Hi Beth. >> Hi Scott. How are you >> doing? Well, >> yeah. You're still in California. >> Look, it's like light outside. >> Wow. Look at that. And what's the
temperature? It's a perfect like 73 74 degrees every day and sunny. >> That's nice. >> I can see that's It makes people here spoiled. I want to get back to where
it's cold. >> Yeah. Well, we had um Let Mary in um we had like 80 degrees Monday and Tuesday this week. It was crazy. And then there just dropped. >> Yeah.
I heard it get cold like over uh just like the last day or so. >> Yeah, it went from being 80 on Monday and Tuesday to some rain on Wednesday and then uh today it was 40 degrees or something this morning or even colder
than that. I think when I was going to work it was crazy. And I've been doing field work all week. So Monday to Tuesday I was sweating and then this morning I was absolutely freezing. So
wild but >> that's crazy. >> Yeah, >> the variation. >> Yeah, it was very abrupt kind of thing. But my my dog has been having all these ticks and I think it was because of the warm weather. you know, there's that
fall tick kind of like boom for a little bit. And I think that's what's been going on the last week. >> And so I'm so glad that tonight it's going to be about 25 degrees because I think that'll bring an end to the ticks. >> That'll be good. >> Fingers crossed.
>> Yeah, fingers crossed. >> Ticks are no fun. >> Yeah, it's it's 70 degrees here. >> Nice. Are you in California still? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Good for you.
Um uh uh I don't know if um um you were texted, but uh um what's his name? >> Um hold on a second. Our other member of is not coming. Bob, sorry. Like Douglas.
I was going to call him Douglas. Um he's not coming tonight. Did he text you guys too? Or >> Yeah, >> because I never know if I'm just the only one getting the text or if it's just because of >> Oh, >> you know how he I I think worries about public meeting violations or something.
So, >> he texted me and said he's not coming. So, >> yeah. I know. He he texted me. He also kind of goofily um left a voicemail for Haley Bolton, the town administrator. She forwarded it to me. She was like,
"One of your commission members is not going to make it tonight." And I was like, "Oh, I'm sorry that he bothered you." I think she got confused between who Haley is and who Matteo is. And anyway, but yeah, he's not going to be here, but um let's open the meeting.
So, it is 7:02 on October 9th, 2025, and I'm calling this meeting of the Shu Conservation Commission to order. This meeting is being recorded. Um the first item on the agenda is his comments and you mentioned Bob and so he
did text me today that he's not coming and he also mentioned again he wants to do a um a a nature hike sponsored by the conservation commission on um December 27th. So I think he wants people to put
that on their calendars now >> um since it's right around the holiday. Um but he wants to do that and uh that sounds fun. And in the same world um a good friend of mine just joined the
recreation committee and she and I have been talking about the same thing but we're thinking of like a monthly kind of thing that would be sponsored by both the conservation commission and the recreation committee. Um, and it would be going to conservation areas, but also
like we kind of made a list and it includes just other nature hikes in Shootsberry, not necessarily conservation land. Um, and so more more stay tuned for that one. she needs to talk to the rec committee about it and
then um yeah so anyway we're thinking a monthly thing but it's like you know there doesn't have to be necessarily someone from the commission every month would just be sort of trying to get a group together of people who would want to do it every month and then >> each month someone would be sort of the
leader for that month of the hike. But um anyway >> that sounds >> sounds like a great idea. Sounds like fun, right? >> Yeah, it does. >> Get some exercise. >> Do their Christmas bird counts at the
same time. >> Yeah. If we do the one that Bob wants to do. Yeah. >> Yep. All right. Um, and then when we get down towards the public hearing, I'll be talking a little
bit more about that, just about how I how we should probably run that public hearing for the regulations. But before that, we've got um the second thing on the agenda is to review and vote on the minutes of
September 25th. Did everybody get a chance to look at those? Great. Um, all right. I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of September 25th, 2025. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Con >> I. >> Fox. >> I. >> And Wilson. I. All right. Next is site visits.
Mayor, >> so sorry about that. >> That's okay. >> If you only knew the things that were happening on my trip back from Greenfield, it took me like an hour to get home because I was transporting
something on my roof and and the um it wasn't hooked up right and it just made noises and I had to pull over and oh and then it got stuck and I was just like I didn't want to hold you up. So, did you find Did you find Roger?
>> No. But then, um I I didn't and I just thought I didn't know, you know, where he was. But then yesterday or today, Maryanne called me um just to talk about the landscaping and the the seating and stuff that they want to start doing. And
I I said, "Oh, I was there on Monday." And she said that they she thinks they were probably in the building >> at that point. I guess they have They have like a Monday meeting and then afterwards after the Monday meeting they all walk around. >> Um >> and she's like, "Sorry, we didn't notice you standing there." Because I kind of
stood in the in the open area there for quite a while. >> Yeah. >> Nobody came around. But >> but so I told her that we would probably be um rescheduling. >> Yeah. I've come I've always kind of worked it into my workday. So, it's
usually like anywhere from 11 to 1:00 and and even then he's having meetings sometimes, you know. So, um um did you set up another So, I set it up with Maryanne or or or him, but did you want to do another one
within a week or so or or did you want to go another couple weeks or >> um Yeah. No, we should probably get there in a week. It sounds like um >> Okay. you know, they're starting to to to do some of the landscaping and seating and and things like that. So,
it'd be good to see what's going on. So, >> are they working on Monday because that's a holiday? >> Probably not. Like, yeah, I wouldn't want to schedule it on Monday. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Let's see. Do you want to do like the 20th and then I'll just reach out to
Maryanne and text her to say, "Hey," and then she reaches out to Roger. But um >> yeah, the 20th is great. >> Okay. 20th at like uh 4 again or like 4
>> or even 3:45. >> 3:45. Okay. >> Yeah, that works for me. >> Okay. Okay. I'll I'll text her. Um Okay. Sure. Great. Scott, you gonna be
back by then? >> I'll be back um probably early December. >> Okay. Well, we'll get back in touch with you then. >> All right. So, after the library, then I
did go to 11 um North uh what is it? North Laurel. um talked to them a little bit more about their taking down their shrubs and um you know we just talked about that they need to file a notice of intent. Um so they're going to do that. They're going to reach out with and I
think Matteo's already reached out to them to get them the forms and everything. So we'll be getting that. It looks like Mayor's frozen. Oh, now she's not. >> I'm not. I'm just texting Maryanne. >> Oh boy. You were really you were really
like still for a minute there. >> I'm very intent on what I'm doing here. Um but I'm listening. Um yeah. No, I wasn't able to go that one either. Um but I I know the property. So yeah, we went I went maybe Jan and I went to the there one other time and
talked to them about kind of the same thing. Now they've decided to do the shrubs on both sides. Um, and one of their neighbors was there and is happy to have it done and that. So, >> both sides of which property, 11 North Laurel Drive or
>> the one next to that? Uh, I don't remember the number of it, but they're to the to the south. >> Oh, okay. >> Yep.
So Sam and uh and Norine. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yep. All right. Next we have land management update. Scott, you have anything?
>> Uh I not much since the last time we all cut together. I I will say I um I I would love some thoughts. I I don't know, Beth, if you are ever in contact with Haley. I I just I can't seem to get
her to reply to my emails. I've emailed her many times asking about the process for uh the grant and um getting that bid left. and um I I just am not getting
responses back. So, I'm just wondering if they are perhaps not reaching her or there might be a glitch with the email system or or something else is going on. But, um I really kind of feel stuck. I'm not sure how best to move that forward.
I I think the town has to put that out for bid. I would love to get the design bid out this fall uh before the snow flies. And um you know I know these are all on a timeline so I it would be
really good to get these let but um I think due to the award amount it's too large um and the con can't the concom can't do it. It has to be done by the town is my understanding. >> Um yeah so I'm actually wondering um
Matteo if you could you check in with Haley about that. I um I can certainly do that. She's going to be out this week, but I will um bring it up with her when I when I see her and press her on it. >> Okay. >> Right. If she has any if I can be of any
help or she has questions, just wanted her to reach out to me. >> But that's probably the big part. So, and the report unless you have any questions for me. No, I guess um I know you had you sent
me sort of a draft of a of a management plan. >> I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. >> Yeah, they're more looking at rags, the possibility of like rags for those properties. I know we had there was an old plan and I think we
were asked to to consider some regulations for those properties. Um, and so I took a a swing, a draft of some of that for to introduce here uh to the commission at some point in time,
whatever you think would be the the right time and process to do that. >> Well, thank you. Thanks for for putting that together. But okay, I'll take a look at it and and yeah, we can talk about that.
>> Okay. Yeah, I figured like uh probably best to get through all the wildland egg piece first so we can worry about these. >> That's what I thought too. But that can be our that can be our winter project. >> There you go. Well, good. >> Yeah. Well, that so that's another kind
of announcement just to remind everybody that starting in November, we only meet once a month for the winter. So, and I think you know in general things kind of slow down a little bit. We'll get the regulations you know, all set and I I think applications will slow
down. So, we'll have time to do something something like that. That would be fun. >> Do we meet on the second or the fourth or sometime in between? >> I think last year we went with the second. I think we should choose one or the other. And it it's kind of up to
what we what people like or what works better for everybody. We can we can talk about it maybe at the next meeting. >> Bob Bob will be there. We can decide. >> Okay. >> But yeah, we can do either one. Doesn't
matter. Um Matteo, >> I don't know if it makes a difference, but the the fourth uh Thursday in in November is Thanksgiving. >> True. It would make sense to do the second.
>> It might. And in Christmas, too, like the holidays probably tend to mess up doing it. The fourth Thursday. >> Yeah. >> We may want to do the second. >> The fourth Thursday in December is Christmas Day. >> All right, let's go with the fourth.
That way, we don't meet until January. >> Yeah. I think last year we went with the second Thursday. Um but >> okay. >> Yeah, we can decide at our next meeting. Um all right. Next on the agenda is
discussion um by with Kestrel Land Trust about preservation of a 9 acre property off of Wendell Road. And Bridget's here to tell us all about it. Hi >> everyone. Thanks for your time this evening. Um I'm Bridget likely. I'm a
conservation manager at Kestrel and like Beth said, um, we wanted to reach out to the Shberry Conservation Commission about a potential land protection opportunity off Windle Road. Um, I'm going to go ahead and share a map.
Uh, I think I might have to request to share, but let me know. There we go. Okay. Is that showing for everyone? >> Yep. >> Great. Um so yeah, we have been talking um with this family um for almost two
years now about um their land just south of our Brightwater bog nature retreat on Wendell Road um which mostly is already protected with a conservation restriction um but does include a 9 acre parcel on the other side. It's all
under, you know, um, one configuration. And, um, because most of the land is protected, uh, it's been taking a while for us to come up with a plan, um, cuz why we would like to purchase it to expand brightwater bog and and see it go under kind of one management plan. um
finding funding for already protected land can be difficult, but we feel we we've reached a point where we can enter into a purchase and sale agreement with this family um and pursue acquiring this land. Um but we'd like to see the 9 acres protected as well. Uh and given
that just to the north of the 9 acres is the town's Lake Weer conservation area, uh we wanted to approach the town and see if the town would be interested in expanding their current conservation area. um and Castrol would pre-acquire this land but then potentially sell to
the town hopefully maybe utilizing um CPA funding in order to expand your conservation area. Um but we'd be happy to do all the due diligence and everything leading up to the pre-acquisition and of course help support CPA funding if that's something the town is interested in. Um but just
wanted to explore your interest at this time. >> Yeah, thanks for for sharing and bringing this to the commission. Um, I think it's great to be expanding both those conservation areas. Um, do you have kind of an idea of how much money
the nine acres would be? >> Yeah, so we did do appraisal for both um, pieces over the summer. And so you'll see here the 9 acres got appraised at 82,000. Um, so that's the figure the family has agreed to currently. Um, and what we'd
be looking to to maybe have the town pursue BCPA funding if possible. >> Yeah, that's how I see it happening, too. Um, so I think I think this is great. Um,
I think, you know, I I haven't I know you and I chatted a little bit about it. I certainly haven't, you know, like talked to our town administrator or anything about it yet, but I think that would be sort of the next step. um bring it to town administrator and select
board and if everybody thinks it's a good idea to apply for CPA funding then then that would probably be what we would do, right? How do how do you guys feel about it? >> I I totally agree. I think um those
parcels uh adjoining the other pieces that were referenced I I think that they would be great additions and um working on the CPA funding to do that I I think would be fantastic and so I'm very supportive of this.
>> How quickly would all of this have to happen? I know, you know, the CPA applications are uh the the Oh, Matteo, what's it called? It's like a expression of interest, right? Those are due
Novemberish. Um, so I'm just wondering how quickly we would need to to have decided about all of this. Bridget, what do you think? Yeah, I mean my understanding was maybe yeah, November, December is when that like intent or you know applicability kind of
application goes in and then the official application is February. Um I welcome Matteo to correct me if I'm wrong there. Um so we're hoping to pre-require the family estate. It's a little complicated the process has to go to to actually lead to a sale. Um but
we're hoping um we could close by the end of the year, early um 2026 and Cash will, you know, will hang on to it until the town has the CPA funds come through and it would be great to have it, you know, happen at the, you know, spring
town meeting, have that CPA vote. Um but we can explore alternatives. It's the timing seems tight, but it'd be great to Yeah. >> Yeah. I know. I just was really I was curious whether we were talking this round of CPA like this year or um or
next year or you know sometimes there's out of cycle CPA applications and stuff but it sounds like if Kestrel's buying it as soon as the beginning of 2026 then then yeah it would really work out actually to go after to go after CPA
funding this round. 2026 CPA funding I guess it is or um so okay. Well, I I love it. I mayor, what do you >> Oh, I'm so thrilled. I um I I just had a question. Um just like really kind of
remote, but the property the 9 acre property is that where there's like a huge um uh like dip and that's is that a snowmobile trail? >> Yes. Yeah, I can pull the map if I look up again. There is a snowmobile trail. >> Okay. That is like the best part of that
snowmobile trail cuz it's kind of cool. huge dip and um um I've taken my kids down it when they were little and uh oh my god they loved it. But what is um what I guess my question would be um
what is uh the plan like would I know this is really early but what would Kestrel be able to do with with um any kind of trails or like is there a plan in the future for that? Like I don't know. >> Yeah. So, in terms of the the land
that's already protected south of Bright Water, um our hope is to expand the trail system that we've, you know, been working on with the boardwalk and all that on Bright Water and have it be a connecting piece. >> Um and then even beyond that, um as you
may know, Kestrel closed in June on um these acres here, the Brown property. Um and there's been, you know, this thought in our head of at the very least thinking about wildlife corridor connection, you know, doing an east west connection and trying to work towards
that. Um if it also included a trail connection at some point, that's also on our radar as well. >> Okay. And then would there be like a something a separate parking lot like kind of at
the >> Yeah, parking is a great question. Um and it's something we're exploring. We'd love to expand parking just because already at Brightwater Bog the parking seems limited um compared to the enthusiasm of of people. Um the the
family does own a a small house lot on the frontage that we've also talked to them about. We don't quite have the funding there at the moment and the timing isn't working out, but we're hoping maybe we could look at that for parking or explore, you know, what's possible on the already existing
protected land. But yeah, we'd love to see expanded parking as well to accommodate. >> Great. Um, Scott, who's the new member of the conservation commission? >> Pardon me? >> It's my Oh, it's my grandson. because I
see who the new member was. >> Damn it. >> He's in He's a big fan of protected land here. Maybe he'll go hiking there one day. >> Yes, >> he's awfully cute. Awfully nice and
quiet and well behaved. >> He's listening intently. >> Um, we have uh Rob Rob Kibler. Yeah, I have a quick question. Uh, I know that some conservation land, depending on how it's acquired and
depending who funds that acquisition, has to ban motor vehicles. Are snowmobiles excluded for this parcel or would this uh popular snowmobile
tell? And I don't snowmobile, so I'm just asking a question. If the town acquires it, would they close a popular snowmobile trail? >> Well, if if we use CPA funding, we do have to do a conservation restriction on
the land. Um, and that would include the list of things that are allowed and aren't allowed. And I think that would just be something that would be discussed, you know, further further along with the purchase of the land. >> Yeah. And I should say, yeah, I've neglected to mention that Castrol is
certainly willing to be the one to hold the the CR. Um, and we've definitely included snowmobiles. Um, you know, whether it's like an easement or a license agreement to to allow that use to continue. It's more with the ATVs and dirt bikes and things like that. We tend
to be more restrictive about that compared to snowmobiles. >> Yeah, there's definitely parcels that have CRS in Chesbury that do that exact thing. They don't allow ATVs, but they do allow snowmobiles.
So, we'll decide that as we go through the process. Mateo. >> Sure. >> Um I I also know that that that snowmobile that that mayor was talking about, that trail is a it's actually a right of way. It's an easement through
the property um that was carved out by AT&T a long time ago and it runs way back into the Monagu Road area. So I don't know to what extent if the parcel was acquired that that particular path would be part of the parcel. It might
actually end up being excluded from it because it's an easement. >> I know this because runs across our property too and we don't own it. >> Yeah. It goes across the other side too. Yeah. >> Um Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, sometimes you own a piece of property and somebody
else has an easement across your property um that then they kind of have a right to help determine what happens within the easement, but you still own it. I don't know what the situation would be, but yeah, they would still have a say as to what and they would also still have access through that
easement. Say it was Eversource or somebody like that, they that's the way the easement would work. But certainly the easement would probably supersede the conservation restriction um in that case. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, that sounds great to me. >> Great. >> But I think we need to talk to a few more people. Um and then we'll just, you know, we'll we'll stay in touch about it. >> All right. Yeah. If um it's helpful to figure out a time for me to present to the select board or, you know, what
those conversations should be and when they happen, I'm happy to follow up. Okay, that sounds great. I'll I'll let you know. But yeah, it might it might be like a Zoom call or something with you and and select board or or the town administrator just to start talking about it a little bit.
>> Great. >> So good. Thanks for bringing that to us. >> Happy to do it. Thanks so much. >> All right. >> All right. Take care. >> You too. All right. Now we have review the order
of conditions for 73 Shore Drive. Um, so if y'all remember at our last meeting, we closed the hearing on 73 Shore Drive and we just need to take a quick look at the order conditions.
Can everybody see my screen? >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, finding a fact 73 Shore Drive. Um resource areas that are included that
are on the site are bank for Lake Wyola, land underwater for Lake Wyola, and the buffer zone. Um I was kind of hoping somebody was going to be here tonight for this, but I don't think there is anybody just to get some of these details
into this. Um so I just little description of what they're going to do. rebuild a 15 foot long, x foot high. I I'll just reach out to um Ward Smith and ask him this these things. Um embankment
using um small equipment. I just called it a tractor, but I'll check with him. Um, and that the walls about 15 ft from the bank. And that the work improves the installation and use of a 3- foot wide,
30- foot long seasonal dock. Um impact is approximately 30 square feet of permanent impact to the aura from the rebuilding of the retaining wall. Um no trees will come down and then the dock the dock has temporary
minimal impacts to the bank and land underwater. It's located in natural heritage but we received a um letter from them saying no impact. So there's no conditions from them. And
this is just again a little bit more info maybe I can get from Ward about the site plan because he didn't have a date on it or anything. Um and then the rest of the these these conditions are standard special conditions. These are all standard
highlighted ones. Number 11 is is for the chapter 91 for the doc. Um, basically we're saying in order them for them to get a certificate of complian
compliance or even apply for a certificate of compliance, they need to get the chapter 91 license, which they were on board for doing and standard conditions for erosion control.
stand more standard conditions, all erosion control. Yeah, this is all standard stuff. Oh, and then I included the plants that we talked about for the bank. Um we I think we agreed last week that they
would uh plant five small um woody type native plants along the bank to improve or yeah not improve but just to maintain um stabilization of the bank and to provide some wildlife habitat.
So, I just have it that the plants would be those plant species would be determined by a certified wetland scientist, but they don't necessarily have to be wetland plants. And I think that's about it for anything that's not just standard. So, that's it. Any questions or
comments? Nope. Good. As I said, I'll just check in with board about some of the details, but that's about it. All right. So, I'm looking for a motion
to issue the order conditions for 73 Shore Drive. So, moved. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Great. All right. Um Fox
>> I Khan >> I >> and Wilson I >> All right 7:33 we're cruising tonight. We're just moving on through the agenda. All right. Okay. So, now we're having to
have our public hearing for our updated um for the draft of our updated wetlands bylaw regulations. Um, and I just want to say that tonight we are we're we're taking public comment. So, the commission isn't presenting the
regulations. We're we're we're taking public comment. Um, the draft regulations have been up on the web page for over a week. Um, we did a a legal ad announcement about the hearing. Um,
so, you know, at this point it's more just listening to the public and taking comments and and hopefully we'll be able to address those comments tonight. If there's any comments that come up that that really need a lot of discussion, um we may have to, you know, continue to
the next meeting, but um so anybody who'd like to make a comment, I'd like you to um state your name and then reference the the section of the regulations and the page of the regulations that you have your comment on so we're sure to be able to find what
you're what you're referencing. And Donna McNichol is here who um nicely has reviewed taken a a review of the regulations and she's here also to help us um answer any public comment.
So So let's begin. I see Rob Kibler's got his hand up. Rob, >> I have a question that's general to the entire um body of work on this. Uh two years
ago, town council recused herself because of a conflict of interest. Has that been resolved? And has the town provided a waiver of conflict of interest so that Donna's
um review would be legal? >> Um Donna, would you like to answer sort of the change since two years ago and so till now? >> Sure. Um, two years ago when the town was doing the revisions to the wetland protection
act um, bylaw, um, I was representing both the library and the conservation commission relative to the library build. So I had to recuse myself from
any work relative to that because I was representing two boards in town which was a conflict. So the library would basically did the representation themselves and the concom hired Elizabeth Goodman from Pittsfield
to represent the concom issues. um the li I'm no longer representing the library obviously that's um moving forward and so I don't have that conflict anymore. So for me, um there's
not a specific conflict because I have a place, the lake, and you all know I own property at the lake. Um any more than a person on the concom that lived next to a wetland or anything of that nature would have a conflict. Um if I applied
for a permit or something of that nature, of course that would be a conflict. Um but that's not the case. This is a general regulations that apply to the entire town. Everybody in the town, everybody that's near a wetland,
anybody that's near an um upland resource area. So, under the conflict of interest statute, when it applies generally to a community, there's not a conflict. My conflict had to do with
representation of two opposing bodies at the time. the um wetlands regula the wetlands protection act for shoots was being developed. >> So did you review the regulations that
were uh accepted by con two years ago? >> No. >> And that was for the same reason? >> Yes. >> Two years ago. Let I'm not sure of the date. So Ron Rob I don't want to resent
>> um >> by two years ago the conflict might have ended because the Ryberry building committee might have been done with the conservation commission. So I don't want to misrepresent I don't
have those dates exactly in my mind but these regulations that are being developed now that's applicable for there was another there was work on the wetland protection act several years ago that I reviewed >> but by then the library was done um with
their work with the con and if you remember at the time Greg McGregor came in to represent the town and the building and Elizabeth Goodman came in to represent the concom when the two boards were um working through the
building issues around the library. I remember attorney McGregor and the um enthusiasm he brought to his job very well. So I I don't know. I don't think I get
an answer. Did you review the last version of the regulations that were adopted by the committee? >> I don't know if I reviewed the last set of regulations. >> Okay. >> I don't know.
Any work I've done for the concom has been after the select board and the building committee um were finished doing work with the concom. And I don't know when those regulations were done. Um,
>> so the regulations were >> May 30th, 2024. So >> well, so that so the the the regulations were actually approved prior to the bylaw. The regulations the the
commission updated the regulations. Um, we've got it as October 5th, 2023. Right. Right. Then after that, we finally, you know, had the bylaw that actually was um approved at special town meeting. Um I guess that was January
2024. So So it would have been even earlier. So yeah, I think I think the whole building the the library building stuff was was about that same time, but I'm not sure.
>> Thank you. All right, Tom Seaffort. >> Hi, good evening. Um, thanks for letting me speak. Thank you for all of the hard work you've done on these regulations. I've witnessed a lot of your sessions and
know that it's been laborious. Um, did you have any professional consultants? um besides yourselves take part in the regulations or reviewing them? >> No. >> Um
I too had the question that Mr. that we just heard from the last speaker um about the prior recusal of our town council. And um I have a public record uh received as a result of a public records request which
was an email from the town council to a select board member and a commissioner back in June of 23. And um the reason cited in that email is quote given my property at the lake I may have a conflict.
So I'm confused about um that aspect of the potential conflict of interest because that hasn't changed and I was hoping the town council could address that. Um I can read the whole sentence if it would help. Um, I think I did address it and I'll address it again,
but I address this at every meeting you ask this question. Um, you can call me at the office and we could have a discussion about it instead of addressing it every single time. The bottom line is my conflict ultimately
arose. That email says maybe because I'm at the lake. I looked into it. The conflict arose by me representing two boards that were one was appearing before the other and so I couldn't represent them
in anything that had to do with the library project and the wetland protection by law would be applicable. So I recused myself. Beth Goodwin came in. Greg McGregor came in and I did what
I believe was right and I don't believe it's wrong for me to review bylaws and regulations now for the conservation commission now that those matters are resolved. It's hard to um square that given that
in your reason for recusal that's on record there's no mention of work with another board or the library and the only reason given where it says the select board and I have determined given my property at the lake that I may have a conflict.
It it leaves the question, I think, reasonably present for the public to wonder whether that conflict might still exist or even >> I don't believe it still exists. >> And I would hate for all of this work to
occur and have it not be considered correct if the legal reviewer had a conflict of interest in reviewing. >> It would not affect the work. I um >> it wouldn't affect the work. >> I wish we had a
>> if I had a conflict, it would be my issue, not the issue of the work. >> That's not how >> I wish we had some sort of authority to assure us that there's no conflict on your part. I would hate further work to
be undermined by a conflict. >> And I I I just want to note that I I understand what you're saying. >> Noted at every meeting, Tom. I don't quite know what that means, but um I know I have no idea. >> Every time I appear with the Concom, you
bring this up. The first thing >> I uh believe that it's very reasonable to bring that up given the document that we have from you about this. >> I understand and I address it every time with you and if you want to pick it up
next time, I'll address it again with you. >> Thank you. I mean one by I I I completely understand you know when what may have happened back then in terms of you were council for the town for the library and so that really was a
conflict and so I guess what might straighten this out is you know Donna have you reviewed other committees regulations and bylaws and things even though you zoning by the board of health by everything you Of
course. >> Yeah. So, so similar to, you know, the zoning board or the planning board, she owns property in town and and those those laws would apply to her just as much as the wetland laws would apply to her, but she still reviews uh
regulations and changes to regulations and and changes to bylaws and stuff for those boards and committees. So, I guess I I feel comfortable having her do it. And I and I guess I do understand that back then there was sort of this strange
question because she was representing the town in a project that was before the conservation commission, which does pose >> I just wish we had in writing something to corroborate that the previous conflict was actually about the work for two different boards on conservation
matters. Um, and I think a flip side of what um, the chairwoman just said is that it's possible it's a conflict for a town council to be a resident or to own property in the town where they are a town council. Um, so I I don't want to
belabor that anymore. I just want it to have been mentioned on the record because I don't believe it's going to change anything materially tonight. I did have a few other comments if it's okay please about the document. >> Yeah. Yes, definitely. apologize because I'm not through with them and I know
that that's on me in terms of timing, but the comments that I have essentially are about proofreading and um I'm scrolling up here to things that I noted and um I regrettably didn't get through the whole document, but I I
wanted to request whether you would be willing to let me or another party proofread the document after I show you some of the small things I found. I don't know if you want to screen share it or um >> me to tell you some of the parts that I
noticed. Um on page one of the um of the revised regulations um I I'm away from my zoom right now. Oh, so okay. So me just minimize one of my windows please a little bit so I can
Okay, so on page one under 1.5.4 four um in the version I have, which I think is the same one as you, but you're very minimized right now in my edited version. >> Does 1.5.4 in your version reference
1.6.1 and 1.6.3. >> Yes, >> those should be 1.5.1 and 1.5.3, I believe. Um, and that's kind of the nature of many of the corrections that I have. >> I think that's true, Tom. And I also I so I just think that somebody needs to
go through and check all the numbers >> because I additional number problems further on in the document. So I think basically that just is you know that's just like you said a proof reading issue but an important one where everybody has
to go through and check the numbers. >> So let me just please scroll through. So, I'll just mention that one. And then on the very next page where it skips to 1.7 and all of the 1.7 numbers and in 1.7.1 it mentions subsection 1.6. All of
those should be 1.6, 1.6.1, subsection 1.5, and then 1.6.2 for example. Um, and again, I would be very willing, but I don't know if you have another better person to do it, and I would not be offended either if you chose somebody
else to do a proof reading. Um, and uh, for 2.5 on page three, um, I was just a little confused about the pesticides, fertilizers, and
herbicides where it says the commission prohibits the use of pesticides, etc., etc., unless permitted by the commission. Um, and I haven't read further enough down the line further, but is there a permitting process
spelled out for this type of permit? And I'm sorry if there is, and I just haven't gotten there yet in the regulations. I've only gotten to about page 20 for the hardcore read of it. >> Um, there is more discussion of pesticides. Yeah. a little further down. But,
you know, the basic the basics idea here is that um if you're using a licensed applicator um you you could potentially be permitted to use it by the commission, but otherwise it's um it's not allowed. But there is more in in
another section about that too. >> Uhuh. Um on page five, please. Um it's I guess the definition of agent if you're there with me. Um any conservation commissioner or municipal
staff. >> Um does that mean a paid employee or a member of a public body? Like is there a definition of municipal staff or um
>> we don't define municipal staff. um was appointed agent by a majority of the conservation organization. >> Um when I think of municipal staff, I certainly think of somebody who is who is paid by the town. >> I mean that that's what I would think
the term municipal staff would mean. >> Could it be somebody also outside of town? >> You might want to change that to municipal employee. employees can be volunteers, officials or employees, paid employees. So that would cover everybody
that is of any kind of volunteer or works in town that may act as an agent um you know for the conservation commission if they're delegated as such.
>> Okay. If we say municipal employee >> that and that's clearly defined in the law. >> Okay, that answers that. >> Yeah. Um on page six at the very top under number 15, incremental activities
which this is just I think a typo thing again, a proof reading thing. Um incremental activities which or may have. Should it say which have or may have? I just wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly. about this alter.
Just want to make note. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yep. Alter number 15. Um, incremental activities which or may have cumulative adverse effect on resource areas protected by this bylaw and its regulations.
>> I think there's a missing have after the which is what I meant. >> Yes, I think you're right. Okay. Which have or may have. Yep. um under the definition of boundary which I think is the same page here.
Yeah. Um in the second line of that definition um in the appropriate subjection but I think it's supposed to be subsection of article 4 >> boundary a description of the boundary is found in the appropriate sub oh
subjection subsection. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Now, the next one I do have to ask for forgiveness. And this is where just let me know if like we should stop going into the weeds of typos. Um, under cumulative effect on page seven,
one, two, three, y, >> five, five lines down. um based on the use of commas already um there would be a comma after district before the or
it's always been a case where you put the comma before the or their hand which is to say you use the Oxford comma um and that comes up a few times that I've noticed but two lines later the comma after Shootsberry appears to be an
unnecessary comma Um >> okay. >> And uh so let me just quickly do this row. Oh, okay. Um this is a more like please help me question. Um on page nine
under the definition of hydric soil. Um in the last paragraph of that definition, um it mentions a phrase. I didn't know what it meant and I didn't have time to Google to Google it. Red parent materials. Is that a true phrase or is
that a typo of any sort? It's the last sentence. >> But are limited to soils developed in red parent materials recently deposited sediments and soils formed in oxygenated groundwater seeds. Yeah. So red parent
materials um is a term and typically it's soils with a lot of iron in them. Sure. I just I didn't look it up and I figured it probably had a very clear meaning, but I didn't know. Um, >> commission recognizes that some I'm just ready to read the sentence. The commission recognizes that some hydrate
soils do not meet these published guidelines. So, reserves the right to determine the soil's drainage classification case by case. These unusual soils include but are not limited to soils developed in red bar materials, recently deposited sediments
and soils. Yeah. So those are situations where the typical methods for identifying hydric soils are difficult >> because it may be red parent materials in those. Yeah. So red par materials really just means
>> iron rich. >> Yeah. That soil that looks red. So it makes it harder to make that determination. >> Yeah, I get you. >> Um under the impacts of climate change just a little bit down from there. Two definitions down. Yeah, >> in parenthesis it says if, but it's just
supposed to be an I. I think it was just an autocorrect or something for the number lowerase Roman numeral one. >> Um, and and there's another comma one. Oh, under practicable alternative. This is a
definition on page 12. Sorry. Yep. >> Um it says that which is reasonably does it mean that activity or that work >> practical alternative that which is reasonably available and capablely of
being done after taking into consideration that would be that would be the alternative. So the an alternative uh to the work being proposed. >> Okay. So it refers to that sort of work or that sort of action. I just wanted to
make sure. I didn't know if the word alternative action or alternative work would be included there. Um and uh protection of wildlife habitat at the bottom of this page.
Protection of habitat necessary two plant or animal species capacity for breeding or necessary >> necessary four. >> Yes. So maybe we will have somebody like you go through and edit all of this
stuff. >> It would be flattering. And um that's actually Let me just see. I got to um yeah, that's I read more pages after that, but I haven't noticed that there is another
comment somewhere. But um let me put my Zoom screen back on. I'll feel more comfortable looking at you all. Um so thanks. If you would be willing to let me or somebody just check it out for things of that nature, um
it would be appreciated. All right. Thank you. Is that those are your comments so far? >> Yeah, for now on one so far. Um but uh again, I really appreciate all the work you've been doing on it. And um I hope you understand that when I do come up with uh even opinions that might seem
contrary or very uh conflict oriented, it's really with the spirit of getting the best regulation out there for our town. And um so >> I understand your spirit, Mom. I got it. I get it. You're You're just not the best. >> Yeah. >> Really great.
>> I appreciate that. Thanks. >> Well, thanks for all those those edits. That's all really good. >> Um Miriam, you have your hand up. >> Yes. Hi. Um yeah, I had a few questions and
comments. Um and I'm going to I'll try to reference the page numbers. I'm just pulling up the document, blowing it up so I can find my comments. Um, it's not a lot, but there's a few. So, um, hang on a second.
Where am I going? Trying to I highlighted in color so it jump out at me. Is that it? Nope. Um, so on page lost it.
I'm I'm I'm getting there. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> It's a lot of pages. Okay. Um I had a question on page 38, section 5.2.4.2
when it has to do with the delineation of bordering land subject to flooding. And >> let me get there. >> What? >> Let me just let me just find it. I just want to get my >> so we know what we're talking about.
Okay. Page 38. >> It Yes. 38. >> Okay. Um sorry. Section five >> 24 >> and the requirements for identifying the boundary of bordering land subject
flooding. The wording was altered from the original draft that was committed given to the commission from shall be to maybe and then it lists documents that would be reli relied upon for the delineation of that boundary and um
including Noah atlas 14 and some other documents that are used for um describing and outlining the methodology for delineating BLSF. And the question I have is that elsewhere throughout the document when
um precipitation data is um referenced the standard always says shall be and in this one instance it's maybe which I don't understand why this particular paragraph has different language uh for
using Noah atlas 14 >> when it's being used consistently throughout the document as a requirement. Let's see. not withstand the profiles and available determining the maximum lateral extent of flood
water which has been observed or reported by a person competent in such matters or the commission may require the applicant to determine the boundary of PLSF by engineering calculations with may be based on
>> yeah so Second paragraph is really um just references some do documents that outline it the technical methodology and they've been in service forever because that hydraology methodology hasn't changed but it's it's you know and they may get replaced someday but but right
now they're not but um Noah Atlas 14 is the standard throughout this document and it's a shall be so that it's really clear to applicants that they should expect that that's what the commission is going to require and I don't understand why we wouldn't do that for this particular resource area
cuz it it when you say maybe it it creates an opportunity to be interpreted as at the discretion of the applicant at the discretion of the commission you know do you argue about it you know or is it just a clear standard that
everybody needs to follow >> yeah I think the only reason that maybe may have been entered in there is that it's um you know determine the boundary of BLSF by engineering calculations um thinking that possibly you know we're
obviously we're requiring engineering calculations so we're requiring um an engineer really to to figure this out and that possibly the engineer at some point would maybe be using a different methodology. I think that might be why. But I see what you're
saying and I'm actually open to changing it back to You have may actually you have may twice in the sentence. So it's already conditioned. The commission may require and then it's but it may be based on this and I I think it would be
a better regulation if it said the commission may require the applicant to determine the boundary by engineering calculations which shall be based on this. So if you're going to you're not always requiring engineering calculations, but if you do, all of your
engineering calculations in the document should be consistent with using Noah or its latest edition. I think >> um yeah no I I see what you're saying but I think the only reason it might >> I think there's an issue >> I think there's an issue with the legal
interpretation and and I think the reason maybe there is because it's saying engineering calculations which may be based on either Noah US soil or prepared by a registered
professional engineer or other professional competent in such matters. >> So if you put shall be it has to be based on Noah. It has to be based on US soil and prepared by a registered
engineer or other professional competent in such matters. So I don't care which it is but shall be would mean it would have to be based on one two and three. >> Yes. Well explain alternatives of those three as the basis
for your calculations. up to you. But that's the difference in the language. >> Um >> the difference what the language does. >> I just clarify my question. Um Noah is the is the precipitation data. 4.2422
is the methodology and 4.2423 is the requirement of a professional. It has to be and not or. Those are not. >> All right. That answers it. Then that answers it. Yeah, >> right. Those are three parts to the
requirement. But when you say may may require and it may involve this, then I'm thinking like, oh, so it maybe it would be based on Noah, but you wouldn't require a professional engineer. Like are those, you know, it's either either that's the standard and you may wave it
or maybe all of these are just not even real standards. I that's you can talk about it later, but that was my my question about that. Let me I have a couple more comments. Um, I don't want to take up too much of the commission's time. Um, so the other question I had
was on page 43 at the bottom if you want to get to that 6.47. And um this is related to a comment I made before in an earlier draft where some language was taken out about what the commission might consider for
mitigation involving restoration. And one of the provisions that was taken out was mitigation involving wider vegetated buffers. And I was both Janice Stone and I reviewed other a number of
other regulations from other commissions where um wider vegetated buffers as mitigation was a pretty standard kind of mitigation requirement and um I don't know why the commission would remove
such a standard condition in the regulation so that it would be a tool at the disposal of the commission if they were having to require mitigation. So, um I don't know if you want to respond to that or if you want me to just go on with my other questions.
>> Um let's see. Uh when an applicant proposes a project within back to the or the commission may require mitigation involving restoration including at limit two reveation of areas within the or with native species beginning with the areas closest to the resource area improvements to health and natural
function of remaining undisturbed areas of the or such as removing invasive species. So um so what you had what was in there before we can go to the redline version if you want. Um
>> it had it had language about uh mitigation involving um perhaps wider vegetative buffers in a project. Um and that's again it's it's been in the history of the commission to sometimes require those and it's a very standard
kind of mitigation uh tool. It seems like taking that out of the toolbox really limits what the commission has available for requiring mitigation to simply planting some native shrubs or trees and um you know improving the
natural function of an undisturbed remaining undisturbed area but but not um increasing a vegetated buffer. um and and there's lots of language in the regulations about the importance of buffer with as a biological function for
protecting wetlands. So, >> okay, that um both those those are both definitely things we we'll look into those two things. Those are good comments. >> Thank you. Let me see. I have a couple more and then I I'll wrap up in case other people have comments. I'm sorry. This is
>> No, it's fine. >> Um I highlighted them. So this is yeah I this is on page 53 and it's referenced a few places but it begins in age at page 53 and it has to do with tree replacements and mitigation
for tree removals and there are two issues. Um it has a table for replacements um and it says area of native tree removal and then it has a mitigation replacement required. Mhm.
>> So, first there's nowhere that I saw in these regulations that defines what's native and that is it's not in the definitions and um you know is that native to North America? Is it native to Massachusetts? Is it native to New England? What is it
native to? And um as we know things that uh were non-native are becoming native because of climate change. We're seeing all sorts of um climatic changes. We're moving into a new climate zone. We're almost in climate zone six up here. So,
we're going to see even more trees growing that used to only grow in Connecticut that are now going to grow up here in in Shootsberry. So, that's one concern. The other concern is that by tying it only to native trees,
it's really ignoring that non-native trees could have enormous ecological value, particularly if they're mature trees. If you had a yard with some very mature non-native trees, maybe some ornamental trees, but they're they're
mature, they could be providing all sorts of um ecological benefits and ecological benefits to a resource area. And um you know the resource area may not care whether it's native or non-native. If it was invasive, that's a different story, but that's not we're
talking about. We're just talking about this native non-native distinction. And does that mean you can clearcut a whole lot if it's full of fully um mature non-native trees that are in a resource area or in the buffer zone? I I
I can't imagine that that would be um protecting the values of the bylaw. So that I I it's a concern because it's also referenced down below in a few other places. And I guess I what I would say is I um for mitigation certainly it
makes sense to try to pivot to native shrubs and trees and and vegetation. But um if you're only requiring mitigation for native trees, then it gives people cart blanch if a tree is considered non-native and you you're aren't
defining native. >> Yeah. No, I don't think that's how that's not that's not how I understood this section. And maybe you're right. Maybe there's some again areas that just need it just needs a good read through to get rid of where it implies that that we're only concerned about native trees.
I you know this this table is um is uh is if you need to do mitigation because you've taken down any trees, be native or non-native, that have um gone over our limits of what you're allowed to take down, then you can use this table
for mitigation. >> Yes. >> That's the way I understand it. It's >> my native is Massachusetts. >> Well, then I would say replacement required. It's got a a It's got a um asterisk and then right below it it says
replacement trees shall be native to Massachusetts. Yes, I understand. But the area of native tree removal suggests that um you're only looking at native trees being removed within those areas. I think it's I would take the word native
out of the header of that table because uh it's really trees that have some sort of ecological value. um for the resource areas. It's not whether they're native or non-native. I understand the value for mitigation and replacement pivoting to native trees
whenever possible. I that that I think is clear, but but this table having the word native um got it wasn't there originally and somehow that word got in there. Um and I think >> yeah no yeah that doesn't belong and yeah like you're saying I I think it
more as uh native should be the mitigation should be what trees we're replacing you know other trees with but but yeah through this >> there's a similar issue on page 54
that's 8.36 for extensive pruning or removal of native vegetation. Again, if you had some non-native shrubs in a resource area, perhaps shading a brook or something, um extensive pruning or
removal of those non-native vegetation could harm the resource area. And that's the point of the this performance standard, not whether it's native or non-native. So, I think again I would take the word native out because it would suggest that you can do whatever
the hell you want if it's non-native, even if it destroys a resource area. And I don't think that's the intention here. >> Right. >> Well, it's not the issue of the definition of native. It's the issue of native, the word native being used as a definer in certain sections where it
shouldn't be >> where you're talking removal of vegetation, not removal of native vegetation. I think in this case it's it's having it there at all. But you know also you know you might want to have a definition for native uh because again native is a flexible concept and
native to Massachusetts. I mean maybe there should be a reference that what you're using um for your uh your um your list of native trees because again that can be revised over time. So, um, and I forget the name of the Massachusetts
list, but it does get updated from time to time, and it gets changed. Um, okay, I have a couple more. And this goes back to page 57 for ANRADS. Um, I understand within an ANRAD that you
can't force an applicant um to do a delineation they don't want to do. Um so if an applicant submits an ANRAD under the Wetlands Protection Act and they don't delineate any of the resource areas
um that are protected under the bylaw only um you can't force them to do that against their will that they have this is a a voluntary application that's at the um discretion of the applicant. But it does seem to me
that many commissions under ANRAD regulations for their bylaws have some language about a policy articulating a policy um about how they're going to address bylaw only protected resource areas
whether it's an advisory that they are advising clients um I mean applicants to consider um including deline ations um or some other language because
obviously if someone doesn't delineate the resource areas um and they come back with an NOI later um they're going to have to delineate it then. Um so being clear with saying that seems
like a good strategy for these regulations. So, it's very clear to the applicant that um they're still going to have to delineate resource areas under the bylaw sooner or later. They don't have to do it under an ANRAD, but that
means later they may have to do it under a notice of intent. And it seems like that would be useful language to have in this section. If you want to comment on >> Yeah. No, I I agree. I I wrote that down. I think um I think that's a good idea. Let's see. Would it go under 63?
Applicants are advised that the commission has broader jurisdiction under the bylaw and shall review resource review. >> Um, yeah. And I would say the other comment I would make about that is that if you look at the >> like the fine print of the ORAD language
and the wetlands protection act form there in the fine print there's a statement in there that basically I I'm summarizing it says um anything that wasn't delineated is not approved or or disapproved. Um
that you're only reviewing the things that the applicant presented. Um, but in the uh ORAD determinations, I'd really recommend as a standard language and maybe articulating it here in the regulations for future commissions to
remember to say it is going to be the practice of the commission that any ORADs that are incomplete will have a statement identifying that they didn't delineate all of the resource areas. um so that it's clear for all to know
that you know the absence of approval doesn't mean anything. >> Yeah. No, I think that I think that's good clarification that that should be in regulations. Um, not that applicants, you know, read these regulations for
these kinds of details, but even just for the concom to refer back to the regulations if somebody sort of gets confused by all of that and questions questions it in the end, you know, if >> right >> if something comes up about an ANRAD or an ORAD where that kind of thing
happens, we can say, well, in the regulations, we we sort of we spell that out that >> and the problem with the ANRAD form for the Wetlands Protection Act is it doesn't include any of the resource there's a whole slew of resource areas that are just not even listed on it. It
only has bordering vegetated wetland I believe the only thing and so it doesn't include isolated wetlands or vertal pools or bordering lands subject to flooding all that good stuff. So um that would need to be in the ANRAD form or the ORAD forms for um under the bylaws.
So >> that that for other people's comments but that's all I have. Thank you. you know, on subdivision and other per permit approvals under zoning. Um, it's pretty or for approval not required
plans. It's it's pretty standard for planning boards to write have one of the conditions of the approval or disclaimer on the approval that this doesn't necessarily um mean that you're
comply with the zoning bylaws for the town of Shootsbury for example and maybe I don't know whether you want the regulations. I was just thinking about your comment about people don't read all the regulations and they don't. these are burdensome documents and they hire people to read these and comply with
them. And I don't know whether that's an appropriate thing to put on one of your approval forms, but it's certainly something that other boards do um just generically basically saying that you know this doesn't guarantee approval
under all either all sections of the wetland shoot wetland protection um bylaw or regulations or something of that nature to sort of give you the absolute proof that you haven't approved anything that's not there.
>> Yeah. No, that is definitely >> I I don't know if there's a place on the form. So, you know, but it's one way other boards do it. >> Yeah. Well, I'll take a look at the OraD form for this for that the language and
um I think putting something in the rags would be good, but then like you're saying too with with some of these things, a statement like that is important too. But okay. The only other comments I wanted to say as I was reading through this
>> because I don't want to take the public comment time, but I want to get this sort of on the record is please review where you have and and make sure it shouldn't be or and vice versa. It's sort of like Miriam's comment with maybe or shall.
I mean an example is 2.3 where you've got to prevent resource area loss the commission shall require applicants to avoid alteration whenever feasible to minimize alteration and where alteration is unavoidable
and has been minimized. It it doesn't make sense for that to be an and it sounds like it should be an or. Maybe it should be an and maybe you're requiring them to do all three. But if you're not and those are alternatives for um minimization and mitigation
requirements, it should be an or. And so that that word those two words are a little tricky. >> Okay, I'll look at that. If there's other sections where you have that question >> and if you want alter it's oral
required, you could put and slash or. So you have those three alternatives for >> when you're looking at some of those. >> Okay, good. That kind of plays along with doing a real good thorough read of the whole thing,
>> which I thought I did, but the thing your eyes start to blur over. Um, all right. Rob Gibler. Rob, do you have a comment? >> Yes. And if I can figure out how to turn off my mute, you might hear it.
>> Okay. Uh on page 57 uh 6.2. Here it says commission may require that supporting materials be prepared by other.
Uh that implies that the NRA has to be submitted by a professional and I wondered if that was true. It's my lack of understanding. Doesn't NRA have to be submitted by a professional?
No, I don't think so. The commission the commission may require that supporting materials be prepared by other professionals including >> then the word other doesn't belong >> the commission be required by >> other implies there has been a
professional involved that point. >> That's true. >> Okay. Second comment regarding the use of the word native throughout the document. I think that it would benefit the concom
users of this document to have a definition of native for trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, insects, birds, fish, whatever.
It can simply be a list of the state documents that list it. But uh to ask anyone to determine on their own if uh the emerald ashbor is an invasive or
a native that that's a big asset. >> Okay. >> Okay. So define it and then be consistent with how you use it and we're good. Okay. Um
page 14, tree removal. I think you have a problem with that definition. >> Page 14. >> Page 14, tree removal. >> Okay, let me go back up. If you hear my cat demanding food, he
actually has been fed in the last week. Quiet. I'm getting there. >> Yeah. All right. Uh, definitions. Okay. >> Tree removal. Any act that will cause a tree to die within a three-year period.
I don't know if anyone on this call has ever cut down a red maple or a beach, but for decades, literally decades,
they will send up shoots. Chestnuts, American chestnuts are still sending up shoots from trees that fell over in the 1920s. So, if I take this literally, I can cut
a 20-in diameter beach off at the ground level and 3 years later, it's got shoots coming up. I didn't cut it down. I just pruned it. >> I'm serious. I I would I think you would be better
served to say tree removal is cutting the trunk of a tree below its lowest branches. I think that's what your intent is. If I cut down that red maple and it continues
to grow from the the the roots, I didn't remove it. But if your definition here is to cut the trunk off below the lowest branches or within 6 ft of the ground, whatever you want, that is, I believe, a more accurate
um definition of what your intent is. Mhm. Yeah, that definition. I don't like that definition either. >> And hemlock roots can live for 20 years
without a tree above them. >> Okay. >> And then on page five, aquaculture. I believe it's near the top of page five. Yeah, there you go. book. >> Agriculture.
>> Aquaculture. >> Aquaculture. There it is. Okay. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Okay. Uh
what if I am growing wild rice? It grows in water. This says land. What if I'm growing rainbow trout in Lake Wyola? >> Yeah. Yeah. That should be more not land
being used for agriculture, but um they could say land or or or water body. >> Yeah. any error being you or uh yeah land being used for agricultural
yeah land and water >> because water body >> uh you know I can think of three or four uh species that can be grown in water >> for food um blueberries will work uh
cranberries Wild rice cattails. They all grow in water. >> Okay, that's good, too. I'll add that. >> Okay,
>> that's the limit of my comments this round. >> All right. Thanks, Rob. Uh Tom's got his hand up. Yeah, just on that last thing, I think I noticed that too about aquaculture. The definition starts with the land being
used for agriculture. But like if you just struck everything until like aquaculture is the growing of aquatic organisms under controlled conditions, including one or more of the following. You don't even have to mention whether
it's on land or in water. And that's the definition of aquaculture as opposed to the where it's being performed >> as an option. >> True. Yep. Okay. Sounds good.
Tom, are you a editor? Did you have you done editing? >> Um I'm a not professionally, but yeah, I've done it. and um translating and proofreading for hire. And
>> Tom, as you're proofreading, on page 23, there's a reference to 8.31 and 8.32. And I believe that should be 9.31 and 9.32. There's that's just another
numbering because there is no 8.3. >> Which section is that? It's um under section 9 9.3.3. >> It's just another one of those numbering issues, >> right? It's referring to the previous
two sections, >> right? >> Yeah. I thought a good way to do one proof reading round would be just look at the numbers. >> Exactly. >> And like ignore everything else. But yeah. Yeah. It's really hard to get them all
straight in a document this length. It's really hard. >> Yeah. >> Especially when you're ex when you're uh you know accepting changes and stuff like that, right? >> Everything gets all >> um Okay. Uh Rob
is hand. I looked up the definition of aquaculture uh and it says the raising of water animals such as fish for food or the growing of plants in water for food.
So whether that's a swimming pool on somebody's uh back property or um a pod, it's growing it in water. So I I think that's the
um the one thing to mix. It doesn't matter where the uh process takes place. It's the process. That is the definition. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> I do want to comment that >> Tom would be one hell of an annoying editor. >> Thank you for that. >> And I'd hire him in a minute. I'd hire him in a minute. Also, there's a pretty good um
definition of tree removal that's a little more extensive as well if you look it up. You know, the dismantling and disposing of an entire tree from a specific location, you know, something of that nature that gives a emphatic
terminating the life of the tree and sprouts. >> Okay, I I'll we'll replace both of those. We'll find some better language. Sounds good. Um, okay. Um,
anyone else? I'm sharing my screen so I can't quite see everybody. Any other hands up that I'm not seeing? Whoops. Maybe I'll stop sharing for a second. All right. I'm not seeing any more
comments from the public, so that's a good thing. But thank you everyone who did make comments. Those are all really great comments. Um, and I think it it definitely the document um, you know, I think we'll take a deeper
dive into some of the things that Miriam brought up, but a lot of just the definitions and the um, numbering and all that really it just needs a good a good look through. Um, so that's really helpful that everybody brought that stuff up.
Um, commissioners, do you have anything else? Any comments or anything? Just, uh, as I'm, you know, the newest member, when I went through or when we were going through reviewing the bylaws,
um, uh, I did notice that there are many times that I stopped and I was like, well, what does that mean? because it, you know, there it would be mentioned in the bylaw, but not defined up above. So, I think I I think I called attention to
a lot of them that like I just didn't know what that meant. Um, but there might be more out there that I, you know, before I got on. Um, that um, you know, I think the more we can define things up at the top, the better off we
are. so that you know uh we're as clear as can be. >> Mhm. I agree. Definitions are good. Um all right. Well, I think that's all we're going to do for tonight. Um I
think we'll work work on all these comments for for our meeting next next our next meeting which is what October 23rd. Um, yep. October 23rd. So, this will this sort of brings it closed. Well,
we'll I will we'll officially close the hearing in a few minutes, but so this will be the end of the actual public hearing where we're taking comment, but we will continue to to make these changes to the document and talk about it again at our next meeting. And then
once we get it to sort of a state that we all like, we will vote on it, vote to accept it. Um, so, so I guess right now I take I'll take a motion to close the public hearing for the draft regulations.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Fox >> I. >> Khan >> I. >> And Wilson. Hi. Great. Thanks everyone for your participation. Donna, thank
you. >> You're welcome. And if you >> done with me for the evening, >> done with you for the evening. But >> good thing everybody >> any comments you have, let me know in the document too and we'll >> we'll keep finalizing it a bit.
>> So all right. Um any unanticipated business? Anyone? I have none. Okay. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> I'll second. >> Great. Um Fox >> I >> Khan >> I >> and Wilson I. All right. Thanks everybody. We'll see you on the 23rd.
>> All right. Good night everyone. >> Good night. >> All right.