Hey there, >> Joe. Can you hear us now? >> Yeah, we can. >> Okay, great. All right, we're going to start. Um, hello everyone. This is uh Chuck Terrone, readings conservation administrator. This meeting will be
conducted in person and remote format consistent with chapter 2 of the act 2023 which further extends certain COVID 19 measures regarding remote participation in public meeting until June 30th 2027.
Please note not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items listed may not be brought up uh for discussion to the extent permitted by law. This uh agenda includes those matters which can be reasonably anticipated to be
discussed at tonight's meeting. Please note that uh this meeting is being recorded. All materials are available at the conservation commission page uh and Brian Bo is the commission chair and he will facilitate tonight's meeting. Please note that there will be a public
comment period at the end of each hearing and uh each vote taken at tonight's meeting will be conducted by RO Paul. Brian, can you please uh review agenda and um do a roll call vote?
>> Okay. Well, with the order of 703, I'll do attendance first. This is the order that we will vote in. Uh Walter Walter Talbot, member present. Sure. >> Recording in progress. >> Yeah.
>> Tim Michelle, member present. >> Rick, member present. >> Martha Moore, vice chair, present. Prime chair present and Joe for questions have you come in somewhere between these two. >> No worries. Joseph Flurry, associate
member present. >> Okay. Review the uh agenda. Uh first we have continuation on public hearing on notice of intent for 43 Arcadia. That will be continued as times. That's it for our hearings
tonight and then we have a couple of discussion slashgov vote items minor plan change of family circle and an update on tree removal at Mera cabin and then some old new business uh the usual conservation staff DPW meeting update
violation notices administrative report minutes for approval and that's it we should be done by 7:20 um okay Uh let's get right to it. Um so as I said 43 Acadia
um for the applicant's request uh we need to get a motion for continuation. What date did they want? >> It's uh April 8th. Um, so can I have a motion to continue 43 Arcadia to >> I'll make a motion to move uh
uh 43 >> 43 Arcadia after to April 8 for the uh applicant's request. >> Walter Talbert seconds. Walter Talics in favor in >> favor in favor in favor. >> Martha Mo in favor.
>> Rhybo in favor. Okay. Uh, next is a minor plan change at 23 Family Circle. Chuck, do you want to walk us through that? >> Uh, I believe uh we have people here for that. Let me get
this out of the way. Start reading here. I think Lisa Gallow's here for that. Um, >> and uh, Andrea. So, let me uh just bring them out. >> Is this the ADU at the end of the culdeac? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Across town for us. Are you guys
able to turn on your uh screens? >> And it's Lisa also, right? >> Uh yeah, I this is Andrea. I can speak on behalf of MBA and the homeowner tonight. >> Okay. >> But yes, Lisa is also a representative.
>> Sure. So, um next question. Do you do you want to uh put the changes on the screen or do you want me to do that? >> Sure. Let me see. Um So this is the process where we do the
three steps. Is it a minor plan change? Is it amendment? Or is it a new conditions? So just so you know what we're going into. >> And Andrea Mela, you said you represented >> uh MBA builders um who submitted the
application on behalf of the homeowners. >> Thank you. >> Can you all see the screen? I can zoom in here. >> Yeah, that'd be better to get it. There you go. >> Is that better? Okay. All right. Um, so
since our previous meeting, which if I remember correctly, I think was in January, um, we went back and in the process of kind of refining the design, um, we realized we had undersized the, um, onecar attached garage in the ADU.
Um in the intent of this dwelling is for the homeowners um parents to live there and age in place. Um and in doing so as uh they get older and anticipated
mobility issues um set in. They will be largely entering and exiting the home from the garage as the slab will be at the same level as the first floor of of the or the the main floor of the unit.
Um, and we realized that we had kind of undersized the garage to allow for um, you know, e easy access to get in and out of of a vehicle and and maneuver around a vehicle um, with potential mobility issues, you know, in the
future. Um so we have uh come back and presented an updated plot plan which shows uh the garage slightly increased um from the previous submission which in turn has slightly decreased um our
buffer I believe previously I have it I can show you it was it was 89 something and and now we're down to 87 ft. >> Yeah I think it's clear on the plan. I'm not sure if everyone can see that on the screen, but on my uh laptop I can see
it. >> Yeah. So, so the previous the our previous submission is shown in green here and then the updated submission is is red. We are still o overall again we're still going for as you know we remove the barn
and the shed. We're moving further away from the buffer than the current condition. Um we it's just slightly closer than the submission previously showed where we were at this point instead of this new point. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> Uh nope. That's that's the only change. >> Okay. Any comments, questions from the commission? >> Uh just one thing for accuracy. I think on the right hand side uh you have um comment um a calculation for the impervious area. I think that is not
updated for uh the new sizing. >> Uh I think just for accuracy I think you should update that as well. >> Oh over here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. I'm going to say I think that's a
very insignificant change. So I think minor plan change might be appropriate. Is remind us what the three levels were again. >> Yeah. So uh we have in our um our regulations so everything comes in under
a minor plan change. Uh so if you think that that's um so insignificant that there's no um change then what ends up happening is we catch
it when they submit an asbuilt plan. So what uh Shrek just asked for will come in on the asbuilt plan. We'll have updates impervious. And so this is just a letter saying that we agree. And um
the next step would be an amended order of conditions. So I usually think of that as uh why would I want to amend the order? And so there that's probably the biggest bucket because we want most things to fit into that because we don't want to
deny the project and have them file a whole new order of conditions. But um that would be for me the trigger would be um generally the same project but people would want to know about the change. So
because it's everything that happens on a notice of intent except there's no application. So they'd have to notify the newspaper and all the abutters to come in and have a say. So let's say this was a tighter lot and the garage was swapped to the other side. everyone
on that side of the house might want to say something about that change. So, that would probably be an amendment. Um, this here, you know, again, I I think that it's pretty clear that there's not much of a change uh happening here and
there's a there's a huge lot that we're dealing with. >> Yeah. So, in my opinion, this does not rise to the level of amended order of conditions. >> Yeah. And I guess you know the last one it would be a notice of intent if it was so different and that we would require a
a new notice of intent. >> Is there anybody here who doesn't agree with the lowest level in minor plan change? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um I have a motion to approve the minor
plan change. >> Yes. you want to approve, but we want to just in the motion just say that we would like updated plans and um if there's any other conditions that you want. >> Well, yeah. So then yeah, just the updated plans.
>> Fixing the percentages. >> Fixing the percentages, updated plans. >> Okay. I'll make a motion uh to approve uh the plan with updates to uh the document with um with an impervious area added. So that's a minor plantation.
>> A minor plant. >> Second. Would Talbert seconds that in favor >> in favor? >> Mark Moore in favor. >> Talbert's in favor. Brian bro in favor. >> Okay. >> So yeah, you're all set, Andrea. I'll
send out a letter and you're going to send me a check, right? >> Yes. Yeah. Well, or we'll drop it off for you, Chuck, in the next couple days. Um, sorry. Can I ask one question? So, we never rec I never recorded uh the previous order of conditions because I
wasn't sure um the procedure. So, we should go ahead record that. And then this letter like does this letter have to be recorded or is it handled separately? >> No, it's it just goes in the file. That's how it's that's how insignificant
this change is. >> Perfect. you would record the order of conditions and um you might have the uh uh reactivity site inspection list from a different project if you do want to make sure all those can be checked off
except for 14 and 15. >> Okay, excellent. Okay, thank you all. Appreciate your time. Um, next is a update on the tree removal that's planned for Matara Cabin.
>> Sure. So, the tree has been removed at Mater Cabin. Um, it was uh broken. I sent the pictures around and not really leaning to the cabin, kind of leaning and needed to come down. We're very
fortunate that the forestry department was able to do that work in house and I think they really tried to get it done in house and there was a lot of rigging going on uh that they had to do to get that tree down safely. So, it all worked out uh you
know uh trees down. I think it's uh been cleaned up somewhat. Um and so cleaning up the back there is the responsibility of conservation commission and the trails committee at some point. But um not from
this work, it's from the all the work that has happened digging the footings and building the >> you planning to do with your u volunteer crew at all or no? >> No. Um volunteers are going to be pretty busy. >> We can talk about that later too because
there's another volunteer group coming in. I wanted to update Joe anyways. But um >> what does DPW assist with that with? >> Yeah. to our tree uh group. So, so it went out. I think you know Material Cabin, everyone knows Mater Cabin now.
It's been, you know, the school and the problems that we had through the um the building department. And uh so when I first got that, I did send it to facilities and Jane, the town, you know,
Hacking Town manager. Um and um and then put everybody on the chain and just let everyone know. And um we're very Like I don't know if you noticed last week that the tree crews were out all the time. There was strong gusts and trees were
coming down left and right. So they were really busy, but they were able to get to this like the following day and um >> worked out great. >> Yeah, very happy. >> So a big thank you to Mike and Cruz. I went and looked at the backyard of Mata
Cabin and what's left is like a eight eightish foot snag where it was ripped. That's the tree that fell. >> And then there's some sawdust where they must have cut it up. >> Yeah. >> And I hadn't seen the new um stone dust
path that goes from the back of the deck up to the parking lot before. I I admired that path. >> Yeah, it's nice. It's uh yeah, had a good path. We want to continue working on it. I know when we get our our new budget because all the money's gone,
we're going to be uh getting a few signs to uh do some way finding on those paths that are there now. But um I'll present that to you in the future. >> Okay. >> Anything else on that? No, I just think
that, you know, um it it was a great it was really I mean, you know how much we paid $6,000 to get down one other tree another time. 6,000. So, uh you know, >> this was a big help. >> Big help. Yep. Nobody got hurt.
>> That's always a good thing. Well, we don't know if anybody get Okay, next then we move to old new business. First item there is a an encore for Chuck talking about the conservation DPW coordination meeting.
>> So they just moved it to April 7th because I I think I already talked about what happened at the meeting. I submitted all those projects that were that I discussed with the commission uh and with Mike and um yeah, we're just waiting for the next meeting. I uh went
uh Mike was also there when we uh looked at a couple of uh um cclick fixes tree issues and conservation issues come in on cclick fix building and other things like health and planning come in on open gov
so there's a lot of action on my computer keeping those straight but um I think we're all set with um the DPW until our next meeting uh >> all right then violation notices is a
new one to talk about uh 21 Riverside A. >> Yeah. So, uh the trails committee was out uh um kind of blazing a new trail or making sure the trail that they had blazed was in
the right location now that we have the survey. And they noticed um some bags of dog waste thrown into the conservation land. Uh not just some, a lot. and they were entangled in probably what was uh
not weed and um so they sent me a picture and they uh was very concerned about it because there was water source and wetlands close to it and so I reached out sent the letter around um I reached
out and um I got a letter back and uh they said that the material has been cleaned up. So, it's uh Guy Stazzer Sazeri
and uh so we thank you guy for uh for uh cleaning that up. Appreciate it. Uh not often does it happen with one letter, but uh you know, much appreciated and I'm glad that's all cleaned up. And so, we're having a trail go in very close to
this area. So this section of Pine Veil will now be exposed to a lot of people walking. So that's one of the benefits of having a trail is because you c you catch that yard waste dumping and and other things. >> So presumably trails will let you know
if there's any other issues. >> Trails, residents, conservation members, >> mountain bikers, >> trails, everybody >> trails will know to look for that area. So >> Well, yeah. I mean, there was a lot there. It was pretty obvious. I don't
think it was a part an area that was open to the public before. And uh this summer, that's the project that the uh the volunteers are going to be doing. >> Okay. >> So, we'll going to remove this from the violation notice. >> Deal. >> I think this is the quickest one ever to
be removed. >> You might certainly >> very impressive. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, uh 445 Pearl Street, um I said I would swing by and I did. Um
that slope has sod laid down in it. Um obviously it's not growing yet, but he's put down sod. He has some significant erosion tracks running down the slope. Uh at least some of them go full top to
bottom. Um, so it's obviously not fully stabilized yet. It's the usual question about next steps. Um, I mean, personally, I would like to stop by the house and try and catch him and talk to him and be sure he's aware that
that needs to be addressed. I don't want him thinking that he put down the solid and he's done. I don't know if you think uh that kind of communication is sufficient in this case or it should be a letter. >> No, I would stop by. He seems to respond to that.
>> Okay. >> And uh maybe reach out first if uh you know I could reach out and just say they'd like to stop by. Are we ready to do that now or in the next couple of weeks when it gets a little bit warmer? And >> he already has an erosion problem, so I might as well be aware he's going to
have to deal with. >> Okay. as far as whether the sad takes or not. That's an ongoing thing to watch. >> I drove by also and noticed that there's quite a strong current in the stream at the bottom, but there are quar logs on
either side. So, that part looks good. I didn't like the look of the north slope. I didn't see any grass saw or anything on the north bank of that stream. So, that means we're looking at >> Yeah. >> Right. She's not done.
Okay. Uh administrative report. Uh Chuck, you get a couple things. >> Yeah. So, um so off Mil Street, uh we got a call from uh the DPW that um the Elderberry Lane. I don't know the
facility that's there, but I believe it's uh Elder Care Place. >> Yeah. >> Is that what it is? >> 55 plus >> 55 plus >> and disabled. and disabled. And so they had lost a couple of telephone polls down down this area behind Elderberry
Lane, which is a paper street off of Mill Street. And so the um TPW let me know that um they're calling in an emergency and that um that uh the fire department also uh would chime in if
needed. And so I felt like it was sufficient to just say, you know, there's a wetland down there somewhere. Um, it's about 50 feet away from where that paper street is. And I said, I, you know, yeah, go, you can go in there. It's an emergency. I didn't feel like it
needed an emergency permit. Uh, just administrative approval. So that's what ended up happening. Uh, because they weren't going through a wetland. Um, they weren't uh they weren't cutting trees down to get to this place. It was
an established open roadway. I'm going to call it a roadway, but that might be stretching it a lot. It's kind of like a I don't know, a cart path that uh trees haven't grown in the cart path area yet. They needed to get down to about Elderberry Lane uh
area to start putting in some telephone poles so they would have 911 service. So that took about a day and uh what they ended up doing is dropping in several truckloads of uh
five plus inch stone and then they drove on top of that and that all got worked into the mud. >> Chuck, do you know if they're going to actually finish that roadway at all with some finer grit stone? I guess um member
of the trails committee was talking with a couple of neighbors over there and there's been some complaints with that temporary road, but I know they needed access for emergency services, but is there any additional work expected on that road?
>> So, under the permission that they got from the conservation commission, which only would be for about a little more than a third of the road, it was temporary for emergency purposes only. and no one has reached out and said there's other work anticipated and as my
understanding the DPW um did that work to help out um Reading Municipal Light. So, uh as far as continuing any kind of work, that's a that's a new conversation, a
new request for the DPW. Uh yeah, I've heard about um that also. uh but hadn't had an opportunity. I mean, I could certainly bring it up, but so could the trails
committee and and bring that up um you know, through through the DPW, through Mike Kesman. >> Sure. Okay. >> Um that road was in fact passable by cars up to about 40 years ago when they
put in the development that is now Sanborn Lane and Llaya Lane, etc. Um, and there are houses on the other end of that road that have deeded right of way to travel on that road. So, it hasn't
always been only a cart path. It was in fact a a road, a dirt road. Um, and it is now blocked with two jersey barriers and a chain across. So, um, they have >> after after the work
>> after the work they the whoever did the work has blocked the end facing Mil Street with a pair of jersey barriers and a chain. >> Yeah. >> So, no vehicles can go down there at this point. >> Yeah. Joe, I'm not I I think that if we wanted to put a path or a trail out
there um or anyone who wanted to do that work would need to get the permission of all the abutters to do that. >> Yeah. No, it was it was actually more about the the integrity of the road with the 5- in stones um and making it even more impassible than it was previously.
So, I was I was just curious if there was any follow on work from DBW, not turning it into an actual road or a path or anything like that. >> I thought I understood from what Chuck said that the stones got part got pushed down into the mud. So, that should be
passable. I mean, maybe not in a Volkswagen, but >> I can't speak to it. I would have to see it. This is secondhand from trails. So, >> well, I went out there after the work was finished and I walked on the stone. So, you can definitely walk on them. I
>> don't know if I would take my, you know, my I don't know, >> Corvette down there or something like that. >> I don't think you'd want to take your mountain bike down it either. >> Yeah, it's it's probably pretty rough and I bet you there's ruts in it and and all that. And I don't know what the finish is going to be and if there is
going to be a finish. But the the point for the commission is um and and Joe, I didn't hear about anything about extending it, but the point for the commission is it was an emergency job. This is exactly what happens. If if someone, you know, needed to finish more
work out there, well, it's not an emergency. So, where it goes past the the wetland, we would we would have to review it through a permit. >> Yeah. At this point, all we did was give them emergency access to do the work. Yeah. >> Anything else would be an official project.
>> I don't know if it was so official that we >> I mean the the call was you're you're pretty far away. You're staying on an what looks like an established >> road, right? It wasn't emergency department or anything. It was um your
approval. >> Okay. >> All right. Um then next is minutes for approval. We did get two new ones, but we got them Friday. Um, so I don't think we should vote on
those tonight. Typically, it's Thursday or don't vote on things the next week. So, next meeting. So, you have till the 7th to uh to read that if you haven't, >> unless everybody has already read them.
>> I didn't read. >> You did not yet. Okay. So next time >> and you plan to >> Yep. >> Good. >> Just checking. Um actually one of them is was one of our short it was her heroic half hour meeting.
>> It's an easy read. >> Okay. >> I think they were both pretty short. >> Yeah, they both were. >> And speaking of which, >> you have a minute for 30 minutes. >> Um anything else we should discuss before we adjourn pretty much when I guessed >> I'd like to bring up an issue for next
meeting. since it's not on the agenda. >> Oh jeez, that's right. Never mind. I lied. Go ahead. I'll do it. Is there something else? >> Yeah, you have to talk about the feeds. >> Do that first.
>> I'm recommending something. >> You know, just threw me. It wasn't on here, so I didn't read it. So, I'm going to blame you whether it's true or not. Okay. Do you want to bring up um the spreadsheet first. We had a conversation in the last
meeting >> and we went uh over the numbers in excruciating detail. Um I went back to it in the interim and I put in a a row. Um I figured out what
the average um inflation rate was between the last time it was updated and now. it was 2.39ish%. Um, so the total for the 14 years is 39% and change. I applied that to all the
current numbers and of course you get uh uneven numbers and everything. So then I put in another row where I did proposed from that number something that was close to it as proposed changes.
So that's not the right way. I guess it is. That just looks different. Love the screen. All right. So here's the row where I just did the calculation with the percentages. And here's the current one. L line
three. Line five is the ones I'm suggesting. You can see here it calculates to 103 and change. I suggested 100 and so on right across. Um, for some of you folks who felt that we were
maybe pushing things too high last time, you'll be happy to know that with these calculations, uh, a number of them will come down. Um, so what I'm hoping here is people look at this and go, uh, it's much more to my
taste and we can, uh, approve the these numbers, but please also take a look. Brian, these were all the ones that we had we had all agreed on. Like shock, you shaking your head. These are new. >> These are new. Oh, >> new and lower. >> No, different numbers, same categories.
>> Okay. >> So, the spreadsheets exactly the same except that the numbers are different. >> So, you're suggesting basing our new numbers on the inflation rather than on the numbers we voted on last time.
>> That's a proposal. Um, I mean, you know, my perspective that I wouldn't mind it being higher. What I want though is numbers that the commission can wholeheartedly support and the fact that we can justify it by pointing to math, I
think is a plus. Um, but believe me, if people want to go back to some numbers that are higher, no argument for me. >> I think the other numbers were based on the hours of review. Um and then um the new sheet that uh I
don't think is up here. So we had we had two things. It was my hours that that we reviewed it under and um and then the percentage which we didn't want to go over a certain percent like 100% was was too much. So we so we backed off a
little bit. So I think those were the two criteria that we tried to apply to each one. So, they all seem to be able to go higher. >> Could they add a row of what we had approved from last meeting? >> Can
>> just to see what it looks like. >> Chuck, do you have my numbers? >> Um, I do have Walt's numbers. Want to start with Walt or you want me to pull up mine? I don't know if I can do magic here. So, Brian, you can pull everything
up if you want and sign in if you want to. I think he's the ace over here. But um let me get Walls up. >> Even if we could flip between one spreadsheet and another that would also probably eas. >> Yeah. Oh, I have those also. But let me
get >> bring yours up. Might as well want to talk about what you spent all that time on. Right. >> The five 10 minutes. It was. >> Yeah. >> A lot of times >> it's billable. >> Do you want to talk about it while Chuck's finding the numbers?
>> Oh, you got it. You got it quickly. >> Oh, this must be yours, right? Yeah. >> So, Okay. So, the ones in red are the new ones, right? >> Can you just in the red were the ones from the last meeting, >> right? So, can you click on the number
three there? That'll highlight the row. >> Number three. >> Yeah. Okay. Now do control C which is copy then go to go to the other spreadsheet. >> Uh you need to enable editing I think
>> editing attribute. >> Okay. Just copying >> copying isn't editing. >> All right. So um >> I'll go to the other one. >> Oh yours. Yeah. >> Let me just go and insert a line there. So >> insert a line under uh under. Let's get to it first because
>> No, just look here, Brian. Have to like come up and >> Yeah. Um, >> you got to enable editing. >> No, he's looking at others bridge. >> You don't have to edit. >> Yeah, just Well, it doesn't >> He's editing the >> Exactly. Me, too. >> And you do that by doing
>> Well, I know that good stuff >> there. And you click on the first cell and do control V >> on the number or the >> in the cell itself. Isn't he still working on the same spread? >> He is up here, but down here. >> Hold on a second, guys.
>> Like this is this is like magic stuff. >> So So now we added that line so it'll be on top of each other. >> I see. You can just like Yeah, >> just gave >> I think this is the one view into how technical challenged we
are. >> Got it. Okay. So, uh, 25 lower, 25 lower, 50 lower, >> they're lower. And so, believe me, if people wanted to go to the old fund that
we all been the ones we agreed to last meeting, I'm on board with that. I was just trying to have uh something mathematical to be able to justify it. >> Interesting. The SFNI >> Yeah.
>> Your new math gives it 800 and our old math we voted on 750. So that one's actually a little higher. >> Um G >> SF N O G But I'm looking for my Oh,
there 824. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So that that category does not keep up with inflation, but it's all right. >> Okay. I think we had a lot more
conversation on the NRA and I think there was another column as well >> 1.25 and this is now >> the suggested 150. I mean, I'm okay with the old one.
Chuck, what's your take on this? >> Uh, you know, both both are fine. I to be honest with you, I thought we were we had agreed at the last meeting and I I said that to Brian. So, um
there are a few numbers that went up like this. The ANRAD one looks like it's got 00 instead of,200 and the 800 that Martha pointed out, but and and they're higher, but they're not
I don't feel like they're crazy. like a commercial RDA is going to be 200 based on last meeting and and just a regular RDA is 125 rather than than 75. Those seem to be pretty
reasonable numbers um based on my time and I think what is so it looks like Brian's saying 100 and we're doing 125 based on my time. ones based on uh >> just inflation
>> inflation just inflation inflation. So both both work both are up. We've been asked to look at them but I I would you know somehow go with what we discussed we discussed each one at the
last meeting unless we want to discuss each one again tonight. I'll make a motion to stick with the first set of line that we all agreed on as a commission. >> Okay. >> Want to second that. >> Second. Fine.
>> Any discussion? Can I Can we do discussion? >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, >> does Walt want to talk about his before we do that? >> Yeah. Let's not have a motion right now. >> Okay. >> All right.
And um let's see what we got here. So, >> sorry I have to keep doing that. >> We bring like how you put the inflation in that that helped us. >> What I want is something the commission as a whole can stand behind. So when
people ask why is this higher, they can say it's math. >> People can do the math themselves and come up and say, well, >> so this is Walt's spreadsheet. >> Yeah. >> My approach was basically what was the most that any town was charging
and then averaging out the choice towns, other towns, we shouldn't be the highest, but there's no reason we can't be above the average. So, my proposal was somewhere between the average and the highest because if you're building a
$50,000 debt, whether you're oi is going to be 150, 250, 350, or 500 makes no difference. It's the law of small numbers. That's my opinion. But I didn't choose any specific numbers. I'm just saying I
would have something fall somewhere between the average and the max. >> So the average choice on the minimum RDA we have 125. That's what we agreed on. You you're saying 105. >> 105 is the average for everybody else. >> We can.
>> So did you come up with a a suggestion for us? Uh, I would say 150. >> Oh, so you you didn't do that though. >> No, I didn't. No. Okay. This is a group discussion, right? You just came up with the averages and then we can I would
think the number should be somewhere between the average and the max. So, you just done some math and done 60%. I'll believe in democracy. >> Democracy can have other words. I'm I'm willing to listen to your opinion.
>> Yeah. Okay, >> so single family RDA and commercial RDA, our proposal last week did not even make it to average for either of those according to Walter's chart.
>> Average was 263 or 233 and we were only going for 125. So the first category we are above average, the next two we're below. >> So without trying to turn this into a math geek convention,
>> I think the problem with using an average here is that there are some times that look like real outliers and so I'm afraid that they would skew the numbers. So a mean I think would be more applicable than an average.
Aren't they the same? No. A mean and an average? No. You mean median? >> You mean median? >> Uh, yeah. Okay. Right. In the middle number. Medium. Yeah. Okay. >> Um, I just think that that might smooth out some of the uh
the ones that are much higher. I do not include anything that was zero. >> Well, at least this is >> helps >> a kind of a method that I'm familiar with. towns, you know, pair communities and other communities, find the average,
then discuss it. So, it almost looks like by putting what we agreed on at the top and then being able to discuss what Walt has added to the spreadsheet. Seems like that's an pretty easy discussion. We can just run through that real quickly through if anyone wants to do
that. So on uh the first one, so administrative review, I don't know what that uh that would to me that would mean when someone comes in who doesn't have a permit and I talk about their project. Uh I don't think we need to put uh
take a charge for that. Um and and so far there hasn't been any push back on us going out to site visits and talking to people that don't have a permit and they just want to find out what to do. So let's leave that one alone. >> I I disagree. I think administrative review includes the people who want to
cut down up to four trees and you have to approve that and it never comes before us. >> Yeah. The tree the tree stuff. >> Yeah. And I think >> we worked on that with the tree permit. >> Yeah. And I I think it's not unreasonable to charge something for a tree permit.
>> We already passed the tree permit. >> Yeah. And >> well, so we we made it much clearer what the decision making process is. And we did adjust some numbers, right? So >> Okay. But there's no actual fee to submit the permit in the first place.
It's only the fee if you don't choose to replace the trees. Is that >> also you throw $50 on top of that? I don't think people are gonna >> Yeah. I don't think it >> offer to pay the 250. >> I don't think it it doesn't add much. >> That's just my opinion. doesn't add much
income to the callers. >> Yeah. >> It probably doesn't happen that all. >> Oh yeah. But the homeowners that would be >> reasonably going to go and do it. >> Pay 50 on top of the 250. >> Yeah. So I think what what's missed over the years when we first did this tree policy, everyone who wanted to take down
a tree had to come to the conservation commission and file an RDA and that would have been the newspaper, the butters notices and then come to a meeting themselves. And so it was wellreceived because a lot of people knew that that's what they had to do. We
we're several years away from that now. So really no one understands the savings >> that we're offering here. Uh but you know bring it up. You know you can let them know that that's why over four you have to come to the commission. It's the
old policy. You have to come in. But um yeah I think they're saving a I mean, they're saving 250 for the for the uh newspaper ad right away and then whatever notices that would go to the abuters and that's either around $4 for certificates of
mailing or $8 for um you know, green cards. I'm just comparing it to a summer home I have on Cape Cod where I have to pay a fee every time I have to take down a diseased beach tree. And it's a fee just
to submit the request. >> I'm looking at it like say it's an optional 250 fee. If you're going to add a 50 on top of that, people will pay the 50 and they won't pay the 250. >> Well, there's two ways not to pay. >> Have to pay it. >> Not to pay anything to the commission
for our review. So, if you if you want to be uh if you want to pay for my time, when they purchase trees to replace the tree that they're cutting down, the town doesn't get paid for their review. When they're leaving snags, the town doesn't
get paid for their review. only when they're, you know, >> paying for trees that to be planted elsewhere. Would they, >> but if you're cutting board down, you don't have to replant them, then you're going to pay for those trees to be planted somewhere else, then you're paying the town. But the two other ways
we do have to do as much review and they can decide not to. So, it it does have some, you know, good qualities to say, hey, there's a $25 fee, it's a $50 fee.
Um, but it's up to the commission. Um, >> okay. So, we've heard both sides of that. Can I just >> And we already passed that. So, that's not it's not even part of this. Yeah. >> Okay. That's fine. >> It's as a matter of fact, it should be up any day. >> And we did pass the $50. Is that what
you're saying? >> No, it's not in red. >> Oh, so it's proposed, but >> I don't see that as the same as what you're talking about. This is when someone comes to the counter or we go on a site visit, they would have to pay us.
>> Treat policy is tough. >> Treat policy is >> unfortunately it is finished. >> Okay. Fine. >> I think if someone goes to the counter and finds out they have to pay $50, they're going to lose their mind. That's just you come in to ask the town that you people are already paying taxes to
that you ask a question. You have to pay $50 to ask a question. >> No. Well, asking a question is not what I'm saying. I'm saying submitting a >> um administrative approval form, >> right? >> If you want to submit a form for
administrative prop approval, similar to if I want to put in let's say uh new garden shed, not in a wetland, I have to submit it to the building department and get permission.
If my gu garden shed is a certain size, I think there's a fee associated with that permit. You know, people are used to there being fees associated with permits, but I will drop that issue. I have beat >> I think it's perfect for the tree policy, but
>> again, that was approved and it's not on the table tonight. >> Okay. >> Um, the next one is the minor RDA, which is very general uh projects. Um, And um it
looks like we agreed to 125 and um very general and for single family homes. Uh and the mean is 105 and the high is 250 and it was 75 to 75. So So I'm
comfortable with that. >> Yeah. Um I think the next one's very similar. Uh, we left it the same also. So, I'm going to say I'm moving on to commercial. And that looks like it's $300. Uh, and we said $200 at our last
meeting. And people are charging $1,000 for a commercial RDA. >> I'm thinking now to us a commercial RDA is anything other than a single family. Right. >> Right. So whether that's a multi multi-unit
building or >> the biggest thing I can think of would be let's say a place like Carnation Circle wanted to repave but they uh waited so long that they have to pulverize what's there and they're
they're going to uh expand you know in certain areas like let's say it gets a foot wider everywhere they would and we decided that that's not so much. It's pretty much the same job. And uh but we want an RDA.
>> Let me ask you this. What do you think the smallest job is that somebody would want to do? And is that very common? I mean, what's the smallest common job? I've been trying to figure out how much that would cost jobs. I love putting
these on to uh well, a deck is uh is pretty much an RDA. So because it has no footing uh like a foundation, it has just like either pre-cast or sauna tubes, >> right? And a deck I know it depends on
the size and the material and what have you, but a a deck is what should we think of a deck? 25 and up. You know, >> I know, but what do we think is typical? I'm trying to think about what is typical for somebody coming in
in the head saying I need I'm planning on spending X and all of a sudden there's some number on top of it. So if 25 is a number that people think are reasonable for that's what a deck's going to cost. >> 25,000. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> So a deck a deck is an hour's worth of review. It doesn't go to the DRT meeting. So, it would only be my review and a site visit. So, um, and then a follow-up site visit to make sure it went in the right spot. So, three of my
hours. >> And that would categorize under minor RDA, >> uh, commercial. >> Oh, we're now talking commercial. >> Well, wait a minute. We were talking about commercial, but I think the deck would not be commercial. So, that's a regular one. So, we're at 125. So, that
would be like 150. So, I think we're in the ballpark. Not a problem. Commercial, we just talked about it. They can go crazy. You can have some new loading dock or something like that. >> So, in that case, a thousand would be reasonable, but I'm trying to think of
what the smallest project would be that somebody would want to do that still count >> for a commercial site. >> Yeah, a commercial or a DA. and just trying to figure out what whatever number we do with >> I think the smallest that I could think of what I would be comfortable with is
if they wanted to put a new business puts a new sign in within the buffer zone. >> Yeah. Anybody put up a sign what would a sign cost? I mean a business signed something.
>> Well, you know, I have to say I don't think that's the way to think about this. I think we have to so so town council based on right we have to pin it to hours of review and time spent >> you know it can't be
>> no I >> it's reasonable or how much time we're saving people >> yeah I was just mostly worried about having a number that puts projects out of the realm of the possible so okay >> so for the commercial RDA though so is that just one additional extra hour of
work Chuck or how is that calculated into the difference here? And apologies, I did miss the last meeting. So, >> we're only talking about we're talking about the two extremes. So, if it was the parking lot, no, there would be multiple hours of work. There would be
>> several, you know, that would probably be something around six hours of work. >> No. Um, so let me clarify my question. Commercial RDA new 200, uh, single family RDA new 125. Is that 125 an hour or is that the fee?
>> No, it's total total fee. That's not the hours, that's the fees and we just we figured out the fees by knowing what my rate was, which is around 50 and then how many hours it would take me to
review and then site visit to maintain you know uh what the commission asked for >> you know. So that commercial RDA is one to two additional hours of work compared to a single family RDA.
>> Yeah, I would I would think so. I mean it's >> you know one to two. So we had three it would be three additional hours. Um and those usually don't come in. The one that actually could have we could have got happened without anyone knowing it.
Yeah. There was a there was a project that was caught by the uh um engineering department and it was mostly done. >> It was it was paving. >> So what are we going to do with that
number? Um, >> who's the town that's at a thousand? >> That would be in this thing. >> Last one. >> Yeah, it's always Lexington. That seems to be the most expensive. >> Is it water?
>> Just being gas wildly closed. >> It's a water tone. It looks like 50 to,00 hiding the batteries on a generator. >> Yeah, they have a range 50. I don't know how they figure out their range >> and yeah, so that's how they >> based on disturbance based on
>> how much work and then they say it's many for that one. >> Do you want So maybe Yeah. So what's the what's the thing? Let's let's not >> Can I suggest we make that one 250 instead of 200 and move on?
>> Yeah. So which one I thought me. I'd be okay with that one. 250. >> Okay. >> Rick and Tim are okay with 250. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> What's next? >> Small notice intent. >> We're above the mean.
>> I'm okay with keeping that 250. >> We agreed to it last time. Let's keep it. >> Single family NOI. We have seven And that's the one where your inflation numbers made it look like
we should be higher, more like 800. >> You're not going by inflation. >> Yep. Understood. But so I'm comfortable with keeping that at 750. seems just a little high. >> What? It does seem a little high compared to the average with this
>> 750 250 600 800 500 500 450 >> um >> guess the will >> I don't know I don't remember the conversation why it became 7 >> they haven't done them in 13 years so single family no I don't think they've
adjusted these in 13 be an >> going to be a long time before they get adjusted again. >> That could be a addition, >> you know, that could be a house. >> I was going to say that >> is that an ADU? Would that fit in that
category for an ADU? >> ADU. >> Yeah, >> I don't think that's high. >> That's the first That's the first jump. So, it would be used to be 125. >> Isn't one of the challenges of
>> doing this is that >> Yeah. >> We don't know if the other towns have already accounted for inflation or anything. >> I don't think >> I don't think that matters that much. Look at I you can look at this. They clearly didn't follow the >> Yeah.
>> Oh, staff hours rule because it's not linear. Well, we don't know what else they're applying on what they're Yeah. But my hours and my rate followed inflation. So, it was in 2013 I wasn't making >> sure,
>> you know. So, I think that's a good, >> you know, we can just pin it to that. We're good. >> Um, any So, 750, are we leaving it or are we dropping it or raising it? >> Okay, next one. subdivision 1,200 to 750
and we have a,000 at the highest and uh 645 at the mean. >> And why does ours say 1250 and 750? >> It's 1250 just for a subdivision which counts as two houses and then any house
beyond that is an extra 750. >> Okay. So the first two houses are a little cheaper than the additional house >> per house. >> Okay. way to look at it. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> I think we had that at a thousand before
at the last meeting, right? >> I think it started there. Yeah, >> we agreed on 1250. I think you wanted,500. I think that was the one. I think I wanted a million, didn't I? >> Do you want 620? You want to lower this to 625? >> What? >> I don't think so. >> No, I'm happy with that.
>> Oh, you're saying split it? >> I was just trying to make them line up. Well, you mean that's >> 1250 for two subdivision and then each additional one would be half 1250. >> That makes sense. >> But it's not linear, right? If you're going the third, fourth, fifth house,
>> I know they >> there is extra work involved just because there's more connections there. >> But a lot of people look at this critically and they they say what why, you know, >> and so I I would prefer not to have
those questions. So, it would be 650 if you ask me. >> Anybody? >> Okay. >> I know it's going down. The first I know someone's going to give me that question and ask me why. >> Make it 1300 and 650. >> That's what I was about to say. >> Sorry.
>> We can't have 1300. >> You didn't raise your hand. >> No. >> Neither did I. >> Be 650 per house. >> Yeah, that's what Chuck suggested. I'm fine with it. >> Okay. >> It hurts me, right? Oh, here. You mean
>> that's what I wanted to do, but everyone's saying make the oven 1300. >> Not everyone. That was a suggestion. >> Right. There you go. >> Why? I thought it was 650 per >> 625. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, commercial NOI, they had 2,000 and nine almost like So, it's 2,000 or a thousand. Thousand's the mean, 2,000's the high end. We're right at the mean. Um, and then the old one used to be
just a thousand. So, commercial NOI, that would be the newest project that just came into town, 281 Main Street, uh, which is, uh, riverfront commercial, blah blah blah.
Um, okay. So, as big as you could possibly make a commercial thing. it's only 12250. And yet for a subdivision, only two houses get in for 1250. And then if you have four houses, it's
twice 1250. >> I'm thinking commercials getting off cheap if they're a big project. >> What's the plus X? Maybe >> say it was um Jordan's Furniture would come in at at that if they were building now.
compared to a fourhouse subdivision like the one off How Howard A. >> So the the plus is um so the plus is uh meaning all the rest of the categories that we have on our regulations which are uh wetland delineation it was $2 a
foot and work within the 25 and 35 foot work on a bank work in the resource area. So it's like five of those we can get to. >> We haven't addressed those yet. So it doesn't it doesn't address Martha's concern about it being a bigger property.
>> Yeah. Because we would want we're going to decide if those pluses still happen. Um so we we're not dropping them from our regulations. So it's going to be 1250 plus. >> So to speak to speak to your point, you
can always think of extremes where the numbers look funny. >> So this one here is 2000 billion. you know, often if ever we might if if there's the Eastern Gateway or whatever, but I think for the most part that's not
what we're seeing for commercial. I don't think we should skew the numbers to cover something that doesn't happen. >> Okay. So, I'm I would be happy if Chuck wrote a plus sign in after the 1250. >> Okay. which would um be the clue that there
are other costs that may be incurred like delineations per feet and we'll get to that next topic. >> All right. >> All right. Next is amendment >> amended order of conditions. These are
all I hate to say all those are cheap. An amendment is the same as a notice of an intent except there's no application. So what do we have for notices of intent? But I think maybe we should just look at the mean. But um
>> 250 for a small NOI or 750 for a single family. >> So I would say that that amended order of condition is pretty low. So 50 for someone's house and 250 or 125 for commercial. That's what it looks
like it's saying to me. Um so if if a small NOI which is most is 250 then that should be relatively close to it because it's the same minus a little bit right so from your time perspective
it's mostly the same >> but we also want to keep an eye on false numbers, >> right? >> And what we have there now is 50 and 125. >> Yeah.
>> So that is lower >> for each number. >> Say what? >> 100 175. >> Well, so what which one? This is the uh >> middle is the average. >> That's the highest one. 300 size.
>> Okay. So that's 150. >> I'd add Yeah. >> Well, we should be at least there. >> So would you say add 100 to each one >> of those two? >> Rick said add 50. >> Add 50. >> No.
>> Anybody have a better idea? >> I think we should add 100 to each one of them. Again, that's the average. >> So we are now tagging the average and this is our update after >> I mean 13 14 years. >> You can justify the work. It's this is still low based on the the work
involved, but >> so I don't care if it's 100 or or it's 50 that we're adding to each one, but >> we need >> a majority to say go for it. >> Go for it. 100. >> It's all right with me.
>> Good. Because that makes it really easy. >> Okay, next one. So, it now reads 150 and 225. >> Yeah. You want to make it 250? >> No. >> And >> that's fine. >> Okay. Single family uh single family
extension. It's extending a notice of intent. It's an hour's work worth of work at the most. Um so some of these numbers don't make any sense to me. So an extension is a request that comes in in an email or
form a letter and then I review it for completeness. It doesn't we're not advertising. We're not letting a butters know about it goes on the agenda and then the conservation commission reviews it.
So I I would argue that if it's an hour that must be the typical the most likely. >> You jumped in one more thing before you say that >> you breathe. >> But I think I think that if you're extending it then if I if we gave a price to do this project for three years
because that's what a permit's worth and they wanted to extend it for another three years then I have to continually go out there for the next three. So it maybe not just two hours of of our time. It it might be an additional sitewalk or
two. >> What I was going to point out is the numbers you're coming up with was is typical, but there are times when you have to revisit things or they do it wrong and you have to talk them through it again. So it has to be some margin in
there to cover the non win typical, >> right? and sometimes they haven't started. So the site visits wouldn't be accurate in that situation. >> So I think that being a little bit higher is perfectly reason because it's not always going to be the way you schedule it to be.
>> Okay. So it says old 25, new 75. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's just the the numbers are a little tiny so it's hard for me to actually read them from standing up here. I couldn't read them easily enough.
So that's only an hour and a half of Chuck's time. And it sounds like it's often going to be more like two or three hours of Chuck's time. >> I thought he said it was an hour typically and so building in the hour, >> but then he kept going.
>> So an hour for review, um an hour at the meeting, and then some extension. I I think that >> it's not an hour couple hours. I >> hate to argue it down, but it's not an hour at the meeting. An hour for maybe a bigger piece of it, but but
these hearings don't typically go an hour with fewer. >> Agrees. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't know what you want to say 15 minutes, 20 minutes, something like that. >> So, I'd suggest make that one 100 and that easily covers two hours of Chuck's
time and that might still be a bargain. But if the old was 25, >> yeah, >> that's a big jump to going higher than 100. commercial extension. >> Same argument, right? >> So, it should be 125 because the other one was $25 more. So, if it's 100, it
should be 125, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Did you bump up the second number, too? Oh, that's the old number. >> Can you save this document? It says read only. So, you might just save. I hope I
can save it. Just do a save as file. Yeah, I'm not connected to the server, right? So, it's going to be I save it locally at least, otherwise you lose. >> You can take a screenshot, Joe.
>> Do you want me to? Yeah. Yeah. See what comes up. But put it on the desktop. This is good. We can see everything he works on. Oh, you're lucky you didn't see my other hidden files. They're worse. Wait. Oh, got it. All right.
>> Good catch, Chiron. single family certificate of compliance. >> So, we went to $200. I think that's >> reasonable. >> 200 expired 100 for normal. >> Right. >> Right. Okay.
>> I'm good with close enough. >> Uh >> commercial 200 and 125 I would say is the mean and 200 would be two to three. We have 150 if expired 250.
>> I'm okay with that one. >> Yeah. And the last is the last the last one is the Xanrad. Um and I'm not sure we agreed on that because it's not highlighted in red.
So that's connected to whatever we put on um the delineation. >> Okay. Why don't you save this and bring up the email with those suggested changes? >> You just saved it. >> There's five of them we have to talk
about. It's let me see section two paragraph E and nine and there's a bunch of letters and it's F through K are the ones we're
talking about changing or not changing two paragraph B All right. So, um, most of these are relatively minor changes. I'll come back to them. The big ones are different,
uh, down here. These were $11, which have been there forever. Uh that's the ones that got triggered by zero small lane by cedar swamp and that's made us say it's time to go back and
revisit these. So these so have any questions on what this is? So boundary delineation. So that's when that's laying out the wetman flags. This was the plus, >> right? >> These things all together plus because it's that fee and then depending on what
they're doing, they may have additional costs. >> And it says changes for town bylaw. I assume this is not to go into the April town meeting or it is to go into the town meeting. >> Well,
sometime in the future. >> Okay. >> No, we're not doing that. We'll just change our regulations. This is not for the bylaw. >> Oh, so my mistake. I thought they count as a bylaw, but you're right. It's our regulations. Either way, >> bylaw says we can set the fees. The regulations is where we >> when you go on the website, look under
conservation commission and it has the uh reading wetlands protection that that one this is that document. >> Okay. >> Regulations. Okay. So the reason these matter because
sometimes the numbers are big. You know the linear feet can be a thousand or more more feet. We've seen that. Uh and so that's where the numbers get big. The numbers that were here worked fine for small projects but seems to be where
they originally intended for and then as the project got big the numbers got pretty heavy. So this has a little bit of increase and it fixes these two egregious problems down there. Um we added this sentence
must meet 2 to1 compensatory storage requirement for any fill. So basically >> why don't you go over each one start with F. >> Okay. >> The body line delineation. So that's the wetland flag line
foot. It's $2 per linear foot. I mean we a few hundreds is I say typical for us because it's often around house. Um and the maximum here is single family and
then anything else. That's on the other sheet that was called commercial which is anything else. So it's 200 and500 for anything more than one house. But that's the max. Doesn't doesn't mean anything else in
>> um was it before >> dollar and the max >> I think it was like 125 was no it was a$125 and the max was 125 and then it was 1,200 for the max for commercial.
>> Okay. put them parentheses or something. Okay. And then this one is um square foot of alterations. Example of that would be zero small lane where they were going to have to fill
part of it and then they were replicating uh whatever 1300 square feet or something. That's where that fee would come in because they pay per square foot of alteration. And it's key here,
temporary or permanent. So even if you do it and then you know it's fixed or what have you, still a fee attached to that. >> Did you change that language? >> I'm just looking to make sure I didn't.
No, rest of language is the same. Um H this is a flood plane. This almost doesn't matter. It really isn't. um much or any any chance of that coming in. But I figured if we're going to
change the other, we keep them in lock step. So even though I expect to see that one dollar change and that sentence a two to one point as well. >> Whoops.
>> We left $11. >> I see that. >> Yeah. I mean, >> no, I left that day. I changed it. >> Oh, did you? Okay. >> I'll tell you. So, let me let me take over here for a second. So, uh so we've been pushing this for years that if you work within a vernal pool habitat, we
don't allow any work. So, I when Brian sent this to me and he had it down to two bucks, I said we shouldn't have this in there at all because this says we allow work in vernal pool habitat because you can pay $11 a square foot and at least we're contradicting
ourselves. And I said, "Well, it shouldn't be in here at all or we should at least leave it at the high $11." So, when you find a vernal pool from the border, we do not allow any work within 100 ft. Um, so vernal pools and and
habitat is usually a thousand feet or more. uh they get pretty interesting when they're on hillsides and things like that, but standard WPA discussions 100 feet is what we feel comfortable the community feels comfortable being
the jurisdiction. So, I did not want to lower this number and I put the question out there since we don't allow work in that area. Are are we putting ourselves uh in bind here by saying
>> you can buy your way out? >> You could you could buy I mean we have to agree to it. I get that. But, you know, even would you even propose it? I mean, if someone proposed it and then they don't get it, are they going to say, "Well, I want my money back because it seemed like I could have paid to work
in that area." >> So, there is a difference between a wetland and a vertical pool in terms of that 100 foot buffer. Bernal, you can't do anything. It's like our 35 foot buffer or 25 buffer, excuse me. >> Yeah. >> So, a a wetland. So as as far as like
the wetlands protection act and our regulations, a wetland and a scale from one to 10, you know, can fluctuate between um uh quality and um values between one and
10. And we would be pretty concerned if it was a 10 and someone wanted to build something there. But if it was a six or a five, we might say, "Yeah, you can build there and here's some precautions." But with a vernal pool, we we've been taught through classes and
whatnot um that they're all tents and so therefore it's really hard to allow work in those areas um you know without altering the habitat or changing. So, usually what
happens, let's say you have like this like uh blue spotted salamander and someone puts a house right there on the vernal pool. Well, that guy doesn't go and find some other spot. He doesn't go take a hike. He comes back. So, he
doesn't produce that year. He just goes back home. Sees nothing of it. He comes back the next year. Still a house. Goes back up the hill. Nothing happens. So, it's not like they
move. It's not like a coyote who's going to find new uh land to hang out on. But, so that's what the problem is. So, we want to protect these areas when we find them. I think throughout our regulations, we've done that. We protect
um uh isolated uh land subject to flooding as small as 500 square feet because that's thinking about uh vernal pools. So >> again, there's this one this question here about vernal pools. >> If I may,
>> we're saying no, but we're saying yes. >> If I may, a 100 foot radius at $11 a square foot is $345,000. Is that going to discourage somebody when land is over a million dollars in a >> I like the way you're thinking, but most
people only touch a little corner of it. >> Yeah, we charge you for the whole thing or just >> No, no, just where they're at. where they're building, >> then that's not enough. Get rid of it. >> Well, I agree with Chuck, though. Um, I don't think we should set a situation
where they can do what we don't want them to do for good environmental reasons just by paying more. That encourages somebody with more money, willing to spend more money to be able to do with somebody in different positions. >> That's what I'm saying. Get rid of Get rid of I. Period.
>> I agree with Walter. Delete I. Me, too. I agree. Anybody else? >> It sounds like that's what you want to do. So, yeah. >> I thought it was uh Yeah, I thought it was inconsistent. You know, why why is it there? >> Um Okay. So, then down to J.
So, this is uh you know, more typical for us where they're getting >> this was this was $11 a square foot, something like that. >> $1 square foot. This was the big issue at Cedar Swamp. >> So the difference between J and
G, G happens in the buffer zone. You're not in the water. You're out of the water. You're an up and dry area. J happens in the wetland. >> The actual >> So we're talking about bridge bridges, replication areas. There's a clause in the wetlands
protection act that you can you can you can it says you can. I don't know if it's ever allowed. You can fill up to 5,000 square feet. There's that. You know what? That would be some significant project for anyone to agree to that. But a little bite of it, you
could you can fill some areas and replicate them other areas. You know, we that was done once here when I was here. Um >> down on Main Street, right? Or at least originally they were planning a replication area on Main Street.
>> They did 859 Main Street. They went off to the south side. They replicated. Why are we going down to from 11 to 4? >> Because $11 >> is hard. >> So the numbers went up so much that it
wouldn't represent any part of the review that it was that was taken place in the conservation office. So we dropped the number down. And then does it create sorry and does it create the same problem as I if you include include river or stream because
doesn't riverfront also have the similar like 100 foot uh no builds. >> No this is these are buffer zone projects and so bridges would be one that's always that's always approved. You can find your way to approve it in the riverfront area. It does say that we
have to allow a house enough room to repair it, a driveway and a septic system. >> We need to get to a point where we can't allow those things. Um so crossing on zero small lane would have c been under this category, right?
>> The the crossing would be under this category, right? and then temporary and permanent for where they wanted to um do the replication because that would have a permanent alteration. It's up to the commission if they say since you're
doing a replication area, we're going to wave that fee. >> You know, it's always up to the commission there before you have a chance to wave it. >> Yeah. So, have to be there. >> It's not like stacking. You can you can pick and choose what you want, but when
people look through it and when they when they look at their projects, they want to understand how much they're paying in fees. >> And and that's the one that in particular raised the red flag because with the Cedar Swamp project, they were um
disturbing 43,000 square feet. And so $11 a square foot, that gets your attention. >> Yeah. What if someone could build a house? And in this town, there's like no zoning, I don't believe, for driveways. Like, you can have a driveway right up
to the edge of your property. But in order to get their driveway in, they had to fill in a little bit of the wetland. So, that would be a need. They needed a driveway to sell a house. So, I can see someone coming in and saying, "Look, I got to fill 200 square feet."
And so, this would take care of that. 200* 4 and then replicated somewhere else on the property. Okay. Um and then the last one is working bank.
That's important for us just because there's so many rivers in Reading, especially when you consider that we consider a perennial stream with the same regulations as rivers. So, >> and again, I'm just going to say bridge.
I don't know what else would be working on a bank. >> I can think of one. Yeah, we have >> a violation that's been ongoing working on a bank. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, >> we also have the one >> if you came in with a permit that would
have been >> right. >> Yeah. >> Should we use the term river bank? >> No, because it can be a perennial stream. It doesn't be a refer to it. >> Yeah, that's the way it is. Well, >> but the word bank can be anything that
says slope. >> So, bank of a stream or river. >> No, I I think we should keep this because it's consistent with the language in the state law. That's that's their whole section. It's bank. So, >> I think that would be good to do.
>> I'm good with that number. >> Anybody else have problem questions? any of these. >> Can I can I just bring up one quick question on I again? I know we we said we're going to take it out. Um like hypothetically, so Simon's Way, if there was like a vernal pool near the recal
building. Um and we have no fee associated with that. I mean, is the town one would be would they be exempt to continue construction of something like that with a vernal pool discovered near recal? >> No. >> And Okay. >> It's not just a fee thing. We have
regulations throughout >> our document on things that apply to vernal pools. >> So that would be what would take precedent is the fee is secondary. >> Well, okay. So what I was going to say is secondarily then you know say if there is a a need from the town to
construct something there is a vernal pool there that doesn't it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to outright block that project. Correct. or it's just based on our interpretation of the regulations first. >> Well, I would say this is my opinion.
We'll see what Chuck says. >> Sure. >> Say that's up to the opinion of whatever commission is sitting at the time, but yes, it absolutely could. Um, but I can think of one project in for sure where
yes, it was blocking it and the uh people had to redesign the uh the size of the house, the orientation of the house and everything to get around the 100 foot buffer. >> So, so why I say, you know, maybe I
question the out clause versus having a an amount per square foot, it kind of goes back to Walter's point. Does that number need to be high uh to discourage the behavior? But if there is still a need for that building, wouldn't there still need to be a fee associated with
the impact that it would cause to losing that vernal pool? >> I don't think that the town pays fees, do they, Chuck? >> They don't. And this could be anybody. This could be >> or Eastern Gateway, for example, which has >> some important building that had to fit
somewhere. You know what? if we were doing like a like a you know capped landfill. This is the only company that wants to build on top of it. We don't want a cap landfill. Um but it's within vernal pool habitat. How would that be handled? But the one thing I want to
tell you Joe is that the decision about allowing something doesn't happen through the fees. It happens through the conservation commission. Anything outside of the fees could be everything uh what is that that term? um the preponderance of credible evidence. You
know, the commission's allowed to make a decision based on how it was presented and so that the town or anyone else could make an argument that they will protect this in such a way that there
will be no loss and if the commission agrees then the project moves forward. Yeah, you you can imagine a case where say they had to erase a vernal pool of a circum size and as mitigation they did something
three four times as much elsewhere >> you know that's something that the commission would have to consider I would think even though I'd be inclined to not go there but yeah I agree with Chuck there are conditions >> so without it without it being a fee
there would still be another condition associated with that that would have a tangible cost? >> No. >> To the applicant? >> No, it's not a cost. It's a decision the commission would make as to whether they could go forward and if so, what mitigation, if anything, was required.
>> Yeah, we couldn't have we couldn't u we couldn't levy a cost because it's not in our regulations. The only thing the commission could do that's kind of like a cost would be mitigation. and they could think of mitigation things that would
help, you know. >> So, so I I would I would be I would be I mean I don't have a vote here, but I would be less inclined to actually take out this fee associated with a vernal pool and instead increase it only because you know our future projects
within this town if a vernal pool is discovered, there's less buildable land that we would be working with. And if we do start to build on land that currently isn't being built on, we are going to be encroaching more on conservation type spaces. And so, you know, while we don't
want to encourage this with a low fee, I think there still needs to be at least some sort of tangible recovery if proper mitigation can't be determined. So the problem I have with that though is by having any fee, you do apply, you do
imply that somebody who wanted to spend enough money could get around the fact that we just want to protect the the rental pools, right? And we we certainly don't want it to be where you could buy
something as as valuable as a pool. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't if if if we somehow approved it, wouldn't the state step in and unapprove it? >> They may. >> They might or may not. >> It depends on the overall picture >> and and butters may appeal and they
will, right? Bring it to their attention. >> They could take the power away from >> which is the point Chuck made. It's not all about the fee. It's the rest of the regulations that >> have to be met. Fee has nothing to do with >> Yeah. I don't I don't and I I don't know if I heard you correctly, but you're
saying land is becoming scarce, so there may be more situations where we would >> we would need to approve work within the 100 foot buffer zone. I would say that would be exactly why we want to have strong regulations to keep us out of
those areas because once you lose them, they're gone forever and you know, we start living in Potterville. Okay, >> they may put it in is under special circumstances the the commission can decide up to $11. >> Less is more
>> again. I think taking it out. >> Well, you're getting over my head. I don't know. That might be allowed, but we need to get an attorney on this commission. >> Less is more. Get it out. >> That's fair. >> Put to put a value on it. Somebody can always be willing to pay more. >> I mean, I think >> I'm looking at cases where
>> a long time and we've said no for a long time. Yeah. >> So no one >> we didn't get a big big >> you know we didn't have a major project in Vernal Poolool area. So we did have
Small Lane which caught the eye of a developer who had enough money to hire a few lawyers and we found out about that. I mean I'd hate to find out about the vernal pool situation. You know, it just seems to be contradictory to saying no
work within the 100 foot buffer zone of a vernal pool. >> Well, again, if you want to base it on bedrock, what are the interests that are up in the beginning of the law, right? We're supposed to protect those interests. So, bring in money is not one of those
interests. So, for us to say pay a lot of money, you can override the other interest doesn't make sense. >> Yeah. And Joe, by taking it out, it doesn't mean that the commission can't be presented with a project that's in vernal poolool habitat and there's a project approved. It that has nothing to
do with paying for it. We do lose that and the only thing that could recover it was the uh compensation of mitigation. So, I don't know what you would think of, but >> I'm I'm looking at situations where the town could put undue pressure on the conservation commission to approve a
project in the the best interest of the town without having any sort of >> Absolutely. And there's many uh retired conservation commission member that met that uh same uh you know uh motivation.
There's a lot and and and you're absolutely right. I mean the best way to do you know we don't have a project here and I don't know if anyone's um I mean most of our vernal pools are in north and south cedar swamp
>> right >> so there's a lot other town forest for instance you know things like that I hear what you're saying it's it's a it's a problem um that that could be a problem for everyone sitting here for
sure. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. >> Okay, so I think we're okay with the spreadsheet. We're okay with these changes that we just discussed. Um, >> so we want to I wouldn't So this just
came up tonight, so we're not voting on this. >> You have to put an amended version out and then vote on >> Yeah. >> get it on the agenda. >> Yeah. Next meeting. >> So we don't want to take a vote at all. We don't Okay.
>> And same with the spreadsheet. We amended that. So that also have to go off review, >> put that on the agenda next time and and uh have a finalized uh >> let's try not to reopen it again. >> Then we can all think about this and maybe I can uh
ask around. I don't don't have opportunity to talk to town council, but um someone might. You want any uh anybody on your rolodex? >> Environmental lawyers. I can think of one. >> I know one too. Yeah. Okay.
>> I may actually reach out there too. >> We're getting close to uh >> the witching hour. >> The witching hour. But this was good to go through this. I you know getting getting closer here. >> So we we knocked off the tree policy. Now we played with the fees. And the
next big thing I think is revisiting the regulations as a whole um just in reading them over the time I've been on it. There are places where changes should be made, clarify things. We did a pass already. Clarify things,
close loopholes, things of that nature. I'm not saying change the uh the intent of it or anything obviously, but you know uh the very least you should be familiar with our cut, the town's cut at
the regulations. It's much smaller than the state ones. Um in a lot of cases though, what it does is it says basically we agree with the state this, we agree with the state that. Especially where it's different, you need to know what the differences are because some of
them are important like the fact that we treat streams as rivers. The fact that minor project we don't allow above ground pools I mean inground pools as minor le
there are things that you should be familiar with by now. The other thing I want to say as far as cutting down the size of the effort, even the state law, a lot of that covers
coastal fisheries, saltwater marshes. Here we have uh freshwater wetlands and rivers. It's two sections. They're not tiny sections, but it is a smaller bite of the pie.
So, there'll be quiz next week. Okay. Um, is there now anything we need to discuss before we adjourn? >> We didn't vote on any of this. We need a motion. >> No, no, no, no. Because we're going to put out the updated ones >> and then
>> and then vote on the updated. >> Okay. I think we're we're ready to see the final version. >> Yeah. Okay. What I'm about to say, I didn't discover until Monday when I looked at the town
charter, the newly revised one. Section 8.12.1 calls for removal of committee members and the committee can vote on removing any particular member. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody here, but if you go
to our website, >> what's that red dot on my chest? >> No, I know who he's talking about. Go. Wait, wait a minute. Let him talk. >> So, if you go to our website, we have a voting member in the two plus years I've been involved. I never met the person.
I've never seen the person. I saw him once, saw that person, not him or her. I saw it on the screen once. >> Okay. I'd like to discuss that next meeting. >> So, so I so I reached out to the uh
clerk and she said that's been taken care of. So, he took him down. He had resigned. It just didn't catch up to >> So, there's an open space. So maybe you don't have to invoke that which I would wouldn't do unless I got permission from
uh the town town manager or somebody higher up than my position because I don't think that what I've been told is the mission can't um kick someone off because you were put on by the select board. It's the select board's
responsibility to take people off. We could request it. >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. But it goes it goes through them. >> So we have an open position. >> Open voting position. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. That I would say that I I
noticed that confusion too when I applied for the commission that there was only one open voting position, but now it appears that there were two about a year ago. If that's is that what I'm hearing here? I know there was a name that came up on one of the
>> the time that on this there have been some names on there that weren't accurate. There was a woman who was was put on it didn't have any interest in being on it and she never showed for anything but her name stayed on there
for a long time. Uh as Chuck said these things take quite a while. I think that's what because you know the select board are doing one thing and we're here we have boots on the ground seeing people not showing up and saying hey I this is not what I want to do
we get two different results on the and we don't take care of that part of the web page >> so can you go to the select board select board excuse me and appoint Mr. Joseph Flurry as a voting member >> I think he has to go through the same process as everyone else
>> yeah it's a meeting and I think I resign as the associate and I would have to just reapply as a member and that gets voted on separately in front of the select board. I think that's happened a couple of times >> and then we would not allow it. >> I'm ruining
>> Exactly. No, I I'm afraid of Brian as chair. >> They do I don't know if they would do sometimes they do special like what you're saying, but I'm >> they do part they there's that vast committee interview. >> Yeah. and sometimes more than one.
>> So Joe, for the future, is that is something you're interested in doing? >> Yeah, I I would definitely say yes. So, um, we can I can I can talk offline with Chuck on that and just confirm, but just to make sure that there's a position open and I would be happy to talk to the
select board or the VASC on that and >> Okay. >> have it happen. >> So, anything else before we adjourn? Happy ending. Thank you. Okay. Have a motion to adjourn at 8:44. >> I move to adjourn at 8:44. >> Second.
>> Favor. >> Yay. >> All right. Good night, everyone. >> Good night, everyone.