electric motor. It's a it's a internal combustion engine motor. It's a solar powered. You know >> makes sense >> you know. Well, let's leave it as is
then. I don't see I don't have any comments in uh through the rest of uh to page 20 I mean to number 22. Anyone else? >> Did that footnote come up in our scroll?
the footnote about the other land, Hickory Ridge. Is that Did we scroll past that yet? >> Um, we did scroll past that. >> I wondered if we could just take that out. >> Oh,
yeah. I we felt as though that distinction should be made because it is a big space and without being really careful about which lands we're talking about. Um my understanding from Dave is that
eventually down the road someday they may it may be incorporated but it isn't there now. But would that apply to everything that we're talking about then for Hickory Ridge and not just nested in the dog discussion? But it would be
>> Yes, you'd have to talk to Dave about that >> because that might be something >> that's a good point >> we put up at the top if it's something that's more of a >> Yeah, I wonder why it was in that particular place also.
>> Yeah, I I do think if I could, Andre, I think it's an odd place to put it. I might, you know, I might put it as a footnote to the policy or something, but not not nested in the dog section would be my recommendation. And
yes, a good portion of Hickory will at some point become conservation land and all rules and regulations and policy will apply to >> That's a great idea, Dave. Maybe we can put that uh uh way up at the beginning.
of uh you know somewhere at the beginning of uh of the policy and regulations uh as a footnote there. >> Yeah. >> I think uh then then everybody knows that all of it applies you know that that it applies to you know that none of
what we're regulating uh applies to Hickory Ridge until >> it's fine. Either either top or bottom works for me. Thanks. >> Oh, yep. All right. Thanks, Dave and and Rachel.
Um, yeah, next is hunting. We'll leave that out >> for now. >> And we're going to talk about that in a separate meeting. Correct. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Um
in 23 we know that refu refugeia and refu refugeium are both defined in the appendices. So, um I did uh under uh 23G
the exception for beavers and muskrats. Um it says uh water levels may be controlled only after a determination has been duly made in the instant case that they have created a public health risk. That's
what does that mean because I don't understand it. >> I c I mean I can try to field that question. So, um the so um under the state beaver uh
regulations, if um somebody wishes to trap outside of season, uh let's say a beaver has built a dam and it's backing up water onto somebody's septic system or onto a roadway or causing some
kind of public health or safety uh concern. um an [clears throat] an applicant can apply to um the board of health for a I believe it's a 10day emergency b uh beaver removal permit which grants them
uh permission to trap out of season to alleviate the public health or safety issue. And the same is true for situations where dams need to be taken down. Um, and in the case of dams, it's actually a dual approval between the
board of health and the conservation commission. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I was looking for the actual word. What What does the instant case mean? What does that word mean? Because I can't I'm not I'm not falling on it. Is that Bruce has a his hand hand
up. Do you have an insight to that? You're muted. I'm sorry, Bruce. >> I don't know what it means either. and it probably came out of the the Massachusetts law in some way. I would recommend striking the word instant and also including up above maybe lethally
or unlethally trapped because there are ways of trapping beavers without killing them. >> How about maybe trapped including lethally >> or something and but that includes the two options. >> Yeah. Yep.
Good points. Um Sarah, >> so this has been I don't um so my recommendation is that uh generally speaking just not to try to re to sort of state what the law is. You
can sort of say in accordance with law if you have to you know Massachusetts state law or whatever. That's the sort of um comment on the form. And then in terms of um so [sighs] who who do you get the who get
to the extent that the conservation has commission commission excuse me to the extent that the conservation commission is the one with the authority to issue a permit [clears throat and cough] or to you know or has the authority to
approve a permit to deal with beavers. I think that that they you know that that should be referenced so that it doesn't this is sort of oddly drafted. It says maybe controlled but it doesn't say by whom. >> Well
>> yeah. >> Yep. I'm I'm in agreement with you. I have a comment here that my comment is by whom? >> Yeah. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I don't exactly know. Is it the board of health that has to issue the to the extent
there's any question about it then it seems like the conservation commission should have a say beforehand not after. I mean this is something this is a problem we just ran into with Gulpon. >> So um I don't I don't think you know it it causes
>> it's not worth it to to get into that. So to the extent the commission should be you know approving they should be approving it in advance. And it's a little confusing because these these these are written so that technically they would apply to both
members of the public and to the town itself because it's the conservation commission that it's really the one in charge of the land in the first instance. So we're writing right we're writing rules that actually apply to the town as well as to the members of the
public. So I think it it needs to be a little clear in in situations like this. >> Thanks Sarah. And and the fact is uh that where the appendices referenced here uh when you look at the the
regulations there um it actually does state I mean because that's in the regulations um that the town uh that that for uh drawdowns and so on um they have
to contact uh both the uh or they They need per anyone needs permission from the board of health and the conservation commission prior to uh taking action. Um
so uh yeah I think we need to uh clarify that. Um, maybe that's something that we can uh try and work on uh work on offline and uh come back and revisit maybe uh >> I can help you with that Aaron if you
want. I'm happy to do that. >> Maybe you and I could do that. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. Great. >> There is also a whole separate section on beavers as well. Um just as a sidebar um y >> and then there's a whole appendix on it as well. >> Absolutely. [laughter] and everything is
spelled out. Uh meaning all the laws and uh the flowchart and all that uh are are also there in the um uh in the appendices. Um Dave,
>> yeah. No, very good conversation. Um I think where to me this gets confusing is is actually this says in the first line on conservation land. So this to me is very specific as to your authority over
conservation land. There's a whole another section on beavers. So Dave Zomeck wants to remove beavers in his backyard or something. There's a clear process through state law for me to follow with the board of health in the concom or I want to reduce a dam or something. But this is on land you
oversee through care custody and control. So so I think some rewarding could could really help here. and then maybe look at the other sections with Sarah or Andre. Um, >> that's a good point. >> The other comment is, um, yes, beavers can be non-lethally trapped. You just in
Massachusetts can't legally move them anywhere. So, you can trap them and then let them out of the trap. Um, but there's nothing else you could do. State law says you must euthanize them or your trapper must. So, you can't relocate them.
>> Yeah. Take them to New Hampshire. But you're still uh transporting them through >> and then you violate the uh the federal lacy act by crossing state lines. Unfortunately, that's a felony.
Anyway, um Sarah, >> oh I'm sorry. The >> that's a really good point, Dave. Um of uh of on conservation land. So, we can be more restrictive, but all the all the state laws apply to conservation land
already just so that we're uh we're all on the same page here. We then can be more uh restrictive uh than the state. Sarah. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to I mean, yes, there's a there's
there are laws that apply to what people do on their own property, and this one has to do with conservation land, but this is the one that that Andre and I should should help because that this is the provision that deals with with beavers and muskrats on conservation
land. this is the one that we should work on to get it clear that things can't happen without conser uh commission approval. >> Yeah, you >> Yeah, actually uh frankly it's it's all it everywhere um everywhere within uh
the within the town um conservation commission uh would have a say as well because uh beaver uh because it's wetlands. So keep that in mind as well. every >> Oh, right. Sorry. Wetland. Yeah. No, I I know I [laughter] knew it. I knew where
you go. I knew where you're coming from there. >> Thank Thanks, Sarah. Dave, were you uh going to say the same or >> Well, two things. One is we don't need to get into the weeds, but you know, certainly private land owners, if they
have the right to trap beavers in season as per mass state law. So, that's mass law. I mean, you could say no trapping on conservation land. you could make your rules stricter than state law. I'm not recommending that and I'm hoping you
don't do that because I do think there are some some situations where we may not want beavers doing their thing. But anyway, yeah, I think we covered this. >> Sorry. and and so um I think it's in the
trapping uh of the beavers that uh for emergencies and so on that uh the conservation commission does not have authority. Uh take a little bit of time to uh to look at those rags on the in
the appendices and uh and it'll become a little clearer like mud. Um all right. Anything else on uh on uh G? I have um nothing else for the for wood
of any kind uh to be removed. Historic sites or the use of metal detectors. Anyone else? We're moving to the next page uh in the original page eight. Um uh I I noticed that um
that on the uh sorry um on the drones number 27. Um that it uh it applies to launching uh landing and
operation of unpiloted uh aircraft but it talks about um no long no uh lower than the tree line. I mean the tree line uh depends on what trees we're talking about. if uh
it's not very uh clear and uh do you have uh any insight Bruce on uh on that one? >> I don't remember us talking much about that but I see the note from
it. It implies that it's one foot above the land that any uh airspace above the land is relevant here. So I I don't know what to do with that. Yeah. So, we had originally had this written that um that
drones were prohibited from conservation land. Um and so that's where those track changes came in. when we had the town attorney doing a um a review of our final final draft, um he called out that
um that particular pro prohibition was problematic because um it's legal to fly a drone as long as you're following those specific parameters. Um so those were edits that the town attorney made.
um in terms of recommended adjustments to make this uh meet the federal law. >> That makes a lot of sense. I I I have I'm doing it on an iPad. I couldn't uh
pull out I didn't I couldn't read any of those comments on it. Um uh in that case then uh the only thing that can be uh regulated uh and that we would want to regulate if so
is the launching and the uh uh uh landing I would say. >> Right. Right. Because if they're launching or landing, then it would then it then it would be prohibited. But if they're just flying over over the top of
the property, I don't think there's anything the commission could do to to, [sighs and gasps] you know, prohibit that. >> I mean, we could be more res I don't know. Uh, but I would go with I'll go with the uh town attorney's
recommendation on that. Uh, Jason here. >> Yeah. Sorry. So Erin, can you clarify? I just want to if the airspace soon somebody could launch their drone from public
a public area outside of conservation land and fly over conservation land. >> Uhhuh. come back and land outside of conservation land because >> we don't have any jurisdiction of the airspace above is it above the tree line
or one foot above the ground you know like where does >> my understanding is that it can't we can't regulate um lower than the tree line so if the if
the drone is flying above the tree line, it's it's in legal federal airspace. But if it goes below the tree line, then it we can prohibit it at that point. >> Oh, m maybe we can get some
clarification and make sure of that. Um uh the other thing that then we're missing is is uh is harassment. Um wildlife harassment or uh uh or uh public harassment.
I have a friend who uh who's recently gotten a uh who's also an airplane pilot who's recently gotten a one of the FAA permits. Maybe I can He's a He's a Quabin Ranger. Maybe I can ask
him uh what kind of rags we could look at. >> You said wildlife harassment and what was the other? >> And and uh public harassment. >> Public harassment. You know, so if uh somebody starts buzzing people uh uh who are walking along a field or something
uh and there's no tree line >> around the area. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's is the tree line the top of the trees. >> Yeah, I think that's an interesting question. I can try to get an answer on the if there's no trees, what's the
what's the uh the verdict there? And if we can include the harassment piece and I think >> and also yeah case by case basis ve youth permit. >> Well I mean I know just as an example like
um sometimes like the conservation department has a drone I I think and Dave correct me if I'm wrong. I think the land managers have a drone that they occasionally use um and and they might use it like to assess trails or to get into areas that
are like impassible to try to assess what's going on. So there may be situations where like staff are using it um for an official purpose. So I um and I think it it could also be for example I know we talked about this like if
search and rescue situations they're being used and things like that. So um you know we might say like uh if you want to use land use application that's fine but I would say other um official purposes or something like that that
might in all encompass other [snorts] purposes they might be used for by town officials or something >> emergency personnel etc. >> Uhhuh. >> Actually if I could interject we uh conservation doesn't have a drone. I
think some other departments I think facilities has a drone and um the fire department has a drone. >> Oh, okay. >> Conservation does. >> Yeah. I mean and remember uh remember >> yet um
uh remember also uh what was I thinking of? Um we've had uh we've had land use applications for uh for filming uh movies etc. Uh drones are becoming more and more uh
common in uh cinematography. Um so there maybe uh some space for land use permits and uh and such. Yeah. But and even the like even just
like my kids have a little drone, right? And like they wouldn't it's one of those situations where I don't think anybody would think that it's like you can't fly that thing here, you know, because it's literally like this big. Um
is that considered a drone? And then I could also see somebody just wanting to go on a hike. You're going on a hike and you're just like, "Oh my gosh, I'd love to get a a shot of this, you know, pond or whatever and just send a drone up
with their phone on it and bring it back down." Um, I could see how that could be as these things get much more ubiquitous. I can give you a a quick address to that. Um,
my spouse is uh was a in charge of uh essentially uh studying and uh protecting the um uh piping clover and a bunch of other uh species uh coastal uh water bird species.
and anything up in the air like that hovering um including kites and so on and the people who are doing their kite uh boarding and all that um the birds go crazy. It uh disrupts their nesting. It
uh it's it's they're pretty bad. Um especially uh a drone that would be sticking around rather than a an actual bird that passes through. But that's just one, you know, one uh example. I know that we had a couple hands up. Oh,
Jason's your hands back up. >> Yeah, this I would I would I don't know what we plan to do on on all of this once it's all finalized what we're going to actually do with these like just have them on the website. But this is
something I would like to see like on the kiosks. That's like the dog stuff. This stuff, >> this should be there because this is one of those things, like I said, they're they're becoming much more ubiquitous >> and no one's going to be like, "Oh, I
didn't go to the website to read the rules to see if I could fly a drone here." But if it's right there on the kiosk, >> yeah, >> absolutely. I think I think uh these these regs uh I think this the timing is perfect uh for uh for the the kiosk uh
project to uh to incorporate whatever regulations we've uh we've we've come up with or to have a section in the uh in them for updated regulations or whatever. I don't know, Dave, what what uh what plans you got? But anyway,
>> yeah, I think that's why we're we've been trying to get these passed so that we can get them out on the on the um kiosks and that is the intention is they're going to the full list of regulations will be included on the
kiosks for people. >> Awesome. All right. Uh but so let's uh let's visit this one. Um, a little further on and Bruce has a hand up.
>> I propose we stop and take the the agriculture section as a chunk by itself and not end up stopping halfway through the agriculture. >> I I agree. Uh, we still have 28 real quick.
>> Okay, that just I I saw it coming. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, I I I it's just looked at my watch. It's almost 9:00. I think it's time for us to >> to adjourn once we're or to stop with this and uh >> okay >> have our other topics and so on. Um
number 28. So uh we we're agreeing that uh we're going to have to revisit this uh number 27 again um after we get some more information. I'll uh I'll do my little part there. Um,
number 28. I I didn't really understand what including the bed of trail, the bed or the trail means the m uh Dave, you're muted. Sorry.
>> Oh, are you were you asking me that question? Andre, >> no. I I saw your hand up. Uh did you want to uh comment on on what we were talking about before? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> For may for for any of us who worked with the subcommittee, it's been a long time, you know, since we've looked at
these and so it it kind of jogs your memory, but I want this that sentence again. It it's sentence construction. Making new trails and modifying existing trails are prohibitive. So this this kind of begs
the question, does does making new trails or modifying existing trails, does that apply to the department as well? If we're or is this for the public? >> I think it was intended to be um for the
public. I think these are >> Yeah, I think it I think it be I agree with you, Dave. I think >> mix and match. It's a little confusing. I think it's not just here. I think they're, you know what I mean? Like, in other words, most of it seems to be for the public,
>> but some of it, you know, is for the department. So, anyway, put that out there. Maybe we can >> tweak that. >> Look at it. Maybe look at it with that kind of eye at some point to see if there's a way to clarify. Yeah. What bl applicable to what,
>> you know, I can see there are many instances. is I don't know a trail gets I don't know something happens to a trail so we move it 10 ft this way you know okay may not be a big deal but we just don't want to go run a foul of
these regulations >> yeah I I don't imagine that this was intended for that this one was intended for uh for the town but I could see how um how the mix might be confusing that it's
mixed with other >> other prohibitions. >> My understanding is >> Bruce. >> Well, Dave was finishing. >> Oh, >> go ahead, Bruce. I was going to say it's my understanding there are volunteer
trail maintenance people who don't work for the town and but do help clearing of like down deadfall and stuff like that. So it's sort of a gray area. >> You could just say the public shall not in places where it's you know or with
shall not without permission. I think that's I think that's really good. And and and and let's remember that uh the people who are doing it uh for the town are doing it on behalf of the town. So they're kind of they're covered if you would. >> Okay.
>> Um and maybe that's something to put in uh at the beginning or later at the end. >> Yeah. I like that. Members of the public are not authorized to make new trails. >> Yeah. to make or modify to make new trails or modify existing
trails. >> Yeah. And yeah, rather than and because uh that's Yeah. >> So I still don't >> Go ahead. >> Could you just repeat um that statement so I could just try to make sure I capture it?
Members of the public are prohibited from making new trails or modifying existing trails. That's one iteration. >> Got it. >> Yep. And then remove this and just keep
the this includes. >> Yeah. Now, what I don't understand is including the bed of the the bed or the trail or is that the bed of the trail? >> I I'm not sure. >> Why don't we take
>> of the trail? >> I would take out that that uh um phrase including the bed of the trail because it is included as trails. So just including leaf blowing and alteration of vegetation. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, you know what they probably mean by that is like sometimes people will like add for example like put like uh logs, move logs or put stones into the trail
bed to like fill in holes or like step over a stream or stuff like that. That may be what that's getting at. Um, >> well, they're still modifying existing trails. >> Mhm. Mhm. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, we could leave it there
and just uh Yeah, it it makes sense if it says including the bed of the trail. I just thought it was two different things. >> Okay. So, let me change that to of. Okay, >> that's
anything else uh on 28. >> Well, that's great. We've uh made it to page uh the middle of page the top of page eight um from five. So, we got uh got got a few done. Little by little, we'll get this done.
Um uh so now we're uh going to move on to uh compliance updates. Uh it says C agent uh conservation agent reports. Uh Bruce, you got your hand up. >> Sorry.
>> Go ahead, please. Oh. Um uh Aaron, were you uh >> Yeah, sorry. I w um I wasn't able to check in with just workload wise wasn't able to check in with the owner uh for
um that one case that we had discussed at the last meeting. So just if if I could have a little extra time to try to work that out. Um so but other than that I don't have any other compliance related updates. It's pretty frozen solid right now.
>> Okay, great. um monitoring reports. We've got them in the uh we there isn't anything new either. Uh have we uh gotten any answers back from
from the folks that uh we discussed last week or last uh meeting >> um on the request for certificates of compliance. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, but I did speak with the town attorney and um regarding your
questions on the certificates of compliance and the I was actually really glad I spoke to him um because some of what he told me was really informative for me on this. Um he basically said
that that the commission should should feel very comfortable issuing partial certificates of compliance. And I explained to him sort of the concern and just what I had heard from other agents in terms of avoidance of issuing them. And he said
they are not a full release. um that they are a clear partial release and that um you know the commission shouldn't feel like they can't do a partial release if they feel you know sufficient information has been provided
for example that documents that the construction is complete but they still haven't gotten you know the maintenance uh records that they could theoretically issue a partial saying construction we confirm construction is completed per the approved plan however However, you
still have to do X, Y, and Z per your maintenance requirements in the order of conditions to get a full certificate. So, that was really good. And I think basically I got back to both of the applicants and let them know um based on his guidance, based on the town
attorney's guidance, I I followed exactly what you guys said. I basically said, "If you can provide us with three years of maintenance records as well as the other requirements in the order, we'll consider issuing a full if you um
only have partial inspection reports andor in in conjunction with a um uh contract, a maintenance contract, and a statement from an engineer that the structures are are clean and in functioning order. the commission would
be willing to issue a partial. Um, so I think, you know, I've conveyed that to the applicants and I I feel much more comfortable now with the partial certificate. So I'm happy about that. He said we did the right thing um on the
previous case where we issued a partial. >> Sounds good. Great. Thanks for that uh for doing that that uh research. Mhm. >> Any topics that were not reasonably
anticipated 48 hours prior? All right. Anyone from the public? Oh, there we have uh Jason, go ahead, please. >> All right. I want to just go back. We were talking about the emails and everything like that. I thought we said
we should have a vote on it or a motion. Was that And then I don't think we did. I >> no what I did is I suggested that if we that we could um we could make a have a vote on it and make a mo and and so on
and then um uh Erin's uh email responses can be prefaced by as per um uh as per conservation commission policy. But I mean if we all agree it's
we can make it policy. Is that right Erin? or should we just make a uh have a vote on this? >> Um I think codifying it with a vote makes makes sense if you guys are
feeling compelled to do that and then then I can say the commission voted on this. This is what they they have asked me to do. So it's just a solid response to people and there's no question um about what's required. >> Okay. Um uh let's get that done. Can we
can you um help us uh tack out um a motion real quick? Um >> um so I mean if I was just if I was just going to spitball it um and I would say um >> I mean can you help us uh can you just
put put your screen up there and I we could we could uh put this together. >> Sure. Um >> I can I can >> spitball for you if you want to type. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Excellent. >> I was about to start, but you go for it.
>> Yeah. I mean, my intention is that um all communication from the public to the conservation commission must go through the public comment portal on the town's website.
and all written. Uh yes. Uh so move that all written communication from the public all written communication from the public to the conservation commission must go through the town's
public comment portal on the town's website. I think that covers us for what we had discussed. >> Absolutely. I think it does too. Any any other uh anyone else have a
>> All right. Let's let's have a motion. >> All right. Well, I move that uh move that all written communication from the public to the conservation commission must go through the town's public comment portal on the town's website.
Jason with a motion. >> Seconded. That's Sarah. >> Sarah seconds. Sarah >> I. >> Bruce. >> Hi, >> Jason. >> Hi, >> Carol. >> I >> Rachel. >> Hi.
>> And I'm an I. Thanks for that, Jason. All right. Um, now we uh need a motion uh to adjourn. Everybody did a great job here. >> Move. >> Oh, >> well, >> can I ask a question? >> Yeah.
>> Um, Erin, did you hear anything back from about Olympic Place? >> Um, uh, I have not been able to connect with with Kyle since our last meeting. Um and
that was my fault because I was uh workload wise just not able to connect with him. Uh but I will try to do that before the next meeting >> but he hasn't made any attempt to connect with you. >> Um I have not heard from him and I also
have not reached out to him. >> Okay. >> Thanks Carol. So we have a motion to adjourn from Jason. I didn't hear a second. I shouldn't. >> I think Carol beat you to it. Rachel,
>> we all want to. That's what I said. She can take it. >> All right, Carol. >> Yes, >> Rachel. >> Hi, >> Jason. >> Hi, >> Bruce. >> Hi, >> Sarah. >> Hi,
>> and thanks everybody for a great job tonight. Good morning. >> Good night. >> Good night, everyone.