[Music] All right, welcome everyone. Um, we are here at the Conservation Commission meeting on Tuesday, October 14th at the police station um to start the meeting off. There is nobody here, but I am going to
question that none of the commissioners are recording. >> So, we're being streamed live and recorded by Lake Camp. We're going to go around the room and introduce ourselves. >> Mark, please. >> I'm Mark Minton. I'm the conservation
agent. >> Job, Mark Knox, >> Michelle Bushar, >> William. >> Thank you everyone. So the first item we have on our agenda is four court circle. Um this is a new hearing to remove and
replace a septic tank and piping. I'm going to um officially read the posting so that we can open the hearing and then we will discuss the need to um have a continuence the next meeting. So, um, the town of Lakeville Conservation
Commission had a notice of a public hearing. Pursuant to MGL chapter 131, section 40 of the Wetlands Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m.
at the Lakeville Police Station located at 323 Bedford Street on a notice in of intent by the applicants. The applicants, Richard and Deborah Hansen, are proposed to remove a and replace septic tank and some associated pipes
and they are located within the 100 foot buffer zone of Long Pond as part of the complete removal and replacement of the septic system and to construct a multi-tiered patio as part of that project. The location of the project is
four court circle map number 56 block number four lot number 23. So, um I would ask for a motion to open the hearing on this matter. >> Second. >> All in favor of opening the hearing.
>> I >> I >> So um uh one thing to point out um as our vice chair is not here and he usually has the green cards um to document the responses as far as the notice of a butters um we do not have
that but I know that all of those are in place. However, has not yet been a D number assigned to this project. And as we've discussed on priv prior meetings um and agreed that since a D number is
needed to move forward on any project and they oftent times give their input and feedback at the state level, we are going to go ahead and seek to continue this to the next conservation hearing so that a D number can be applied so that
all of the commissioners can review any input on behalf of Um and then we'll take it up from there. So I'm looking for a motion to continue this hearing um until >> noted. But could I ask a question
related to the D action regarding this? >> Yes. Before we take the motion absolutely >> so when you said they give feedback that's oftentimes Lori gives a print out of what's from the portal >> that would be their feedback that we have not received yet. That's
specifically what you're regarding. >> Exactly. They oftent times what will happen when we um when an applicant files with us and they file with D, they will give their thoughts on how the state views the project >> and I kind of asked that just like you said forformational purposes. We like to
educate and I >> Yeah, >> I thought that's what it was and I just wanted to make sure >> exactly that we have um historically not necessarily always waited for the D number but oftent times after the fact we get information that is incredibly
valuable from D and knowing what their stance is so that if an applicant thinks differently from what the conservation commission does they can >> or we may have acted differently having that information. >> Exactly. Yeah. So it's best since they
actually can't take action even if we approve a project they still need a D number before they can contract and move forward. We would be wasting their time um having them show up tonight before D um >> they actually need their order of
conditions >> which is many days later than our approval. >> Exactly. >> To really move on. >> So what I'm trying to do is um with this whole process we've discussed in the last several meetings of waiting for the D number assignment is streamline the
process and better educate the applicants and make sure that we have better information going into a decision as well. >> So >> thank you. No, I was just pointing it towards you. >> Oh, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh,
can I make a motion to u continue this till October 28th, 2025 here at the police station at 6:30 p.m.? >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed?
>> All right. Nope. >> So, we will uh reconvene and hear for court circle on October 28th here at the police station at 6:30 p.m. So, next up on the agenda is the discussion of the wetland bylaw. We at
this point, just to clarify, this is an open discussion. We have had this discussion on several occasions for the last year plus. Um, we are not currently
on the warrant for this fall town meeting. So, we would be looking to discuss the bylaw for application in the Springtown meeting. So, at this point, this is just open for discussion. >> May I >> please? So,
I see a a divide and there have been previous attempts to pass a wetland bylaw at town meeting and it's been defeated at least twice if I'm not >> incorrect. >> Um,
and there's also some support now on the board. The divide that I see is can I use you as an example? John would be in favor of adopting mass D regulations solely just
so that my understanding is the building commissioner would have teeth in finding and enforcement at the local level. That's it. No changes. And I think that everybody could get on board or should be on board with that.
However, when you say 25 foot no touch, the Long Pond Association comes out in droves and we've just wasted money paying somebody to review it with taxpayer money because it's not going to pass. So, I don't care how it goes, but
I think there's going to be a lot of opposition to 25 foot no touch. Uh, if you want a wetland bylaw, I think it has to be baby steps and just ratify the D regulations if we want to do that. And
I think that we're wasting our time if we can't agree on that. I I and I I think it's in the best interest of us that the the use of taxpayer money to have counsel or for us to try and retain funds to pay somebody else to draft
something if it's not going to pass. Uh I'd love to hear anybody else's feedback and tell me I'm wrong. >> All right. So, is there in between ground? What is it the people who are on a pond opposed to a 25 foot no touch? So, if I
>> sure >> may since I'm the acting sheriff tonight, um, historically we have overreached on our attempts to have a wetland bylaw and that has worked against us. And what in my opinion,
which is very similar to Commissioner Kn's opinion, I believe, is that we sort of need to take a crawl, walk, run approach to to um a bylaw in town for the wetlands protection. The
imperative thing is to adopt and ratify the state wetlands protection act because if we do not do that in town, we can't find individuals and then we end up in a situation where we have been I
have to call somebody out 160 federal or 160 Bedford Street. We can't we can issue a cease and desist. We can send D but we can't find them because we have not actually ratified the
protection in um the protection act of the state at the local level. So we have no teeth ourselves until we do something. So that should be the core and that should be our first mission is to say we accept and as a town are
abiding by Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Anything above and beyond that is something that we should carefully approach, but it it should be in in my opinion and based on also
talking to folks how they would vote and um it should be a very simple step. And when we start talking about the historical concept of the 25 foot no touch, it's very situationally
um dependent and it was supposed to be on new construction only under a really subset of restrictions. But I think that we need to put that off or else we'll never get the core violent the core
wetland protection act adopted in in town. Um So, >> and so may I >> please >> I think to to speak to your question, Bill, um where do we meet in the middle >> or or actually I don't even really know
what the law would be as far as 25 foot no touch >> there is well that's that would be tried to be added in >> is what uh member Yates would like to do is add that in so no project could go
within 25 ft of the buffer zone rather than right up to right now you can go right up to but you still have to follow D guidelines and if any work you're doing is within 100 feet you are in the jurisdiction of conservation commission
and D's wetlands protection act uh and and I'm getting ahead but I'm trying to I think speak to what you asked about what's the middle ground if we did ratify and be we had a bylaw that was just simp simply the wetland Protection
Act and we wanted to go back to town meeting and we wanted to create a buffer zone that we said let's just say it's 10 ft let's meet in the middle zero and 25 let's say it's 12 and a half I don't care but define new construction I think
that's the key is a definition which will not get done unless we force that on that round two and new construction I think again to get it to pass for all the people live on a lake in Lakeville, lots of them to to be on board with
that, I think you still need to create an exemption that says if you have a lawn and you want to put a patio within the buffer zone, you are grandfathered. You still need to file, but you will not be denied because it's not new construction. Your home was there.
You're not over the lot coverage. You need to create clear uh delineation between new construction that is a developer coming in >> put in a brand new house >> clearing land. Yeah. and and even at
that um again we're a year from now in this discussion but I'm just >> I think it's informational to be able to say all right uh there's a a guy that does a lot of work in the Clark Shores neighborhood and he buys up all these
little lots that have they're all pre-existing non-conforming and he tears down five houses and he makes one I I think that's an exemption. >> Yeah. >> You know, he's dealing with small odds. He's making a big improvement. He was already within the buffer zone, so to
speak. Even though he's doing a little bit major build, he's making all better and all was >> overall an improvement to what it was before. >> Yeah. Yeah. So again, I think that the definition of new construction really
needs to be clearly defined as undeveloped land becoming developed >> and takes a it has a larger footprint than previous had like like you said there's five lots
going to one. >> Well, he's buying five 8,000 square foot lots. >> Yeah. in this one going in there compared to having buying a small lot and put a larger house that was in there before, >> right? >> A larger house that was originally in that lot. I don't think she'd be able to do that.
>> The totality of the situation and the circumstances should also come into play. It should not be a black and white because they're going to be grayers. There was there was always a summer cottage and now it's a threeyear round.
Three season a season or all year round and are upgrading the septic and to do that we have to do xyz. So we have to be open to what it takes to be you know
>> and what you don't want this town >> what you don't want to create is the environment of cuz this how it was when before I was on the board uh me and my wife had a small cottage in town and
had some problems with the process and it made me want to get involved but everybody Everybody in the neighborhood where we were had the mindset of screw that just do it on the weekend. It's not even worth filing. They just say no.
And you don't want to be that because then they're going to just do it on the weekend. >> Yeah. >> As is, you know, a lot of those smaller lots and some of those neighborhoods on the pond, they really are already dancing around, which is not us, but it's building department regulations for
lot coverage because we only allow 25% lot coverage. So when you got a 8,000 foot lot, it's got a 2,000 foot house, a driveway, and a patio, you're over. >> Yeah. >> Lakeville has a very unique position in
the Commonwealth that we provide more fresh drinking water to any resident, any count of residents than any other location across the Commonwealth. And we have to balance protecting our vital
resources with the rights of property owners and falling within the line. And I think that that fine balance, Mark, you just, you know, lined it out clearly is don't be afraid to come to us with questions. We don't want to get
weaponized, which we saw last year, and I know Commissioner Blank can speak to that. We've had neighbors say, "Oh, they did that without telling you. We want people to come to us and find the best way to do something and protect the environment as well as, you know, they
own their property. It's the right to build on it. So, how to do it in the best way moving forward." And I think that's what our bylaw should speak to is how to >> especially with intent when we put the intent in the front of that. >> I do believe in grandfathering things in if you have property been there for a
long time. If your family has lived here and owned property since 1853, then >> you probably have a little more rights than somebody who bought property two years ago. >> I don't agree.
>> You have the same property rights that everybody else. >> I'm not in favor of increased government >> um authority. I think that that, you know, by putting passing a bylaw that that um
reiterates the the um >> state bylaw, >> yeah, is is enough. That law is already on the books. That's just saying that we have the right to enforce it, which we should have. I'm good with that. Anything beyond that, I wouldn't be in
favor of any. But that's my personal Okay. >> And I think a lot of a lot of people soon as they hear the word bylaw >> Yeah. >> get skeptical. >> That's why you're not going to pass one that's going to be restrictive. >> Yeah. But once we agree to adopt the
state law >> the power that gives us the power of D. We might not. But >> so what are the positives of a 25 foot no construction thing then? >> It's a good question.
I would I would say to to I like situationally dependent because we do know generally the closer you get to the resource there's a connection between the upland and the resource but there's
a lot of factors that determine what's the slope you know what's the resource that we're talking about is it you know a pond or is it a you know forested red maple swamp so I think situationally
dependent. I I mean I think intuitively and there there's stuff in >> in the act >> we have a law that already protects >> Yeah. I I'm not I'm I'm I'm >> and we can require you know that people install things
temporarily to protect the environment until >> the whole project is settled >> and and then I and I I I agree with the incremental approach. I I both Michelle and Mark I I'm taking notes just
thinking I've I've worked in enforcement. I did a lot of enforcement, regulatory enforcement working with Coast Guard and and it's more about building rapport with people. You want people to come to you. You don't want people saying
they're just going to say no, take your chances, cut that stuff down. It's going to happen. and and we still have a law, you know, that we've got to enforce. But at the same time, when you can work with people has been my experience that you
you want people to come in and go, "Hey, it wasn't that bad." We got the got the permit >> and that's what it says on the like um like what Lori gave me for the MACC. >> It says to adopt the state and then from the state town builds from there. That's the incremental
>> the reason for that is the customers can go back and pull up a wetland book and understand what it can do and we can also guide them through it >> to make comfortable but it does say that it says it right on it then from there
>> and I and I think um you know to be able to enforce the law whether it's Nate the building inspector doing that or not um It's tough to get this DP engaged because they've got a lot of stuff to
do. Yeah. Whatever it is, it would be nice to have it. Well, >> D doesn't just do wetlands either. >> Oh, yeah. >> That's the right asbestous and other health issues, all that stuff. And and that's that's the crux is and where we're running into and to highlight the
importance of adopting Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act is that D is so overburdened. If we don't adopt it, we are in a situation where we've been in the past where we have really no
enforcement authority except don't do it again. No, please don't do it again. I mean it. Please don't do it again. >> Yeah. >> Um not adding on to it. I I agree with you um John that you know whether you've owned the the property for 150 years or
you own it now and that's why I really want that I want to keep the gray area. I want it to be a discussion not a black and white of well I'm at 26 feet what really is going to happen at 26 feet that wasn't going to happen at at 24
feet and we've seen cases if they're 20 20 feet and they're on the same plane but they're 20 feet and the builder is 100 feet ups slope of a current resident, that's a completely different situation. And that's really where I see
our conversations continuing to evolve as we move forward. >> And and I could actually see, I'm not advocating it, but following that logic, you could see where if it's estimated habitat for endangered species, maybe it's less than 25 feet. I I I mean, I
don't want to put Again, it's situationally and that's >> Yeah, I think it I think you look at what the science tells you. You look what what the reg say. I'm not ad I'm just I'm that's a little devil's advocate. I would say again it's it's situational. It's slope. It's what the
resource you're talking about. It's I'm sensitive to people own their property. This is America. You know, I've said that to, you know, it's it's you don't want regulatory takings. I shouldn't even
>> say that, but >> yeah, we're not going to take anybody's >> Well, well, there's a there's a gray there's a gray area >> at 25 no touch is really it's a taking of your property rights >> with that with%. >> Yeah. And if you read some of the um the
judicial the legal opinions on this issue, um you got to have a basis for it. There has to be some, you know, benefit to the resource. You can't just say >> there's a line. >> Don't cross it. >> Yeah, >> we drew it because we have this stick
this long. >> And I I like MACC's website because they have their whole case law thing. you can go in there and find cases that there's cases about this type of thing. So, you have to have a there has to be a basis. It can't like
you just said, Mark, it can't just be this line. It's a situational and but again, it does intuitively the closer you get to a resource generally, but that's just generally. So, this is a a
heated emotional debate as we've we have seen, but it's not going to come up again until >> for who? >> This gonna come up, but it's not going to come up until >> Nobody seems that emotional here. >> No. What are >> you talking about? >> No, this is a great conversation as far as I'm concerned. Um,
but I think and I think it is something that we have to continue to discuss and we should put on the agenda moving forward before it goes on a town warrant next year. I think we should have the same discussion we had tonight
regarding my suggestion would be to take a few votes and see where all the members are as far as can we move forward with this when we raise to this level can we and maybe the hands go down a little bit and try to sell that if we're going to all
do D regulations only we all agree that's where we should stick and I I think that should be you know with the balance of the board That's where we should go. And and the reason I say that is to not waste a lot of time and efforts and council reviewing stuff that
isn't going to happen because if only three members are behind it and three are opposed and one's abstaining, doesn't look good at town meeting. >> Agreed. >> And that's the spring. So, we have a good chunk of time to maybe at one of
our lighter meetings or we schedule a special meeting to let folks come in and learn about if we adopted the state wetlands protection act. What does that mean? We're not talking anything else. >> Well, that you'd have to do some outreach if you're trying to pass any
>> 100%. So, >> so we start with that gradual and let's open open it up and say people come here ask questions or we'll host a special that is just talk about the wetlands protection act and what does it mean to you if we adopt it not going anything beyond what's already in D's back
pocket. >> Yeah. And if we're going to do that, I think one of the points that will be a point of contention for the people on that side of the table will be we've brought up the finding and sort of clarify that that's because somebody filled in weapons. It's a blatant
disregard for the resource area. It's not because you walked this way, you know, and give a definition to that. be prepared for those answers of what are the they're going to feel like that's uh an enforcement threat against them if they do something wrong in their yard.
So, we need to be prepared to diffuse that to make sure that that's not how it's perceived, nor is that the intent. >> I think that's a great idea. We can we can even show, you know, historically we've had after actions. This work was done 25 years ago. We're not finding
anybody. We're just going ahead and hearing it and closing it out. So, show that like you acted in good faith. We're accepting of that. >> I think we probably want to be cautious about uh >> not just >> naming specific locations or
>> Yeah. But >> but using the general >> generaliz and into and and to the education and outreach piece, it's not just about enforcement. So defining what it the message we want because you want the drinking water. You want water to be
safe to drink. You want, you know, >> waterfall. >> Yeah. You You don't want to be flooded because we filled in, you know, a huge chunk of forested or whatever. You know, we that's one of the reasons we're protecting wetlands. So,
>> I mean, we could focus beyond just the the hammer and the, you know, the line. Like, again, it's already been said, but there's a lot of good reasons to protect wetlands that, you know, benefits everybody. Not, you know, we're not here
to shut people down. >> Any other anything else? Uh, Bill, >> do we have any idea whether local surrounding towns have if they've adopted D or they have their own? >> Um, we know Wearham because of >> We know Wearham and Middle and uh a
couple other but um what we can try to do is what I will work on doing for the next meeting on the 28th is give a list of the surrounding communities and perhaps provide a whole a table so Mark and I can work on that if you're willing to. I'm happy to take that on who across
the Commonwealth has actually established. >> It should be pointed out nobody has the unique characteristics that we have um in town. Um so it is more important for us to adopt one, but we do know that
Middleboro whom we are partnered with in mutual aid in a number of other circumstances does has adopted it. We has >> We has adopted even more They have so much closer. >> Yes. Where he is has a number of
additions in >> on top of but we can work on creating basically a grid of who has adopted mass and then what they added on. >> Yeah. I think the public would be interested like oh this all the towns around us have it. You know maybe it's a reason why it's good. It's or no one has
it maybe reason why they shouldn't have it. >> Yeah I think that's something that we can definitely work on growing in the next couple of meetings. Anything else under wetland bylaw? >> Okay. >> No, that's good. >> Moving on to the meeting minutes. We
have before us the meeting minutes of July 22nd of 2025. So, I would look for a motion to accept the meetings meeting minutes as they have been presented to us. >> So, moved. Do >> I have a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? I I >> I abstain. >> He wasn't here. Thank you. Um so moving on um we are officially now in the new um business section. This is
not listed on the agenda. Um but I would like to discuss that in the future. Uh new business just as a numbered item on be listed on the agenda. >> Is that the same as anticipated? >> Unanticipated. It could be anticipated
but it's new. It's something new business is anything that we haven't officially discussed on the record before. So, this is open for any of the commission members or any of the public to bring up. So, anybody who has new business that they would like to bring
to the commission when we move past new business to old business, it will be something we have discussed before and we just keep returning to. Uh unlike the wetland bylaw is a little bit of old business, but there's always a potential on that. So we make it a standing agenda
item at this point. >> So can we loop adding new business and old business into one motion? >> That is yeah my request actually to just put it on a an agenda item. >> So I'll make the motion to add new business and old business as additional
agenda items going forward. I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Okay. Now, does anybody have any new agenda, new business items? I have one. See, nobody else does. It
has been um having gotten the add new business, >> uh it has been brought to several individuals um attention that when the select board makes new postings
um new uh appointments, should I say, to a commission. And there's >> Sorry, I looked up the wetland town by who adopted Lakeville's in the middle with everybody around >> has one but us.
>> Yeah, I'll show everybody. Sorry. Sorry for the chuckle. >> Were you talking about reorganizing the board? >> You back with us? I was in fact. Yeah. Thank you for >> You didn't do that in July when you were supposed to. >> We haven't yet.
Um, so we redid it last uh we they redid it uh last summer when it needed to be done because >> because your father stepped down >> because yeah, my father stepped down as chairman and so there was a reorg. There is supposed to be it's generally a
one-year when there are annual appointments or reappointments. Um there was a reorg when my father stepped down as chairman but he was still on the board. Um, >> was that 2024? >> It was. Yeah, it was the summer of 2024. So, over 2025, we were a at the annual
mark. Um, we had a couple of I was an off cycle appointment um in the winter because there were vacancies. Um, there have been a number of appointments since then um and even more recently. So, it has been brought up to
numerous individuals that I'm aware of and then was brought to my attention as well and questioned. Why didn't we like the other boards um reorganiz reorganize sorry >> so the only ask that I have is that um
this is an important decision that should be discussed and I would like to put it on the agenda for the next meeting for us to discuss because our chairman and our vice chairman are not here today so I don't think that we can properly discuss or vote on a reorg but
I would >> so moved So, Commissioner, >> your your motion was to put it on the agenda for the for reorganization on the October 28th meeting, correct? >> Under new business. Correct. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to discuss reorganization, basically a reappointing of a um chairman and a vice chair on the next conservation commission, which will be held October 28th at 6:30 p.m. here at
the police station. We are open for discussion at this time. >> So, what do you mean reorganization? Do you mean have everyone voted at the same time? It like say next July it won't get voted in for so much time. if anyone's interested in becoming the chairperson or the vice chair
>> that there should be a turnover in that position. >> Okay. All right. those positions like so I'll go back to prior to the select board being a five member board when it was a three member board that what they did was they adhered well
to the select board member in their third year became the chair >> in the second year of their term they became the vice chair so in your first year you weren't you had just some committee involvement with overseeing
school committee or whatever uh depending on every board is supposed to reorganize after election or appointment >> right now it's part of par parliamentary procedure just so everybody understands
if you have a president and a vice president you have a president and vice president and two or three >> um vice presidents after that the vice president will initially move up the third, we'll move to the second, we'll move to the first. There's part of the
um progression process. But as all of that, there is when there is a term expired, whether somebody is reappointed or not, you re you as a board meet and vote on who should be the chair of that board.
And that's in essence parliamentary procedure. you can reappoint the same chair and you can have the same chair and you can have the same vice chair. Um, in our case, we don't have any officers other than chair and vice chair. So, just to be clear, you can
have the same chair, but the idea is to let the new members have a say in who is leading their future. Um, so I just it has been brought to our attention and it it's fitting we haven't really discussed
it because of the events of the last six months and all the changes and the emotions I will confess to that that have gone into the the board. But the issue has been brought a couple of times. And so now that
it is only fair to the three of you as the newest members to have a say in who leaves us moving into the future. Okay. >> So all we're asking today is given that >> um we have a quorum but we don't have our chair and our vice chair who have a lot of legacy knowledge. We don't want
to vote on it today. So I would like to vote to move it to the next meeting. So we have a first >> and a second >> and a second. Do we have any further discussion? >> Nope. questions about the procedure. >> Okay. So, all in favor and in the
interest of the procedure and uh the requests roll call vote please. >> Blank I. >> Knox I. >> Bushard I. >> Matthew I. >> Williamos. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you all. So we are just going to put on the agenda for the next
meeting um that we are going to discuss and vote on reorganization. We don't have any old business on the agenda unless anybody else has old business which is has been previously discussed in the open meeting just in case.
>> Um I'm going to go ahead please. >> Just was kind of thinking with the permanently placing old business new business on the agendas which is great. Um Mark's going to give us kind of like the rundown of what's been going on behind
the scenes, so to speak, in that. Um it's a good time for everybody to ask any updates on X or Y. Sometimes we forget about things happen. >> Yeah, I believe that new that the agent
report should be a standing item under new business. Um, but I is that what you're kind of going? >> Yeah, but I'm not trying to steer a mark in a direction as much as sometimes three or four meetings later, we'll just be like somebody like whatever happened.
I think John's about to do that, >> right? >> May I go >> captain's way >> days? So, Captain's Way was a >> constructive denial. >> Yeah. We couldn't come to a resolution.
>> Exactly. came out >> they and they have 75 days to respond is how I believe that was left and Mark could give a better that's that's exactly right. We're waiting to >> for for a moment for everybody what I want to for what it's worth in my place
I'm trying to anybody I've learned a lot of people are watching. So um captain's way we had a vote to approve which did not pass. We had a vote to deny which did not pass. So the applicant chose to
go to D to appeal. So it was a constructive deny right? we couldn't come to a an affirmative decision. So the applicant went to D for approval to uh conduct their building. So that is the discussion that we're having right now.
>> This is applicable to that 25 foot no touch. >> Yes. >> The closest they were 13 >> ft >> from the wetland line and that's some members of this board were enforcing the
25 foot no touch rule that this this board has I guess multiple times in the past enforced. Um, and I and my my reasoning behind voting against that was
I thought that we had um a lot of assurances from the engineers um for for things that were they were going to do to protect the wetland in addition to the they applied for they
had agreed to do something beyond um which I'm not sure if D approves it will happen. So I I want to monitor that and see how that turns out. >> Agreed. They were well within the state
regulations when they applied to us and it was a personal feeling about the 25 foot touch no touch on new development but they were going over and above in their in their application to mitigate the circumstances.
>> Uh I don't remember when the clock started on that from the day of their site visit. >> Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. The site visit. >> Uh >> oh when D came out. It did come up >> 22nd. Okay. September 22nd. Sound right? >> Yeah.
>> Or is that That's That's it was passed. >> It was Monday. >> Yeah, I think you're right. It was on Monday. >> Um >> Yeah, it was Monday. >> From that time they said 75 days to respond. >> Don't know if that'll be our response is
we need more information or but we I do think that they were going to keep us informed. >> Yeah. I mean, I would I just want to see how it goes. >> Um, >> God, I'm drawing a blank on um the DP
Jacquin Sidman. Is that who >> it sounds right? >> She she sent an email. I think it went out um if I'll double check, but I think um I'll send it to everyone. It was basically thanks for meeting. Uh if you
have any additional information, comments, feel free to contact me. be in touch. If you didn't see that email, I'll forward it to you, but it was I didn't think we had any more information, but I'll forwarded it on I
I can't remember the distribution. >> So, we're still waiting on them basically. >> Yeah, we'll be waiting a while. 75 days from September >> if they get in 75 days. >> Yeah, they could be longer than that. >> Yeah, >> it'll be really interesting to see what they say. But when
the initial filing went through and they got their D number, D had no input. They had no um response, which is usually telling if they don't say something at the initial filing. They're not usually
arguing about this development. >> I'll speak I'll speak to that because I reached out to D about that. Did you not have any comments? And I spoke to the person uh at D who actually reviewed that one and they said, "Yeah, no,
typically um they attributed it to timing and that things come in and they're swamp." So it may or may not be. It is kind of telling there was no comments on there. I agree. But it's it's on face it is, but it's not always
that there was no >> Yeah. Under a further review they made. >> Yeah, that's all I'm thinking. But >> well, we'll look forward to your updates on that under old business at the next meeting if there are any from D. >> Yeah, I can reach out and I'll um Well,
it's a little early. Yeah. 75 days, but I'll forward everyone just in case you didn't see this. >> Don't bug them. >> It's way too soon. >> Yeah, don't bug them. Just watch watch and let us know. >> Yeah, I like I had said on one of those meetings right after that, I think it's
just a good teachable moment for us to see how the state reacts to that and what they do it. I think that'll be very informative and educational. So that's really why I would want to know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Consider them the pros. So >> yeah.
>> So >> does anybody else have any old business that you would like to revisit at this time? >> Maybe. Is it just one meeting in November? >> It is >> in one meeting in December. Correct. >> So November there is one meeting. It's a Thursday.
>> It's a Thursday and that was because of the holidays. >> Um the we adjusted with the holidays and that has been posted accordingly on the town site. >> Um and it is I think you were right. Did you say November 13th?
>> November 13th. >> Yeah. So it'll be and that's a Wednesday. >> Thursday. >> Thursday. >> Yeah. >> It's an off date. It'll be November 13th at 6:30. >> It be a quick one. Paige is playing the Jets that night. and green have >> I will speak to the chair person and ask
her to make it a quick one. >> Jesus. >> So if you ask questions and you drag it along, it's on you, Bill. >> Okay. >> Green have 11. >> Yes. >> Wow. >> So um we are going to share this map across and >> that should be part of
>> part of our publishing. Yeah. Um how many towns across the Commonwealth have a wetland bylaw? And again that could just mean that they adopted the state. the state >> the state bylaw and I think it's a great place to start again that crawl walk run
model because we have seen several of us it get defeated time and again by being by overreaching >> um so okay so no other business sir sir >> motion to adjurnn
>> second I ask one thing real quick >> discussion about adjourning >> is it about adjourning That's fine. It's fine. No, it's okay. That's fine, John. That's fine. >> I'm not. >> Please. >> No, I just So, the MACC conference is
coming up uh Saturday the 25th in Devon. And I know Lori sent out an email, but if you want to register, my understanding is you'll get reimbursed, pay for it. I find them helpful. I've been to two of them now, but they also have them online. which are often times
more convenient, but I don't know if anybody's planning to go. I'm going to go. >> Yeah. So, it's hard to carpool. I'd suggest that, but you know, sometimes I'm headed back into Boston or wherever. So, >> and you don't want to ride with me
anyhow. >> I don't know. Well, we'll see you there probably. >> Okay. Anything else? So, we have a a motion and a second to adjurnn. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> All right. Good night, everybody. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Lake Kim.