heat heat welcome to the March 20th meeting of the Found Conservation Commission this meeting is solely for the purpose of regulation review for potential changes revisions adjustments nothing will be
voted on uh any yet anyway but particularly not today because we don't have a quorum so we're just going to discuss a few things first things up the minutes uh for January 16 February 20th which we can't vote we don't have a a quorum so we'll
push that off uh we'll procrastinate so regulation topics um current ones anyway are vzone enclosures square foot feet or percentage of footprint for new construction i don't know how productive
we're going to be on this but what the heck yes what do you guys think of that p of uh uh square footage or percentage of before yeah so Jen and I talked about it
and we were thinking that square footage might be the easiest um percentage seems to vary depending on the size of the structure um however we just proposed um maybe a 100 foot square
foot storage space and a 200 square foot enclosed space just as a starting point i saw that yeah that's Yeah that's fine but would it be combined or are you saying it could be either or 100 plus 200 accumulative it could be combined
yeah maybe up to 200 when it up to 100 or but we're trying to show the distinction between but you could have 10 like stairway enclosure versus storage okay yeah so 100 square ft 10 by 10 sh just but basically if they come in
with 300 ft of enclosed space that's okay we don't care what's in it right well well so that's begs the obvious question is do we just say it's 300 square feet i don't know just Yeah the last time you guys were What
advantage is there to saying doesn't recline um you know separating the two that's rhetorical i'm just thinking out loud i think you guys were talking about last time trying to figure out what is the
standard size of an elevator in these houses how big of a stale array do you need and it sounded like we were talking about one it came up to percentage and you had done it out and it was like 80 square feet you said that's not enough to fit everything um so perhaps going by
percentage unless you had a caveat in there of some kind of percentage or such and such square feet if it's greater or less than i don't know what the correct equation would be um but to be an exception for those really small properties to give them a little bit
more space or vice versa to restrict the larger properties um so I I don't think there's a right answer i think you can go either way you're better off being standard i mean what we could do is sort of then you know before you start yeah
yeah i mean we always use 200 and then it just kind of but it crept a little bit because of we're going to have a an elevator this or that you got 300 square feet you can use it as you like
I've seen it vary in my time kind of when I started you guys were on the higher scale and then we were down on the lower scale and now we're somewhere in the middle um so it seems like how you doing based on recent comments they've been able to reduce into the
more 250 300 range so that seems to be the most square footage yeah i I And I think that's fairer than percentage yeah there's some right next to your port some more propaganda
either one all right when to require a house to be elevated on pilings this came up because of um number four right yes number four so Jen and I went through the regulations um
particularly in the velocity zone or we am I that late is this I thought it was 3:30 it is it's 3:36 now we don't have a quorum court so we're just kind of talking openly um in the landfill to
coastal storm flowage regulations there's always been that regulation about the 200 square foot size that has gone we've gone back and forth on um what we were offering as a suggestion was amending that to
include a provision to help prevent situations like that from happening again where the deck was reconstructed into enclosed space and very is that in our purview whether it's on pilings or not or is that our purview is to protect the
environment i just think that would think that would be more of a building well they are it is going to be built on small sauna tubes um Gary did not allow for the frost walls to be installed um because it is very wet and um there's a lot of wave activity over there um he was
concerned about having something in the ground and not being stable so using that one for an example what would we would have required if if if we wanted to we would have required it be on pilings because it's closer than 50 ft
or or just because it's in a Vzone it it seems like a site where it would have benefited the structure for me elevated on piling the site was very wet it seems to get inundated a lot um so looked like that could have been the best thing for the
structure um also you know the salt marsh was being cut so that wasn't as stable as it could have been um it it was something that was enough where a couple commissioners and Jen were uncomfortable with the situation so we
were thinking of augmenting that regulation a bit because in this case they never actually touched the 200 square ft it was all previous structure they just changed it from something flat to something 3D so it's just a swap for square footage
jamie correct me but I think the code is a building code is if it's more than 50% of the cost of the construction it has to be elevated on pilings is that correct yes yes if it's more than 50% of the
value of of the house of the of the structure of the land correct i think that's on a yearly basis though sorry isn't that on a yearly basis is that on a what a year like for example it's not the entire project no it's just the structure that's what a
lot of people don't understand because you know like a property like that I didn't look it up i don't know what it is so I'm making this up but let's say they said the value of that property is 800,000 but the house is probably only worth 75
because it's its location right so using that example the 75 they can only remodel up to half of that without triggering all the current codes and there's different ways of of
skirting that um and there's things that aren't factored in like finishes for example um so you can't do as much as you because some people look and they go "Oh I got a $2 million property." Yeah but the house is only worth
500 which is still good don't get me wrong but but that means you're only 250 and there's not a lot you can do for 250 when you talk about a major remodel sure you know um some of these houses that are going up you know an elevator is 125
okay you know so you look at stuff like that and does is the how how does a building code you're doing this more frequently than I do now it was the game people played with
successive permits has that been that's what this is which that's what that's what for our code this is adding on and then two years later adding on yeah that's what but once the permit's closed
out project's over so if the permit's closed out and they get a reassessment no no that's for the building but for our project you only had 200 square feet in a velocity zone right in a velocity zone well okay I'm going to attach this
this year i'm going to attach this well the 200 square feet is cumulative right we were just talking about the value of Yeah but that's what happens they keep Right so our suggestion was to make that a bit more restrictive to
So if we allow that 300 that takes the whole 200 out of the equation well those are always two different numbers they just happen to be the same number so that would be Aren't we on two yes yeah we're not on We're not on what's underneath
we're not on We're finished with one yeah they just happen to be the same number so it's commonly Well you moved on we had She had He had what all right moved on to number two
um so that was our recommendation was to try to add some language about instead of just what it says here in addition to the structure it would be more converting usual a
2D structure into an enclosed space try to restrict that um and and instead require it to go up on filings um we also proposed a distance as a setback to the resource area um Jen and I took out a big long tape measure put it down the
hallway 25 ft looked pretty short so we figured a 50 is kind of your typical zone A you know based on what you'd see over there so we had just recommended maybe add to that back so what we can do is put something together for your
guys's review um or we can even though we talked about this perhaps being the last meeting for a while we can have one more in hopes of having a forum for more discussion um you know this is a matter of words you have and I'm back to one B but
enclosed space i I should read condition space as well okay because we were thinking about you know what if they say oh it's storage or it's this so conditioned means by condition space so you walk in a foyer and
go upstairs the odds are it's insulated and insulated insulated in this heat and AC and Okay yeah jen had a couple other notes i would say enclosed and conditioned and don't switch it just add it well you
wouldn't condition storage space necessarily yeah no no you wouldn't condition storage space necessarily but I think Yeah I it's a Where you at well he's he switched back to one yeah
I'm sorry i didn't mean to confuse things i just wanted to ask if you already said it I'm sorry but wanted to ask about the the greater than 50 ft from resource area yeah I have I have a comment on that too i since many of the resource areas that this wouldn't be
would be a 100 foot a zone why don't we stay outside it has to be located outside the a zone but okay but here's my question is that was pre-existing well this is where we get well the port
the deck was pre-existing but now they want to put they want to make it a 3D structure right and and in other circumstances we would allow that meaning they already have the footprint right so my question goes to is that
deck already exists albeit the resource area at the moment right but it exists right near or very close to the salt marsh but that's my point it exists and it's
under that 50 foot so I don't even know if the lot's 100 ft like in this case this was a very small condensed property so I think we we didn't go with 100 just because some of these blocks are itty bitty right on the water it would
encompass the whole property well then they shouldn't be doing it they shouldn't be putting a threedimensional structure there yeah that's I'm looking in terms of the damage to the resources i get it i'm not I'm not fighting that i'm just saying that that
deck existed yeah the deck's fine and they can keep the deck they just can't build a three-dimensional structure on it they can't turn it into being married i know I'm going to win but it's fun competing
no I think that's reasonable i We used to fight over the term creep remember that one you know so you'd have a somebody put a deck or a patio out there and say "Oh well that's our footprint." And then they'd put want to put an addition on it and we'd we'd have heart
attacks over there so kind of the same thing so I think you have to use the word habitable that that well we have to agree on what's pre-existing then the deck
yeah but I I mean it's that that deck was clearly pre-existing correct before I mean in other words that had that deck actually been permitted or allowed it was there for decades Or is it one of
those things that went back to 1680 or something it It was a long time it was Well that's the problem with with some of these properties i mean there's nothing you can do about it they predated regulations yeah but adding the additions those are pre that isn't before regulations
right so we we they predate let's the deck will say predated the regulation but now by enclosing it you're changing the use and that's where you can't add to a violation that's that's what the building code says i I just go by some
of the projects we've had we've had some recently where somebody has a deck or whatever and we allow them to put a to change it to habitable space which is fine but it's not within x number of feet of a resource in
a velocity zone that's what the issue is here see yeah so I think we just have to get wording in there that gives us the authority not to to say we're sorry so that's a case where that shouldn't have been allowed and then if it was new it
wouldn't have been allowed anyway right closer than 50 ft closer than 100 ft right there's no structure there so it's it's kind of a non-issue really well I mean kind of a gray area well you can re
rebuild i mean like I were around but nobody else was around when there was a old hunting cottage in Bourne's pond i mean basically it was out into built partway into Bourne's
pond and they wanted to redo it well really it shouldn't be there at all but it has been there forever so they were allowed to do it right in the footprint but not to expand so in this case they could
rebuild the deck that's fine they just can't but not expand correct and they can't change the use correct because because basically what they were proposing was to tear the deck off and
build a habitable space in the same footprint basically right i mean they were going to put a they were pouring a 4ft crosswall underneath all kinds of stuff said it was going to be solid tubes gary's going to require him to change yeah well that's how the whole
part of this debate started was what you know full frost walls or peers yeah that's right they wanted to put a and they want to put a wall there yeah they wanted to put a wall and we told them they had to put
peers but still you know the use the key is the use is being changed so even though well that's how you look at as a builder the key to me is that they're they want to put a
three-dimensional structure in what's now a two-dimensional space okay okay so playing devil's advocate how does that change the resources if there's a storm there's going to be a lot more damage from waves slamming into
a Just look at the pictures of Florida after the hurricanes yeah you see the one house that survived was the guy builder from Rhode Island but he was up on pilings way up well so were the four houses around him well they used to be on filings now they're
in the Atlantic somewhere but um it's how the whole place was constructed you know yeah i I mean I think clearly that deck was a pre-existing thing which we would allow and if
somebody came in and said I'd like to repair it we would you know without changing a footprint we would allow them to do that because it was a pre-existing condition but they are actually changing the use of the thing by closing it
they're turning it into having a little space it's a whole different the scope of it and the the use of it is altogether different you don't and the effect it would have on the environment if there was a storm right but I mean
exactly so it's all of the above so I think we just write our regulations to say no you can't do that you're changing the use you're changing the purpose you're expanding on what was there you can replace you can fix what's name but
you can't change it okay all right moving on moving on hey fire pits in an Azone um so I haven't really added much or really anything to the summary of it um
it seemed like that was still an open topic kind of going a bit back and forth on what the commission felt like you wanted to pursue and we didn't know if you had any additional comments at this time i think this is fine the only thing I have issue with if you will is is
calling it removable or not allowing it to be a mortared in masonry structure because people aren't going to the pit itself i'm sorry in terms of the pit itself not the Yeah okay the um you know people aren't going to pick
up a a fire pit and move it they're not i mean most people don't even put their lawn furniture away right and then having something that's morted in by definition it's not going anywhere anyway i mean
yeah I mean it will if there's a tsunami but Right but then everything's going so that's my only hangup but I'm not going to follow my sword over it so So are we defining 150 square ft is that the area
of disturbance or is that the size of a pit we should be clear about that well it says right in here that it's includes the seating so it's it's all inclusive so if you want to make a bigger fire pit proper and less seating
that's your problem but if you want a small one and more seating right well I think that should be Yeah but it is in there read the last Yeah but not down to there draft definition fire pit jimmy how do you feel about
Oh and associated yeah okay but I think it would be clear but yeah that's the piece I have the issue with it's just that removable i just don't see that happening you might want to
me personally I would rather see I'd rather see a masonry structure i think it's stronger it's not going anywhere you know um so the two teachers over
here are are that is in the 150 it says in Roman numeral one I or I it says 150 ft maximum size and we're saying that including seating and the pit itself
even though you have even though it's in the definition those are those are just notes that's not going to be yeah I mean even though it's down here in the definition people even though it's in there it's not they're going to read they're going to read the
160 150 ft and they're not else that's just a note for you that's not going to be put in the right just the definition that was just me summarizing everyone's bullet points about what they wanted to see so the definition is me including all that together do you like the definition of how yeah I think it should
be I think it should be defined there okay just so that just so there's No question okay if I had hair I'd be splitting them right now no I No I hear you i mean I understand your point but I'm just
Give them an inch and it'll take them off i know what you really noticed all right we good with that then so you you're good with the draft definition were you good with the draft revision oh it didn't print the R i'm
sorry um yep a definition for fire pits in their associated patios but rather address them on a case by case well that was just our comments at the end that's not part of the definition yeah but if you're good with that then we'll pursue
it i think that's where you guys stood the last time so I don't think we're deciding anything moving on moving on vista pruning yes further disc regarding Vist across property staff
so I what was the purpose of bringing this up remind me um so this was proposed by my to have a discussion on and I think it was a good thing because we wanted to bring it up too um I do have some notes about different parts of this you have a lot of notes i am the
keeper of notes um number one we've uh a sorry we've seen that a couple times last year there's I think it was coming through um proposed vistas that go across properties there was one property that was town property and 600 ft away there
was one that was someone else's property and they already had a Vista um I can't remember the third one but we just figured it might be an good opportunity to actually incorporate into our rigs how the commission feels about vistas do we look upon them fondly about being
across properties or should they just be if you happen to be on the frontage of a of a water body or something someone wanted a view on you know just not exceeding do realize that the town taxes
more for people who have water views and so if they buy a house and they have a border view and 10 years later the trees ahead of them block that view but they're still getting charged taxing for a view yeah for a view okay
since we're splitting hairs you're implying that certain people have a higher tax rate that's not the case they higher value and that can be re they don't have a different tax rate fema has a straight tax rate well it's a straight tax rate
but but a value is different your house might be worth more than my house because you're closer to the water than I am right well it's based on the assessed valuation well every time it rains I do never mind not like I do no you're right
you win you win all right so so yeah that was just a a top so maybe a percentage is is more in line i think that's a if we stay on just a before we get into like percentage or square footage it would I know we can't
decide anything today but that did come up a couple times last year i do routinely deny people those permits i do think people should have a view okay and it doesn't have to it doesn't mean they have to clear a lot of vegetation but it might just be taking
one limb down i like the idea of the percentage we skipped over a didn't we i was trying to stick to a So you can you can actually say 25 ft or a percentage well the first one let's go back to A
before we go to B by the way my content as as a English teacher proofreading scene C you have a new word called agreeance this agreement but agreeance I don't believe is a word i'll let
Microsoft Word know it's not a word it's agreement thank you anyway I like the idea all my other notes good are we back on a I hope so
vistas across several properties um I don't agree with you what's that i don't think if somebody has 1,000 ft if you have 25 ft that's 25% of them
most lots are 100 ft but if they have 1,000 ft I don't think they should have 250 ft of business you might say that they could have four own two business okay so you're I already told you what
for a I know so you're good with a 25 foot or I don't mind percentage but you have a certain amount maybe have two or three okay if it's above you could limit the percent 200 feet
you could have two if it's above 200 feet you could have three vistas i mean these we're talking about giant houses right yeah in these big lots that you might want to look out this way and this way so you're saying
they could be allowed multiple but not contiguous yeah so it could be a percentage with a maximum per uh or you're going to say that a maximum
of three a maximum of three so you're on to something because it's more than 200 ft frontage then you have a maximum of three so you're on to something you could say that use a percentage but that but that uh you they have to have
clusters of vegetation let's say they have a,000 ft property and we say up to 25% or whatever that is so but they would have they would have to put like keep trees
they couldn't just mow it down for that that's what you just said they couldn't just mow it down from for 75 ft they could they could go 25 and have a cluster of trees 25 in a cluster of trees but you could give them some flexibility
so that would satis and little buffer thingies would satisfy me entirely because we'll work on you want to have a contiguous buffer for Yes we want to tree removal anyway so okay i think we
should play a conservative and say maximum of two two yeah that's fine two separate on a basis depending on having a survey in particular on frontage and Exactly
okay so okay but maybe we do have to say that a minimum between the two so that's what I was trying to get at is is Yeah but if you don't take any trees down then yeah we do select sapling removal
um as much as I understand that dead wood is great sometimes taking a couple dead trees down if they're in the way helps makes it you know more agreeable process woodpeckers i mean the other thing is when you allow a vista corer
that doesn't mean they can slice 25 ft vertically down and mass have grass can they right no it doesn't although we have seen people No that's
I'm I'm not opposed to allowing a greater amount of clearing but you know it's what is the clearing is there plenty of understory left is there you know are there trees can you look through it essentially thinning thinning
up above so you get the view i mean it's But the question is how do you write that up well it's already in there that's already written that it it's just really the the width that we're asking you about so I mean we have the height we have all the stuff they can do it's just the width
people tend to want a wider view and as you said some properties are just simply larger and perhaps can accommodate more of a wider view that won't you know sustain any more damage to the area so that that's really the question is and which I think you've answered you would
be open to a wider view under particular criteria um I'm sorry you said you're done with it but can we just go back to a for one second what did you I said I think people should be able to have a
view even if they're one or two houses back okay but I think what this asks is whether is how we would allow it over other properties like that circumstance down
in Quisset Harbor mhm am I right okay so you're right if your three were moved but you're on a higher elevation you should be able to have But the trees a vista corridor right i get it but but you have to get permission of the other property no well wait a minute wait wait wait the question is if it's only for
your property and that's a non-issue if it's over several properties you need all the other people to apply as well correct so that that brings Well that's what we already always already do so it's more of if you are open to allowing
more than one vista on a property then what if that subject property already has a view then the person three houses behind can't have one so if you allow more than one vista on properties Oh you could it would work it would but maybe they don't have a big enough property
maybe it doesn't meet that percentage so you you so you run into a situation like this you have a house on a hill there's another lot and then there's another lot okay so the house on the hill looks out
this way so he gets the permission of the other owners to cut it down so he has this nice view but meanwhile that doesn't do anything because of the geography and topography for the guy the the guys in
between that that guy and the and the one on the shore and they want to put a vista yeah but the these but none of these are in our in our jurisdiction are they you're up on a hill well that that was a unique circumstance where he were several houses away but we had one on
Old Dock that was right across the street they just happened to have an elevated deck that was still in jurisdiction and the folks on the subject property were okay with some minor trimming but again they already had this stuff so that was denied
okay so guy in Maine a couple in Maine that you heard about them they Oh they poisoned the trees poison the trees in the yard in front that was the same poison that was used i think it was Auburn was it Auburn
and is Auburn all right auburn and Alabama say that again auburn auburn is that's a state school in Alabama right yeah and and there's a beautiful tree you know like 300 year old tree where everybody
would gather before the football game from somebody do you want to talk about C and B um C and D i have some notes on that um so I sent over some Vist materials including Falmouth as well as several
other towns um what I would like to do is our guidelines such as hiring a certified arborist moving on site visiting site once it's done um we're hoping to include all of that in the actual regulations it's something
that we've always practiced yeah and other towns have that as well written in their regulations so I think it was looked on favorably last time when we had spoken about it so just kind of confirming that that made sense to everyone um I mean you know it sort of adds to
the regulations and how many people actually look at the regulations not that many but if somebody did I mean ba pruning is kind of a common thing and it's like not that complex to understand what we're doing
so as much as people can understand the better yeah absolutely i think just having that in writing to the software um I did review the materials from the other towns i know you had notes last time Betsy um I just had a couple points
that might be worth discussion or actually including in words in the regulations um for example just no work in an actual wetland or in a salt marsh the cutting is only restricted to buffer um so we've always talked about that but it's
nowhere in Britain so um seem to be like an obvious step forward if that makes sense to everyone okay um see we have been talking about potentially requiring plans from people
when they want vistas if it's at an odd angle if they want a larger percentage of a vista um so I did find language in one of the other towns writes um where it just said you know wetland delineations and plot points may be required so we just put it in writing
somewhere as we figure out how we feel about percentages and different widths and stuff um you know there's some that probably wouldn't need that i mean there are a lot you probably wouldn't use that you probably don't but if you have it in there just in writing may be required
maybe maybe it's always problematic in regulations okay because what do you mean because because people always argue well wait a minute why didn't you let me you
let him and you let him we can add more context to that ron for Mr bernie it's a damn precedent what what what do we do in um building with multiple units multiple owners who all want a vista
so at this point that hasn't been included in the regulations um I I feel like there has been guidance from council about that in the past i don't know for a fact um I can ask Jen to look into it and we can bring it to you guys
um that's an excellent question we already know of an issue yeah i mean the Cape Carter was a perfect case yeah so that was another project that I won't mention because I live there no no but that's but that's h that's
come up in the pa in the past and it's really important yeah I own this much and they own that much and I wanted this stuff yeah right okay yeah we can do more research on that one um something that other speaking about that you guys who lived here for a long
time apparently you know the h um trying to think of what it's called it's where Chris Py used to live in that neighborhood where's Chris in in uh West Falman chris Valky yeah craggy Ridge
craggy Ridge yeah that was built with in the deeds people have ocean views but I mean it was built like 40 30 years ago 40 years ago so of course none of them have ocean views anymore
how do you deed something like that i don't know each access is one thing but a view how do you Yeah i mean vegetation's going to grow right yeah i think it's more for structures you can't put a block You can't block my
view with your house well I can't put my garage in front of your house well that's a good thing cuz people actually do that they designed their houses to block their neighbors how many times block see that's happened a few times here we've had cases come in in front of Kong yeah
we see that all the time that's one of the reasons for your little speech no you're right we're we're only dealing with conservation not zoning you know but you know sometimes that line is blurred it
is um as are many property lines that aren't properly surveyed that's my line no that's my line because they What is this this is there's a uh something in the regulations in our regulations about
aesthetics there is somebody yeah about the word aesthetics and of course how subjective is that that's in the eye of the beholder right yeah that is a very subjective concept so somebody sitting there protesting the garage that's blocking their view is going to cite the
regulations on a this sentence i can see that the view is much nicer than looking at the garage anyway where are we what's next i just had one other point there were four towns that I found that had time of year
restrictions on cutting for his prunes and attempting to circumvent nesting season nesting season i think that's a good idea so they all take place late fall into late winter so I kind of just took a combination of the times and you
know we could we could approve them throughout the year might be kind of hard to enforce but have them actually start work you know in in the fall or over the winter um I would propose November 1st because we have some late falls you know bird migration is kind of
in flux and nesting season um perhaps to the end of March so that would be a full birds are definitely months where the cutting could definitely getting ready to nest now
yeah you know April forest kind of falls around you know totally are coming spring is here do we like the idea of a time spring's here today didn't any Does everybody notice that i like that idea okay of a time of year restriction for vista you
can't leave vista when the birds are active right yeah because they knock a nest down and everybody will say you're doing it because you don't want the darn tourists to be bothered okay so we can work on incorporating
that too um I think that concludes this oh this was that concludes the meeting well I had a couple brief topics just too introduce not necessarily to have much discussion on um one Jen kind of
mentioned last week about freshwater ponds um and docks that are being constructed in them we have one particular requirement for both coastal and inland docks where they have to meet 3 ft of water depth so many of the ponds are pretty shallow where that's pretty hard to meet perhaps perhaps maybe not
ponds that have natural heritage in them or there could be other restrictions but our thought was to eliminate that 3-foot water depth or make it shallower so that they have a better chance of achieving the regulations the ponds all have
limits as to what size motors can be correct in them and some of them can't you don't allow any and some don't allow any so that shouldn't be restricted really yeah so if it doesn't allow any Yeah what difference does it make yeah okay yeah because it'd be mostly for
kayak launching kids off into the water so okay could you put a restriction on the draft of a boat why not well some of them probably like they said um I know looked it up some ponds don't even allow There's no way to
regulate that i mean there's no way to police that i think the water depth if you're going to do anything would be practically pogs i think You're going to use a motor with a small You're going to want to have it pretty shallow anyway so would you want to see that three feet
just a smaller number or just eliminate that all together as a piece of criteria do two feet if it's not motorized say two feet i mean if you're going to have a dock you need something yeah but I I think float stops too that would be
my concern is two feet if they have a motor on there that it's going to be a mess the problem is these these ponds as we've heard cuz we've had ones come in change depth pretty drastic by Yeah like it does assume
it when it when it changes depth it's drastic if it's But that's where we require the full sculpt right just to keep it from grounding out okay so even if you have a three-foot depth when you build it and it you have
a dry summer and winter then it's going to be less anyway yeah well that's what what uh Right so it could be different depending what season you apply for your dog well yeah i mean wait till a good spring
before you apply right at at um Kun Messa Pond he learned the hard way he he put in something that assumes that the height you know the depth was always going to stay the same and the next spring right
right cuz you do you think of a dog as a pond is not really fluctuating a whole lot you know but they're drastic you know i live down there deep pond and sometimes there's a causeway between you know one side of the pond to the other that's pretty cool you know
um so and assume I've seen I've seen a Schuma with an island in the middle I've swam to that is that proper English swam to that island I think yeah all right dock improvements yeah that was just a general question um
we've seen a lot of dock projects come before us for reconstructions um not all the time do these reconstructions require docks to meet current um criteria for docks um for example a dock that could have been constructed a very long time ago but it
happens to go over salt marsh has decking very close together it doesn't need that light penetration um so we've kind of asked applicants to incorporate that into their new structure so that we can meet current standards um but there's nothing required for that so
just as an example um adding some language to require these reconstructions and improvements to meet as much as much as possible cuz I mean decking's easy you know the
height especially if they're going to replace the decking replace it with something that right i mean if they're starting all over from scratch again might as well you know we can't necessarily they might not be able to go out any further or whatnot but if it's been permitted there and they're just
coming back cuz it's deteriorated might as well yep that's a good idea so just to have something in writing Yep okay uh and then the last one is Betsy Rights of Nature which were adopted by the South Board last year um we had always had the intention of
asking everyone if we could incorporate it into our regulations um partly in its full capacity um somewhere in the regs fully incorporating the resolution but also I think the staff and the
commission have had some concerns smile for the camera right i've had some concerns over the years about um in buffers in flood zones the ability for clear cutting um so this would help
us preserve what we can on these lots preserve nice hardwood trees big trees in the way asking folks to maybe redesign a bit to allow for more of the natural environment to remain on site so we're still exploring how we want to
propose that's incorporated into the ranks um but in general just looking for the commission's blessing to include the rights of nature because we can't what's wrong okay four thumbs up perfect
um so that's all we have for today um and that's official because now we're this is a quorum that's true so unless everyone would like to meet one more time to finalize anything the staff was going to recommend take a
break for a couple months while we put these actually together and make the corrections in the regs present you some drafts to review before we start to I don't know the full process but I know we have to advertise and get public comment and whatnot so I feel like most
of the discussion has been had we've got some good direction from everyone um so but up to you guys if you'd like to have any more meetings at this time it was nice that engineers came to a few very helpful their comments would
be very helpful well you know you give everybody the opportunity and you know if they don't take advantage of it then you know but nobody can say that we didn't try well I think I think once we come up with a publish a draft you know they'll
come out of the woodwork then i don't think there's any any No there's nothing really changes i was kind of cleaning stuff up yeah no I don't see anything in here but but we at some point have to vote not vote but well vote that this is the final draft and then we're going to
open it up to public so how many of those do we have to have do you remember what's that public forums like two or three i can't I don't think it's necessarily that many but I think it's it has there has to be at least one public meeting
maybe more but then there has to be open for like four weeks or 6 weeks or eight weeks for Well right and and that's my point is that everybody you know people are going to have the opportunity to come in and comment and submit anything right any comments
so it's not like we are deciding stuff and then ramming it down everybody's throats no i mean um because that's the perception we don't want right you know and it's been it's clarification it's not
since we did once we go through the public comment period and incorporate any tweaks is it that we then publish it or does it have to go to town meeting to a town meeting it does not go to town meeting
that's that's what I you know the wetlands bylaw gives the conservation commission the authority to change its regulations according to what we're following okay
so if we afford public comment in in a public meeting and then a comment period then we've afforded everybody the opportunity correct okay and then we can take a final vote and we wouldn't ne necessarily have to
do it all at once although it might be cleaner but but it Well it's cleaner from the point of view that to publish that book it's better to change it all at once yeah yeah so so that's why it may be more
than one meeting because public meeting because we may not get through everything in one meeting correct yeah yeah okay and it and they may require more than one i don't know yeah well that's what I'm thinking no no no it's at least one i thought then Well it's it's written down it's in the procedures
i just don't know what it is we have the information so maybe we'd have to do it the same way we're doing this in that what's today's topics but then let's review last topics well not even by the topics you do it by the regulation these have to do with buffer regulations these
have to do with box regulations right okay anything else motion to adjurnn so move second patton i
thank you everyone