19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at
the meeting uh remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkinson Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join.
Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. accordingly. Please be
aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair.
Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the
chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be
conducted via roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Chair Melissa Recos, >> present. >> Jim Cerillo, >> present. >> Matt Moyan, >> present.
>> Uh Peggy Shaw, >> present. >> Uh Ed Harrow, Walter Garland, >> and I and Ted Barkerhook. I'm present. Uh I will now confirm that staff are present. Judy Day Hopkinson Conservation Administrator
>> present. >> Anna Rogers, environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. >> And Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental, >> present. >> Just to let the public know, we've had several hearings continued. Um, these
are homes at 37 Oakhurst Road. That's continued until March 10th. Both of the Wall Street development 12 North Street hearings have been continued. There is no date for that right now. Uh, additionally, under work session items, 10 Exchange Street violation discussion
has been moved to March 10th. That's all I got, Melissa. It's all you. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> Welcome. >> Um, okay. So, we have a pretty short agenda tonight. Um,
I think that being said, if we do we have the owners for 15 Montana Road on the line >> yet? >> Uh, yes. >> You are. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and start start with you?
>> Okay. >> Um, Right. So, is this Mr. Kelly? >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Welcome. Um, thank you for the updated letter and additional information. I thought that
was very helpful. Um, I was also the the USDA designation. Um, can you talk a little bit about that um from your letter and
what that what that means to you, I guess? Yeah. So, we're we're members of the American Dairy Goat Association, so we spend a lot of time at the uh the dairy goat shows and whatnot. So, we
joined the the a group of people that agreed to be registered and surveyed as smaller dairy farms in Massachusetts. So, they yearly send us um information. They also um give us ser we fill out
surveys for them and then we get some calls here and there from different people doing research and whatnot tracking agriculture you know dairy goat agriculture and mass. So um that's kind
of where it came from and it takes takes a couple of different forms. The the one consistent thing is the the yearly audit they do. How many head do you have? What are your activities? What's your acreage? What's your turnout? What's your hay? All those things.
>> Okay. It looked pretty um simple on the form. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so you looked at this Judy, right? And um I don't think we had Joe look at it. Or did we Joe?
>> Uh no, I have not looked at this. >> Okay. So Judy took a look. I don't know if everyone on the commission got to take a look. I think um we were, you know, kind of hopeful or
um that we could pin this on a on an exemption, but um I don't I don't I don't feel like we can necessarily say with a straight face that um the property meets the definition for the
agricultural exemption, which isn't the end of the world. it's just, you know, would be a path of least resistance, I think, um, to have that in place and not have to deal with the notice of intent process. But, um, I don't know if anyone
else on the commission has any thoughts or got a chance to read the letter. Um that was my takeaway um in reading it is that we really do need to treat this as a notice of intent or a um violation type just not violation or enforcement
but shouldn't say violation and enforcement um type action because I don't feel comfortable calling it an exemption under the agricultural designation. But I'll open up to the commission to see if anyone else has thoughts.
through the chair. >> Yes. >> Melissa, why do you feel it it hasn't established that uh this is a a commercial farming operation? Um, well, I'm certainly not an expert on
this because this is the first time I'm looking at anything like this from a conservation lens. But um in reading act 310 CMR agriculture, it specifically talks about commodities for commercial purposes
and um about USDA documentation and I although you know there is some that's why I asked about that right off the bat. Um, but I don't know that that documentation is is what the act is
referring to in regard to USDA. Um, to back back that up. Um, also in our bylaw talks about a deed restriction being placed on the land for new agricultural activities.
Um, but you don't necessarily see a something about that. Was that you, Judy? Were you gonna chime in? >> Yeah, through the chair. Um, just some notes I had reading through it. The owner has to prove that the area in
question was used for agricultural commercial use at the time of the activity. So, looking at it, most of the clearing and construction happened between like 2015 and 2018, but it the letter says an LLC was registered in 2021. So that
would have been after the fact. Um, and it looked like the USDA document was also relatively recent. So I mean I think what we're looking at is that period of 2015 to 2018 and I didn't see anything in the narrative that you know showed documented
commercial activity or in the aerial imagery really. Um, Yeah. I mean, that being said, I don't know. We could potentially raise it to D, I guess, Judy, if the applicant wanted to
continue to pursue that exemption route and see what their official, you know, word would be, having more experience with these than our commission that really doesn't ever see them.
>> I did speak with DP. Um, if you want, I have some notes from that conversation if that would be helpful. Yeah, I think that would be helpful for the file and the applicant. >> Okay. Yeah, just a quick summary. When I talked to them, um they said they have
to prove the agricultural use was commercial in nature at the time of the activity. Um they said even if a portion of the property was used for agriculture, it doesn't necessarily mean the entire property is protected. Um, agricultural land can't have laneow
for more than 5 years um to qualify for the exemption. So, it has to be active agricultural use. Um, they stated some maintenance if the agricultural exemption applies may be exempt from filing with the commission.
Um, although other activities would still need a permit. So regardless of an exemption, clearing in wetlands would still have needed commission approval. Um, and they also stated that the act mentions a USDA farm plan or aerial
imagery can be used to demonstrate agricultural use. Um, if either of those were available and pointed towards the exemption applying. So they didn't, I guess, necessarily have a stance on this in particular. That was just their general thoughts.
Sorry, Joe. >> But yeah, I guess the it all kind of stems back to uh work done on adjacent property uh separate from this post a filing uh on land um that Ed owns at
number nine. Um this popped up and then became the focus of a review based on a sitewalk. uh Judy and Anna took in July and asked that we uh come together with a after the fact NOI and uh a summary
plan to kick off discussions. So um are we are we talking about the area adjacent to number nine where the head wall is and the the stream channel that's been identified? Um is that the area in that um needs to to uh I guess
proved that during that time frame um that area was used in in commercial agriculture. Is that is that where we're headed based on all this? Um, we're trying to I hope you can appreciate we're trying to to
supply answers to questions of the staff and the commission and um the the entire focus has been the area up by number nine uh where the chicken coupe was built, where the the horse barn was built. Um, you know, is that the area
that we need to to prove is was the subject of commercial farming in 2015? I believe, and Judy, correct me if I'm wrong, um, this came to light more as a comment from DP, not the commission. Um,
when they were reviewing the other filing, they brought this up to the commission's intention attention and asked us to, you know, approach the homeowner and and and see what kind of was going on. And I believe that they
were looking at the entire property um not just that one location. They were looking at the property as a whole. And as Judy said, I think they were probably going through aerials. Um as Judy did and seeing the work, the clearing that
had been done over the years and that's why they they brought it up. So, um, it's it's really stemming down from D, not the commission's observation wasn't the impetus. >> Oh, sure. No, no, we appreciate the the
spot that D kind of stuck Judy in. >> They wanted to see some info and we've all been scrambling to try to figure out um what we need to what we need to supply. Uh and that's kind of the where we've been on this end is um you walk
into the first hearing and and show us that you're a farm and Ed has gone through the records and and developed this narrative for all of us um to to kind of review and um I guess there's talk about are we going to utilize the
commercial farming uh exemption. I certainly don't hope I certainly hope that it was not the result of my filling out the form and saying that this was this use was allowable as a limited project. We certainly are trying to find some way to strongarm the commission
into seeing seeing something they were approving something comfortable with. So um it it one of those things it it feels to me it feels like a farm looks like a farm. Um the you know we'll we'll sit there and
talk about whether we have an enough USDA forms or enough receipts from from purchases back in those times. But um it it feels like we're we're kind of there. Uh Ed's Ed's shown everything that he
has. All our cards are on the table. Uh you know how do we we move this forward? We certainly don't want uh to spend hours and hours debating um commercial farming exemption. At least I do not.
>> Yeah, I agree. Yes. Go ahead. Um, I believe it actually got brought up when you guys were reviewing the 12 Maple Street extension filing, not Ed's other single family house because it's that shared property line that has BBW right
along um what I think is labeled on the on the plan as a swale. Um, but we have a confirmed well and delineation and I think that's what brought up the D comments. >> Okay. But Anna, do you agree the D
comments were referred to the entire property? >> Right. Not >> correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But I think they were focusing because we have that confirmed delineation along that whole plan right side along that storm
>> is what they were then seeing the clearing and saying, "Whoa, whoa, you've got a big buffer zone here and all, you know, that big existing paddic there is potentially all within buffer zone." So then they were looking for approved filings for that clearing.
>> Jim, >> um yeah, no, agreed, Joe. Um we want to move on from um move on from this topic of conversation. I think we were just kind of wishful thinking that we could easily check a
box of exemption and I'll and I'll move on. But I think what I'm saying is I we can't do that um based on the information that's been presented. So I think the path is to continue on with a notice of intent to close this out.
Um and in order to do that, we would need delineation on the property throughout the property to understand, you know, what we're approving in a notice of intent.
Um, does that sound like it makes sense for the next step from you, Joe, or Mr. Kelly? I I'd like a little more description on what the notice of intent is and the how
extensive we're talking about and the areas on the property that we're talking about. >> Um >> because it's a it's a obviously this this whole thing has become it's a financial issue for me and it's
going to get sounds like it's getting worse. So, I just want to have a very clear understanding of where we're going >> because at some point it'll >> it's going to get really difficult for it's already there, but it sounds like it's going to get very difficult for me
to keep this thing going. >> Oh, Judy, can you just elaborate a little bit on what we would anticipate for the notice of intent plan? >> Sure. So, you've already filed the notice of intent. So, we're already in receipt of an application. I think what
we're looking at now is um Joe Orzelle and DP's comments on the notice of intent filed mentioned that the entire property should be delineated. I think Joe had noted that there was BBW west on the west side of the property. So, it's just, you know, getting a better picture
when we get an NOI. Usually, the whole property is delineated. So, it was a little unusual getting a partial delineation with the filing. So, we're not in need of a new filing or anything. It's just the site plan needs to show any and all resource areas on the entire property before I think the commission
can make an informed decision on any mitigation or anything that they want to see in place to protect the resource area. Um and and we can refer, you know, back to Joe Orzels or D's comments on, you know, the specifics of why the property needs to be fully delineated,
but yeah, we already have a notice of intent. So, it's just addressing the comments that were made through the review process to move it forward. Um, so we can we can continue it out and you can talk with Joe Marquon and see,
you know, what that means financially to address those comments and how that that's, you know, in the realm for you. >> Yeah. Based on yesterday's events, we certainly won't be.
>> Oh, yeah. No, it's not going to happen anytime soon. >> Quite some time. So, >> y >> but it will I mean the delineation will be good for you going forward if you know you
um need to do anything else on the property or come in front of the commission again for anything that you're doing. Um, having that delineation already in your pocket is I like to think a good investment, but I
mean that's it's it's your um it's your property. So um >> yeah, our our interest is to satisfy the needs of you know all the parties here and and move forward. So whatever we've got to
do, we'll continue to cooperate it. Just want to make sure I understand what it is. That's all. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, we can um go ahead and continue this out. I mean, we might want to continue it for a
couple meetings. Like you said, Joe, the snow is not going anywhere. Um, our next meetings are March 10th, March 24th, and April 7th. Um,
the way my backyard looks, I think April 7th is about the only thing that would work. >> Maybe April 28th also. >> Hopefully it won't take that long. But yeah, it's going to take a while to settle out. So,
>> should we pick up this thread with Judy as and watch the weather in the meantime or >> continue this indefinitely? How do how do we do that? I think we need to pick a date. Okay. >> Um to continue to Yeah. So, I mean, we
could continue it to April 7th and you can always um ask for a continuence without coming to the meeting if that date doesn't work out. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It's fine with us. >> All right. Can I get a motion to continue this out to April 7th?
>> So moved. >> And I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt? I >> uh Ted >> I >> Jim >> I >> Peggy
>> I and I am also an I. >> All right. So thank you and um keep our fingers crossed for no more snow. >> Thank you. >> Great. Um, next up, work session items,
draft minutes for review. Um, does anyone ha have any comments or have not had enough time to review the minutes that were drafted for September 23rd, 2025 and February 10th, 2026?
>> Melissa. >> Yes. Um, I've reviewed them and I didn't see anything, but I'm going to abstain on the February 10th because I wasn't there. So, if we could have two separate votes, it might be a little bit tidier. >> Okay. >> How are we doing on numbers? Because I
wasn't there on the 10th either, but if one of us needs to be needs to vote, then I'll happily do that. >> Yeah, we can always kick it to the next meeting, too. Um, so why don't we just get Can I get a
motion for the September 23rd minutes? >> Some move. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt, >> I >> Jim, >> I
>> um Peggy, you wouldn't have been there for the >> Yeah, I'm gonna stick. >> Okay. And I am also in I. >> And then Judy, if you can just carry over the February 10th to the next meeting. >> We'll do. >> Thanks.
>> Does that mean I don't officially have the timekeeper role until we approve those minutes? >> Eventually, >> we can discuss. >> Yeah. Um 75 South Street informal discussion.
All right. Do we have someone on the line for this? >> That would be me. Yes. >> Hey, Joe. >> This is kind of a procedural question, I guess. Um, you may recall this site was before the commission back in November for soil borings to deal with some
hazardous waste material behind number 75 between 75 and Route 495. That was part of a two-pronged attack on our side. What we wanted to do was start the borings for the injections to deal
with the hazmat materials and then take up sight changes. uh the weather uh has not cooperated at all with the original uh soil boring part of the process. Um
water is used to inject those compounds into the hazmat. Um right after the commission granted approval, the weather shut down on us and we've been battling the cold all of us ever since. Um the
idea was complete that work and then move on to site changes that were going to take place southerntherly of the building in that parking lot. So we are now before the planning board we got
snowed out last night but we'll be picking up uh that thread for the discussion of a site plan review with them next Monday. And I just wanted to have some idea of how the commission would want to handle this. Can this be
folded into the existing filing? Is there a new separate notice of intent? Does the original borings work have to be completed before we can file for review of the work in the parking lot? I just kind of wanted to get a handle on
uh how the commission saw this moving forward. Okay. Um I believe that we could do it either way. Um we could do amend an order
or it would be cleaner probably preferable to close this one out and then open a new order for the site work. But I understand the timing of that might not >> that leaves leaves us saying to the planning board, let's review this for
the next couple of Mondays and then drop the idea until uh we finish the borings, which is is not ideal. Certainly something that we can do, but not the preferred method. I'm I'm sure that board would like to see some conclusion
to their review as well. the same sort of thing we just talked about an open-ended planning board review process until the borings are done may not sit well with them. So >> So how long does the boring work take once you can actually get the
temperatures where you need them? >> My impression was a couple of weeks that would wrap up. It was on before last night. It was on the schedule loosely for the middle of March. So sometime the beginning of April. till the middle of
April that process would be done. >> Okay. >> It's relatively the work in the parking lot qualifies as a minor site plan. I certainly don't want to put words in the planning board's mouth, but um it's not especially complicated what we're proposing. Uh so I I don't see months
and months of negotiations for that that second portion of the project. >> Are you doing drainage drainage work? No, just some site uh work, some grading, regrading of the parking lot and rebaving. We'll still continue
utilize sheet flow across the parking lot. >> Okay. But it is all within the commission's jurisdiction within the 100. >> Yeah, that area off site to if we're 75 must be oh 77 79. that wetlands that Joe
Arzel identified offsite uh puts us in the jurisdiction of the commission. >> Okay. Um and Judy, we we talked briefly about this, but I don't know if you got a chance to confirm our existing order for
the borings. Um, do any of the con none of the conditions are like ongoing long-term 2-year, you know, monitoring or anything like that? No. No long-term conditions in the order that's open.
>> Okay. Um, all right. I'll open up to the rest of the members and see if anyone has any questions or wants to give thoughts on which route we would recommend or like to see or indifferent.
And Judy, if you have any other things you want to point out that might be pros or cons. Yeah, I can give an overview of at least the state guidance on when an amended versus a new filing might be required if that would be helpful. >> Yeah, I think it would.
>> Um, yep. So, the guidance we have is um an amended order is appropriate when the changes presented are relatively minor um and will have unchanged or less impact on the interests protected by the act. Um, that being said, we did an
amended order for the Charleswood school that added new resource area. So, I think the commission has accepted amendeds in cases where there's been more disturbance. Um, the guidance also says if the project is significantly
different from the original project to warrant major changes in conditions um within the order of conditions, it should be treated as a new filing. So, if the commission thinks, you know, the set of conditions they would potentially apply for this work would be
significantly or inherently different than what's currently in place, a new filing might be more appropriate. Um, or if you think the conditions will be similar and amended might be all right. Um, the applicant would have to in either case renotify a Butters,
refile with D and repay um additional consultant fees. So everything under an amended order or a new filing would still get the same level of review and notification. Um and the project does keep the original expiration date. So it doesn't get extended by the issuance of an
amended order. So I guess that's something for the applicant to keep in mind that they are still under the original deadline of the um order for the soil remediation. I think that's all I have. >> Okay.
And Joe Margodon, just to confirm um what you would amend the order is shown on this plan right now. It's the remarking paving areas.
Um the dumpster proposed retaining wall. These these are the things that you would be adding. >> Uh we're also changing the grading in that parking lot um and along the southerntherly side to add in um a new
doorway for shipping and receiving for um drop off of materials. So we'll be regrading that parking lot but still carrying the water down uh according to the existing flow patterns down to the southeast. So there will be some
regrading of the parking lot. Uh there will be restriping to fil facilitate the movement of delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles, fire and police, what have you. But there will be changes to that grade and a resurfacing of the parking lot.
>> Okay. All right. I'll open it up again to commission members if anyone has any questions or thoughts. Uh maybe just a couple quick questions, Joe. So the parking lot's not getting bigger at all. It's the same footprint. It's just being
the the surface is being scraped and regraded and recovered. Is that true? >> Correct. We lose a few parking places, >> but the size of the the >> no change in the size. It actually gets a little smaller. We're going to take some um poorly uh existing conditions
along the southeast corner and re and replant that as I saw that. >> So that will actually get a little smaller >> and and presumably would be an improvement within resource area from what's there now, >> right? We feel it is
>> um and then obviously we would get a plan showing all of the work and the erosion barriers and stuff. It wouldn't just be approved by this discussion, right? I mean, >> correct. >> No, no. This plan set there are eight to 10 pages in this plan set. This is
currently at the planning board. I I thought that that was a pretty obvious question, but I wanted to be sure. U Melissa, for me, I think to make things easier for everyone, for us, the planning board, the applicant, I think I'm okay with not closing out the first.
And based on what Judy said, I I think I'm okay with that. But I certainly can be sued if people have strong opinions. >> Okay. Does >> anyone else have thoughts they want to share, questions? No, >> I'm okay with that, too.
Okay. Anyone from the audience? All right. I I'm on board with that as well. I think we can do this under an amended amended order. >> Great. All right. So, >> that's the way we'll head then.
>> Okay. We'll see you back soon then. >> Okay. Thanks for the input. Appreciate it. Yep. >> Take care. >> All right. Next up, we have 32 Granite Street. This is a continuation of violation discussion for a tree
vegetation clearing. Um Judy, do you want to give us an update to um what we have now? >> Sure. Um so last time this was discussed, the commission issued an enforcement order
to require a restoration and planting plan be presented um in response to unpermitted clearing in jurisdiction. Uh so we have received a restoration and planting plan. Um the colored dots indicate
um the solid colored dots indicate proposed plantings and the hollow colored dots indicate the cut vegetation that the commission deemed needed to be um accounted for in the replacements. Um the numbers the commission decided on
were one one replacement for stumps uh 2 and 1/2 in diameter and 1 and 12 to one for anything larger than that. Um and trees should replace trees, shrubs should replace shrubs.
Those were the conditions the commission decided on. Um, since we have not sent this to Joe for review, I took a quick look at it, um, with accounting for the sizes and the replacement ratios the commission decided on. The applicant
needed to propose 27 to 28 replacements, um, 22 to 23 of which had to be trees. They are meeting that um, and then some to account for potential die off. So, they are proposing 28 trees and nine shrubs.
And they are also proposing a PIB um marked by these black squares that go around the plantings um and pulled in a little bit to reflect the new delineation behind the house here. Um and all of these species proposed
which are listed in the legend down here are all confirmed native on Gobotney and USDA plants database. And that is all I have. So, I'll turn back over to you, Melissa. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy.
Um, yeah, I think this is what we were looking for. This looks like what I was expecting, so appreciate the effort. Um, does anyone on the commission have any questions or comments on this
restoration plan? >> Melissa, I do. >> Okay. Um, I I I'm apologize to everybody if I've forgotten some discussions we've had before. Um, but what caught my eye is I keep forgetting you can't see my
cursor, but over near the treehouse, there are two things in that zone that caught my eye. The first is there are little to no new plantings between the treehouse and then if you
follow the BVW up to the brown dots and I'm curious why we're not replacing any plantings in that zone. My other question, and I'll just throw out both of the things I observed, is I see two new tree plantings within the wetland.
And I don't know if that's a normal course of action for us to encourage going into the wetland to plant trees. Maybe we do do that, but I I kind of thought that was not our normal course of action. There's the two blue dots
um a little bit further along past where I was identifying that. I don't see There they are. Yeah. So, I just wanted to discuss those two parts of the plan a little bit. And I wonder if any other commission members have thoughts. Maybe I
maybe we already agreed that nothing should be planted replanted in that zone and I don't remember it. >> Oh, that's a good question, Ted. I remember talking about wetland, but I don't remember saying yay or nay.
Um, Judy, do you have any thoughts to share on that? >> I don't believe that was discussed, but um, I think in general the recommendation is use plants that can tolerate wet conditions. I don't think in in general the commission has discouraged it before.
>> Yeah. And these are just these are smaller plantings. Um, they're just going to go in with like somebody's going to go in with a shovel, right, and dig these out. There's no machinery or um we're not anticipating a lot of
disturbance to put these plants in. Correct. I'll open that up to the homeowner. Looks like you're on the line. Sure. >> Dave Dave can speak more about it, but I think in the last meeting we discussed or like the uh recommendation from the conservation commission was to put the
trees as close to the cutting as possible. That's why I think Dave recommended to put those two blue ones right there because that's where the cutings are. But Dave maybe can speak more about it. >> And I would like to add on for the treehouse why we've not added uh plants
there is because we want them to grow and survive. Uh so because of the treehouse, we don't want to block sunlight because we already have really tall trees. So we just want to make sure um the tree survives not just two growing seasons like perpetuity. So uh
we made a conscious decision of not putting a a a plant a a young plant there um just because of sunlight. >> So may I just ask clarification on that second point? Um what we see are where
there are stumps but there are still full-size healthy trees all around the lawn as well. It wasn't cleared to nothing, >> right? That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Again, I I apologize for not remembering our last meeting. Um, >> no, you were not in the last meeting, so
no need to apologize, but >> Okay. >> Um, >> yeah, we we we just want to make sure whatever we plant can last perpetually uh and you know, grow into healthy trees. Uh because again uh our thinking thought process here is because we already have these big bulky trees uh
they will they have deeper roots and they will like their likelihood of survival is higher with a newer tree >> you know they're going to compete for resources. Uh so we we've made strategic choices of where we could add them and the trees can grow and you know we also
we've accounted for buffer but um you know if we plant 30 trees whatever 29 whatever trees we plant I just want to make sure all of them survive they >> so then if I could just ask one other question before we go to Joe or Joe on the planting of the trees within the
wetland. Um I did notice in your materials that the stumps have have shoots coming out of them. Would that include the stumps in that area around the treehouse I'm talking about? >> That's section. >> So we already have like a lot of stumps
that already have shoots coming out of it. >> So we are not talking about those replacement. Um >> no right right. So the stumps that I see in that zone without new plantings are those getting shoots out of them right now. >> Oh these ones I think they are
>> mad do them. Yes. >> Okay. So, it's going to be a fairly fully vegetaritated area again without two tree plantings, right? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. That helps me. >> All right. >> Um, and now if I could just get some expert thoughts on planting in the
wetland and and making sure we're just talking shovel and spade work. >> Yeah. Also, Ted, I think I think I understand this correctly, too, just to point this out. Um, I believe the red dot, the ones that are red circles are the ones that were two inches, two and a
half inches and above that need to be replaced. >> The ones that are the black circles are smaller than that. So, I think they're trying to, you know, you notice in that area close to the red ones, >> there were none of the big ones. Yeah, there was no two and a half and larger
removed there. So, they're not replacing for those. >> And I'm glad to get the reassurance that I was not at the meeting where we discussed this. that not that I just have a massive piece of brain fog. >> Anyway, about the plantings in the wetland, Joe Orsel, I know you haven't
looked at the whole plan >> or looking to hear your thoughts on those. >> Yeah, I was looking it over now. Um, so it looks like there were u some of the trees to be replaced that were cut within the wetland.
Um, and in that case, I think there's, you know, not a problem in planting in the wetland. What what size I not sure what size trees are being proposed and how how big of a excavation that might require.
>> Dave, do you want to go into the details? >> Y, not Joe. Mark went on. Sorry. >> That's okay. Um so uh the the proposed trees are four foot high and they are going to be done uh by hand in a bucket
>> with a shovel uh in the wetland. I don't think it's a it's a >> an issue. >> Thank you for the reassurance. That's all I saw. Melissa. >> Okay. Does anyone else have any questions or comments?
Anyone from the audience? Um I do have a question not on the tree but Dave and I were discussing about this on the PIBs. So I think the question that Dave and I have is uh do we need to just replace the current number of PIBs or do we need
to include more PIBs? And then second question is as you see like u maybe um where you see that 14in birch medallion 15in tree medallion those trees already has medallions. So, do we need to put new pes near to those trees?
>> Um, I would say no. If there's a medallion that exists on the tree, it's in good shape, then you don't need to put a second one um right there. So, yeah, where you were pointing out, I think you can, especially that one that's right in
front of the the birch, as long as it's Yeah, it's marked on the plan with medallion. >> Yep. Um, does anyone >> through the chair >> close enough? Yeah. What do you think then? >> Uh, I just want to make sure we're being clear that the the trees with the
medallions along the buffer, we are suggesting moving the PIBs closer to the home there. >> You're you're talking about the one tree by the driveway. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> And not all of the trees. >> Right.
So I I think my answer would be u all of the posts are necessary except where that one tree right next to the driveway basketball court is that can satisfy but the other ones are too close to the wetlands and we'd rather see PIBs a
little further out the way the plan shows >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. If that's the case, um maybe the commission would discuss whether they want those existing PIBs removed um just to limit confusion of having two
layers. >> Yeah. No, that's a good that's a good call. The one along the wetland on Yep. Right there on that side. Take them off the tree and put them on the post. >> I kind of assumed that was happening, so
I I didn't even bring that up. Maybe assumptions are a bad idea. Yeah. Okay. So, I think we can we can clarify that because I think the next step here, if we're good with this plan, is to have
Judy write up a new enforcement order to set the time frame um for carrying out this plan that approves this plan and carries out this plan and then adds kind of our typical conditions for, you know, two
growing seasons to monitor 80% survival, I think, is what we've usually been doing lately. Um, but we could also make a note in there about the PIBs to kind of try and clarify that
the existing versus the proposed. >> Okay. Okay. If um if no one has any other comments or thoughts, then I guess I'd ask for a motion to have Judy write that new enforcement order up and we can either
have Judy draft it and then come back to the next meeting and we can approve it or she can draft an issue. I nobody's going to be planting anytime soon um >> with this weather so I don't you know know that there's a rush. All
right. So, was that a motion? I'll make that motion. >> I need a motion. >> I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Is it clear that the motion is Judy drafts one up and does her signatures or
Judy drafts one up and we take a look at it and vote on it? Is Which one are we doing? Do we need to make that part of the motion? We do. I think I was assuming Jim meant uh drafted up for the next meeting. >> Sounded like Yeah.
>> Is that what he meant, Jim? >> Yeah. >> Then I will second that motion. >> All right. All in favor? Ted >> I. >> Jim. >> I. Matt. >> I. >> Peggy. >> I.
>> And I'm also an I. >> Okay. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, I I have a question. Do we need to come to the next meeting or is it just something internally? >> You don't. No, it's just paperwork. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Got it. And since this uh topic is
closed, I have two more topics to discuss if uh commission has time. Uh I sent couple of documents to Judy. So there was a report that we submitted from arborist. We have two more trees that are decaying that we need to remove from the property and I'm happy to share
the report um right now. share my screen or Judy. I'm not sure like we have the report open with you or not. >> Yeah, I can pull it up if um Melissa that's all right with you. Let me know. >> That's okay. Yeah. >> So, there are two trees uh which will be
like right in the wet line. Um so, uh this is a report from the arborist. There is a 12-in tree uh which is showing signs of decaying because of that uh beetle damage and there is a 18-in tree that we would like to remove because there is a decay from the root
and um Judy has seen that one uh since uh she did the site visit and I can show you on the map where those two trees are that we would like to get it removed. >> Okay. I think Judy, does this fall under your what you could t would typically do
administrative approval for? >> Yeah, generally if a tree is obviously in decline or hazardous, um staff can issue an exemption. In this case, I suggested the homeowner prepare an arborist report because we were also dealing with the violation. Um, but if
the commission is satisfied with this report as evidence that these two trees are hazardous, I can go ahead and just apply our usual um, logic. If it's a healthy tree and it's just leaning, we require replacements. Um, depending on the positioning, we require snags. Um,
so if the commission is comfortable with me applying that usual logic based on this report, I'm happy to to handle that offline. >> Yeah. No, I I'm I appreciate it. I'm glad we got the report, but I I'm comfortable with that lot following that same logic.
If anyone else has any thoughts, good with it. Okay, thank you. And one more topic. So, we have couple of bushes right in front of our front door. Uh those are lavender bushes and rose bushes. And typically in the summer fall time, we see a lot of
bees in those areas. And I'm allergic to bee. So, um I would like to get those uh bushes removed and replaced with some non-flowering bushes. And they're right in front of the house um like right in the front of the front gate.
>> Okay. So, like within um are you familiar with the area, Judy? >> Yeah. So, it's probably I mean it doesn't have a front bound on the house on this plan, but it's probably just within the 100 foot. Um, yeah, there's a couple of flowering bushes in the front
>> within like the lawn >> mulch. >> Yeah, like landscape beds. >> Yeah. >> Um, I'm okay with that, but I will open it up to commission members for additional
thoughts. I'm a little heartbroken for our pollinators who are so desperate for homes that they seem to have found a place that really works for them. But I don't I'm not going to be the voice that stands in the way. Um
but it's so hard to find places for pollinators to to have a happy life. >> I I I I hear you. I just got a uh be uh stung last year and I spent a day in the emergency room
>> and a politic reaction. So again, I don't want to go through that again. And it was a recommendation from the doctor to >> uh be away from the be as much away from the bee as possible. So that's the only reason. >> Yeah. >> So we should move those bushes to the
very back corner of your yard. That's that's honestly what I'm wondering is someplace the bees can still find it, but you can go in and out of your house without >> of an emergency room. >> I I I sorry, I would just say I I drove
him to the emergency room once. Uh at that time, I just had one little one. I'm expecting another one. So, handling two kids and he being in the emergency room, that's going to be a lot for me. So, I again, I personally love flowers. Um, but like what we saw last I think it
was summer. >> It was summer. >> Yeah, it was it was very traumatizing even for my little one to see. >> I'm sure it was. Like I said, I'm not going to stand in the way. It just >> Thank you. >> I don't want any human loss of life by any means. >> I We would have We would have wished to
move it somewhere, but again, around the house, if we could not have bees, that's going to be helpful >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Yeah, if you'd like me to include that with the um staff approval for the other two trees,
I can kind of do the same like apply replacement logic. Um and there might even be some plants we can suggest that might attract pollinators other than bees. You know, there's some that are specific to like mods, butterflies,
hummingbirds. Um, so if you'd like, I can do some more digging and suggest some that might be, you know, still equally beneficial for pollinators, but might not attract bees. Um, or if you'd like to just say replace them with
natives, um, that's fine, too. >> Yeah, that'd be great if you can do that, Judy. I think um replace with natives, but we'd encourage, you know, pollinator for other types of
pollinators. >> Yeah, I can do that. >> Yeah, I think we we would we would be okay with other type of pollinators as long as they're >> Okay, I think you're all set then. Thank you for so much. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
Okay. >> Yep. Thanks, Dave. All right. Those were all of our items. We're down to the conservation minute. Um, so >> conservation minute timekeeper >> minute.
>> Yeah. >> Joking. I'm Chad. >> Um, we'll put that as a topic for a later conservation minute. Um, but today we got trees, right, Judy? in the survey that Judy sent around. So, thank you everyone who filled that out.
I'm curious to see um what the results look like. Yeah, happy to scroll through. We got almost everybody and we have some written comments from Jim as well. So, it looked like everybody thinks we should adopt a formal tree replacement
policy, which should come as no surprise. Um, most folks wanted a combination of size and number of trees as well as the square footage of an impacted area to be considered uh when making requirements
for replacement. So, I think we can definitely explore language around using both of those um if tonight's discussion is supportive of that. uh we had at least one vote for every single um additional element. So, you know,
maybe we can dive into more of these. Um these were kind of the examples I saw other towns doing. Um so, requiring a certain replacement location, seasonal restrictions, um plant types, etc. Um happy to include everything, but maybe we can dive into that a little bit more
to make sure we're including everything that you guys want. Um, almost everybody, >> Yep. >> almost everybody is supportive of a tree mitigation fund. Um, to
I guess account for cases where full replacement can't be met. Um, we had one maybe. So, I'm happy to talk a little bit more about that. Um, I've been speaking with some other towns who have this and town council as well on what this would actually look like. Um, and then several additional ideas on
resources to provide um, as well as some additional thoughts on what the policy should include. So, happy to turn it over to Melissa and and the rest of the commission if we want to dive into any of these responses a little bit more and then I
can spend some time actually drafting the policy to be voted on. >> Okay. Um, >> Judy, who's I'm sorry, Melissa. Judy, what are those notes at the bottom there? >> So, these are writeins. Um, this was like a Please share additional thoughts.
This is a stupid AI summary. Let me get rid of that. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. I got it. Okay. >> So, these are Yeah, these are the writins. >> Um, we we can go through those, but maybe in order if you go up to the tree fund.
Um, I'm just curious what kind of information you got from other towns that had treat mitigation funds. Like, were they did they think they were helpful? Did they run into issues or um could they not find a use for the
money? >> Yeah. So, I spoke with Whand and Reading. Um, Reading had a funny case where they had actually already established a fund in the 70s. So they just had to kind of revive it um because we would need a uh town meeting vote to
set up a revolving fund for tree mitigation. Um so what they do is options they say if you remove trees you can either donate to this fund, leave a snag or
plant replacement plants. So I think they use it in kind of a funky way. It's kind of an alternative to planting whereas I if I have gotten to know this commission over the last year and a half. I feel like you guys would maybe still want the plantings and this fund could be in place for you know those
cases where there isn't space for 2 to one. Um plant as much as you can and then pay into the fund and town staff can figure out the logistics of where are we going to use those funds to plant trees on public land. Um he said it's been very helpful to
streamline permitting in reading. Um but again they kind of use it as like a you don't have to plant in that case. >> Melissa. >> Yes J. >> So in those cases Judy I mean they're not allowing any
for lack of a better word violator to not plant any replacement and just contribute to the fund are they? >> So for them it's up to four trees. So they can remove up to four trees and pay into the fund instead of planting or they can replant and not pay into this
>> four. >> So if we require 28, four of those can be um you know donated money or whatever, right? >> I think for them it's only when the request is no greater than four trees. I
think when it's greater than four trees it might trigger a permit for them. What what kind of money are they talking as a donation? >> I want to say it was like $200 or $300 is what he said. And they said they even have to revisit that because the cost of
saplings is going up. So we'd have to think about, you know, how much >> this payment would include and write that into the tree policy. >> Okay. >> And I wonder if that payment includes labor. Like I don't know what a a
sapling costs at all. I can't remember if I've ever bought one, but if that doesn't cover a crew going out to plant it and the gas for the trucks and whatever else is involved, then maybe it would have to be dramatically higher in
those towns, the the two. Is it up to the applicant to decide up to four trees >> or is that a decision that's at the conservation commission's discretion? >> Yeah, he said the applicant picks among those three options.
Yeah, I don't think I'd be a fan of that part. >> I just I I might have been the maybe. I can't remember if I was the maybe vote. Um I think that if this is a well-run machine and carefully thought out, paying in at the commission's discretion
could work well. um in my work with the planning board and zoning and stuff, payment in Lou for affordable housing has been a complete waste of time and and ultimately accomplishes nothing. And so the reason I think I might have been
the maybe is I fear that would happen with a a tree bank fund that we're collecting money and either it's not enough to to actually make it cost effective or it's too cumbersome to try to find a place where the trees make sense.
Um, if I wasn't the maybe, maybe I am now. >> You were the maybe. >> I was. Okay. >> I will say I have spoken with Carrie Reid as well and she said the DPW would be willing to help with the um like the
manual labor, like the muscle of it. >> Um, >> but I assume they're not doing that for free. I don't know if we would pay them out of the fund or if it would just be accounted for with staff time. That's a good question.
Um, but the fund can be used for anything related to tree planting. So, um, I believe the reading agent said he's used it for like development of priority sites, like plans to prioritize planting areas, um,
materials, equipment, that sort of thing. So that could be included in a discussion on how much to charge for each tree if that's um we get to a point where you want to start putting a number on. This is how much an applicant has to pay into.
Um, I'd be curious to know I've seen some towns where planning boards use tree fund, tree mitigation fund like for street trees. If there's some reason that a development, you know, because they have the requirement for, you know, if you put in a new subdivision street, you have to have a certain number of
street trees. there's a situation where it doesn't make sense to have them all. Um I I would wonder if the planning board would potentially use this fund as well if it could be used by multiple boards or anyone in town >> that has a situation where they want
somebody to pay into a tree fund. >> But Melissa, this fund is well the fund would only be in lie of somebody replacing trees that they cut down, not for permanent sites. Right. So, if we issue a permit to the planting plan,
uh, somebody can't buy out of that planting plan, right? This would only be for, I don't know, let's say violations. >> I think it would have to be it would have to be approved. We'd have to we'd have to say negotiate
with them. Okay, you c we agree you can't replant the tree. Or at least in my mind that would be the purpose is when you can't replant on your property >> then yeah >> we will allow you to pay into this
fund >> right but but not for new projects. I think the example that pops into my head is the West Main Street um house wi with the enormous number of trees being chopped down and simply not enough
room for I don't even know if we got a one to one replacement out of it, but certainly not a 2:1. >> Yeah, it's a good example. Yeah. And you could even like put into the order of conditions for a project like
that um the amount to be paid into the fund so it becomes linked to the permit. Yeah, I think you could ask I've seen um I've seen other towns where they have the consultant the peerreview consultant
come up with the cost. So basically what they would assess those trees as being worth or what you know the cost would be associated with planting the trees elsewhere as opposed to just like a flat you know
dollar per tree. I don't know. I think I think there's enough interest and questions to continue to look into this. >> Yeah, it wouldn't be until next town meeting. Unfortunately, we
just missed the deadline for submitting an article to be voted on. So, you know, we can definitely work on a tree policy in the meantime and then, you know, if the commission wants to come back with a proposal for a
revolving fund for next town meeting, I think we'll be in a good position with a formal tree policy in place. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No, I was just going to say we don't have to hold up the tree policy, >> right, >> for the fund. They're kind of two separate things. Yeah.
>> Right. And I was going to say we could certainly uh try to use that policy along the way and if there's a special town meeting in the fall, we might be able to jump on that. >> Exactly. >> Instead, but um Okay. All right. Well, thanks Judy
for doing all that. And >> yeah, if we still have a couple minutes, Judy, do you want to go through the couple open-ended responses that people had other ideas because we wouldn't have seen those just from the questions.
>> Let's see. So, max percent area of buffer zone to be disturbed. Um, so I think >> yeah, that was mine.
>> Um, I was thinking if we could work in meaning you have a buffer zone area if we have an up to maximum that we can allow. So even within the 100 or within the 50 maybe it would be different percentages. I was thinking of
properties like along the lake and even for after the fact permits if we have something that says we only allow um up to 30% of
the buffer zone to be cleared or impacted then it would give us something to point to when people come and they're like well I already did this can you just approve it under this after the fact I know why I'm going to be like, well, you got to you you have to restore it so
that there's no more than 30% that's been touched. Um, is kind of where my head was going there. I feel like we spend a lot of time trying to justify like
what's okay, how much buffer disturbance is okay or not okay in that 150. not just for, you know, obviously we have the building, you know, no disturbance or no, um, build. Um, but I feel like we talk a lot about
like what did we do on this property? What do we do on that property? Um, as far as allowing people to encroach into the 50, >> yeah, >> I could I could see some value in having some guidance, but I think we would want
to give ourselves discretion still. I don't think it want to be hard and fast. I think we need to have the ability to still view it on a case-byase basis, but maybe have a little bit of guidance out there for applicants. >> Yeah. And actually that was one of my comments is ultimately it's at our
discretion you know policy notwithstanding but there's going to be circumstances when we may um you know limit or reduce what might be the standard. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, that's true. That's why we're here. We have >> I mean when I when I think of the the planting my head goes just trees and shrubs versus anything else, right? Native grasses and stuff like that. I don't I don't lump that necessarily in
the same category. Um just hearing people talk and thinking about this a little bit more as we as we talk through it. it it whether it's percentage or something else. I think it's important if we that we differentiate you know that first 25 ft the 50 foot and the 100
foot because they they don't they all have some value but they don't all have the same value. >> Yeah. >> Right. So I think it's important that we consider you know if you if someone cuts down a bunch of trees in the 20 0 to 25 that's different than if they're cutting some trees down along the edge of the 100 foot. So I think we that's got to
somehow kind of find its way into the language. Yeah. No, I agree. It would definitely be different. Maybe you wouldn't have any in the Maybe you wouldn't have a percentage for the 100 50 to 100.
Maybe it's focused. >> So, does that look like a different replacement ratio, Matt? Depending on how close the removed tree is to the wetland. I think that's something we should at least discuss whether or not we want to differentiate ratios. But I I
mean from my perspective I see a lot more value in that 0 to25 vegetation than I do in the 50 to 100. I just think it protects the resource. It's a it's a it's a better buffer, right? The further you get away from the wetland, the less
the development or you know work in an area is going to likely to impact that resource. through the chair. >> Yes. >> My brain has enough mathing with counting snow totals lately, but um just trying to think too um I'm a little
leerary of percentages like you have a a small tiny little lake lot or you have, you know, a huge commercial property that, you know, both have buffer zones. when trying to figure out and differentiate, you know, you don't want to say, okay, you know, hard and fast,
you can, you know, cut up to or clear, you know, x percentage. You know, obviously we want to keep the percentages as minimal as possible. I'd be a little afraid to have, you know, typically we do treat commercial versus residential quite different, but just to
be cautious of uh, you know, somebody like, oh, hey, look, I can clear even more than I was expecting because of this percentage kind of thing. Yeah, it's good for >> Yeah, you'd have you'd have to look at it similar to how we look at riverfront area, right? A square footage or a
percentage, whichever is greater situation. >> Yeah. Right. We wouldn't want them to clear it all in one path down to the water versus, you know, keeping that linear
along the lakefront or something. Okay. >> I I mean I think this is a great start to the discussion. Obviously, this is going to take some time to >> nail down the details and pull language together that you know accomplishes
everyone's goals. Yeah, I think I saw something about this on I think this was one in the MACC web page under climate resilience like add-ons to
rags maybe Judy. Um so maybe we can just pull a couple examples to keep the conversation going on that one. >> Yeah, if it would be helpful now knowing what folks want to see. I can put
together almost like a template um and then you know bring it back and almost like mad libs have you guys fill in the blanks on you know this is what we want for ratios this is actually too much um I can try to work on you know maybe instead of like a percentage of
disturbance it could be expected percentage of restoration um for those lakefront properties if that you know gets us away from like an allowable amount of disturbance it's more like this is what you're expecting to provide if you're proposing work in,
you know, if it's riverfront or um lakefront. So, maybe I'll just, you know, throw everything into a template and then we can work on tweaking it to exactly what you guys want to see. If that sounds helpful. >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
>> It does. That'll work. Yeah, I think I think maybe first step if you can pull together some framework >> for what so you're not wasting a bunch of time writing up language for something that maybe doesn't fit in there nicely and then we can look at the framework of it kind of take the next
step dig into a little deeper with some detail. It may be worth considering to the lakefront point, right? It may you may have multiple sections, right? You may have a lake lakefront properties section of the planting guidance and then inland properties or, you know,
riverfront, lakefront. You might be able to break it up into into different categories. >> Yeah. >> Yep. We got to make sure to get Ed's thoughts. >> Yeah, definitely Ed.
>> Yeah, I can try to come ideally at the next meeting with some kind of template. Um, if it ends up taking longer, might push it back, but I think it'd be great to get this policy like wrapped up into the regs updates we're working on. So, I will do my best to get that in front of
you guys as soon as possible. >> Okay, >> great. Hey, Aside from that, Ed's not here. What are we going to nominate him for today? >> What responsibilities are we going to give him that he wasn't expecting?
>> I don't know. >> All right, we'll reserve the right to to nominate him later. I think you need to come prepared for the next time Ed's not in attendance with a suggestion. >> Exactly. >> I know. It's not often Ed's
>> Maybe he can be the >> attendance holders. >> How about he we make him the commission beekeeper? >> Beekeeper. Is that what you said? >> Yeah. Beekeeper. Beekeeper. >> Beekeeper. Yeah, >> I can see I could see him doing that
without there in a beuit. >> Oh, yeah, >> for sure. Out there with the fences. Yeah, >> in the smoker. Yeah. >> Mhm. Actually, I saw honey made I thought of
Ed. I got to get him some from what is it? The Boston Honey Company. They had honey made from invasive species. >> We saw He's got Yeah, he's got some that was made with with Japanese notweed apparently. >> Does he? Okay. Yeah, >> according to the label, which I think he
got in Hollison. He has not opened it up and tried it yet. But, uh, I certainly, you know, I think that's a great idea. Put a hive right in the middle of the of the knotweed. I don't know how you control them. How do you control a bee from just going to one plant or another?
I don't think you can. Can you? >> I don't know. That's the seal of the clover. Yeah. Okay. Well, you can be you can be the guy exploring how many producers of notweed honey there is.
>> Sounds good. >> All right. Can I get a Does anyone have anything else? >> Uh, yeah. Real quick, actually. Um, I got a notification from the farmers market organizers that they are compiling lists of folks who want a
table this year. Um, we were very ambitious last year and I know there were some mixed thoughts on, you know, and not a lot of Hopington residents, you know, whether folks found it valuable, but maybe if there's interest, we can do maybe one in the early season and then do family day again in the
fall. Um, or we can just focus on family day this year because that was I feel super successful. So, um, just throw that out there. If there's interest in the farmers market again this year, I'm happy to reach out and get us a slot, but if not, that's totally fine. >> Okay.
Um, my personal opinion, I definitely think Family Day was worth it. I thought that was a pretty good audience. I do feel like I remember at family day at least one or two people saying, "Oh, you guys were at the farmers market." So, I was like, "Oh, well, >> yeah, >> I guess we were seen."
If if you book a slot, is it is it for like the whole season or just >> No, we can pick just however many days we want. Um, so last time I just asked for the first Sunday of every month. We could do like the first Sunday or >> Oh, that's right. Okay.
>> Yeah, however many you want. >> Well, and I don't mind hanging out there on a Sunday, so you decide. help me out whenever we're there, >> God willing.
>> Um, >> and we can think on it some more. >> Yeah, let's let's think on it. And also maybe think about if there's any other opportunities that we would want to be at. There was I can't remember what it is right now. I
remember at some point last year being like, "Oh, we should probably set up a table at this. I don't remember what it was, but hopefully I'll think about it. I'll think of it." Um, but there's so much in town. I feel like Oh, was it Poly Arts maybe? I don't
know. Um there's a few events >> as about family fling, but I was told that was um maybe not so much for tableabling and more so for like activities. Um but yeah, if anybody has ideas, definitely
send them my way. >> Okay. >> If we did polyarts, we could also sell Ed's notweed honey and put the money into the tree fund. >> Oh, I love it. >> Yeah, good idea. >> Thank you. really tying it all together, Ted.
>> Thank you. That's what I do. >> Can we put a PIB label on the jar? >> Of course, with Ed's face in the middle instead of whatever artwork we have. >> There you go. We'll have Ed get some bulk prices on the notweed honey. Some
wholesale prices. >> All right. >> Uh, with that, can I get a motion to during the meeting? >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Oh, reluctantly second. Oh, no. Give it the map. >> All right. All in favor? Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Peggy. >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> All right. Thank you all. >> See you all in a couple weeks. >> Have a good night everyone. >> Good night everybody. Be well.