##VIDEO ID:8EX5Bb8lVBI## me say that again I paused the recording I will say that again it is 7:02 on um September 26 2024 I'm calling this meeting of the shutesbury Conservation Commission to order um this meeting is being recorded welcome everybody all right so the first thing on the agenda is comments from the chair um and what I want to share with you guys is we um interviewed and now have hired Matteo pangallo to be the land use clerk um he's great I'm I'm so happy um he's the chair of the CPA right now in shutesbury he lives in shutesbury he's a parent he's um an English Professor um part you know I guess you could say part-time he's got two classes that he teaches um and yeah he was interested in the land use clerk position we interviewed him I interviewed him with the chair of planning and chair of zba um and he was great and I think he's going to be great and I believe the select board voted last night or Monday last night I think um to hire him um and then I believe today Becky actually offered off made an offer and he accepted so that's exciting so hopefully he can start right up he'll come to our next meeting um I'll try and meet with him I we're gonna also try to have Carrie work with him a little bit I think Becky was going to reach out to Carrie and see if she'd do a working day with him um which would be super helpful uh so that's exciting and really good um and I think that's really all I had to share um I think I might have mentioned this at the last meeting there's this group that it's The Nature Conservancy working with the Fort River Watershed Association and I believe one of them got this grant for $88,000 to um pull people together who are all involved with the health of the Fort River and pull the four towns together that affect the Fort River and just have meetings I think you know the grant is basically just to make the effort to have multiple meetings I think there's three or four planned um to just brainstorm ideas about what could happen in the different towns and what the different towns would want to see to improve the Fort River Watershed um so I'm going to I'm going to go to those there's one on October 17th is the first one um and I'll let you guys know how that goes I know a lot of the players just from being an ammer and doing other work for the Fort River in ammer um oh somebody wants to come in so there's that going on um that's all I can think of um Jan do you have any updates on site visits we did a site visit this afternoon uh and we saw more amibian and I've seen in a really long time and one window well it was really weird but it's a non-jurisdictional construction project so nothing to worry about good just curious Jen when when you say it's non-jurisdictional what's that based on it's nowhere near any Wetland river or lake yeah it was at uh 640 wend Road and it's a garage project and Jan and I went and he had the garage location all staked out and Jan and I walked you know within 100 feet in all directions of where the project was going to happen and there was no evidence of wetlands anywhere excellent yeah and Jan don't we we have another site visit I sent you an email that we'll need to set up I forget the address it's another building permit you sent that today I did yeah I guess I didn't see that one we we have another site visit plan for Saturday October oober 6 I think it is two that day uh one at the top of the lake and the other was Southbrook was it all of them I think let me see yeah oh oh all also Old Orchard Road oh we're doing all three yeah well I don't know if we're going to go to Southbrook but that was maybe okay okay that'll be a full day what day what time are we starting I forget um that was actually October 5th starts at 9:30 on Old Orchard Road 43 Old Orchard Road okay hey Scott hello CH late no worries um um just something I just finished saying is we hired a new land use Clerk and he's going to be great I think really great it's I don't know if you know him Matteo pangallo he lives in shoots Perry he's a dad he's the chair of the CPC yeah I thought that's wonderful lose awes yeah he's G I think he's gonna be great he's gonna be awesome yeah um okay um so Scott now that you're here um Jan just sort of did her a little update on site visits do you have anything about conservation areas uh maybe the only update I reach out to Highway Department to talk a little bit about the parking lot for West Clin woodlands and uh the curb cut there and I had a chance to see Steve when I was driving back to my house here the other day and mention it to him so I'm hoping we can get that cleared through the highway department and and make some progress on that um but maybe that's probably the the most pressing thing I know we we want to make progress towards in the parking lot [Music] in great time is it 709 okay um first on our agenda is um approving the minutes of September 12 does anybody have any changes or corrections to those all right I'll take a motion to approve the September 12th minutes before we do that I should probably say it had the last minute's date on the top we'll fix that okay I'd like to make a motion that we uh correct the date on the minutes and uh approve them second I'll second great Douglas hi Rowan hi con hi and Wilson hi great um yeah minutes we still have quite a few minutes I reached out to Carrie to find out if she's been able to catch up on minutes at all and she said she's working on some of the old ones [Music] um and then there was a couple that I don't know if I mentioned this already there was a couple that doc was supposed to have done and he I emailed both of them and he responded that he just wasn't going to be able to get to them um so we might have to work on those just from the recording if anyone is motivated to watch those I can I'll send an email around with the two dates I think it's the SE I not sure which month it's they're both from the same month and I'll I'll just send the dates around and if anybody feels the motivation to watch the recording and write up some minutes I think that's the only way we're going to get those done yeah send the dates because I'm I did one set of minutes that I didn't need to do just for the drill so there might be one done oh okay yeah I'll look I'll look back and see and under not under site visits but under the separate item was the um Town birthday party on October 6th that's where we're going to do the table from 2:45 to 5:00 pm everybody that can come everyone's invited um yeah that's gonna be great um Jan you just then you just went to a training right where you you came up with a couple flyers I did the fundamentals 101 this week it was my the the things are out of order so I did the first one third anyway they had in the back uh flyers and stuff like that that you could pull out and stick your own Conservation Commission name on and and and use for public Outreach so we can use some of the stuff they did yeah that's great I sent you the one that I know of that the commission has so we can look at the three of those and see where they overlap and um and then yeah print out a bunch of them to bring on on October 6 is mat going to be uh uh up an Adam next week to print things for us I think so I can check with Becky what his official start day is I you know I think she's I think she sent the offer letter today and that he accepted um and I don't know what the start date is but it could be as early as next week okay otherwise just you know we'll figure it out and someone can go in and do it yeah yeah but yeah I'll be sitting at the table that's G to be fun it's GNA be a concom weekend we've got site visits all day on on Saturday no on Sunday which is which and the other day is the SAT it's Saturday right the 5ifth and then the the thing is on the the sixth the thing the birthday party Community outreachy yeah okay sounds good um well only 7:13 about a couple minutes um um I did go by the the dam site on moniku road and saw the grass start starting to come in very slowly probably with today's rain it'll hurry up a little bit more but it was starting to come in and Jan we should talk about doing some site visits at the library some check-ins okay as a as that project going back to the Dudleyville we're waiting for 75% grass is that the idea yeah I think we've already passed their deadline to get back to us but we have to wait on grass and any of it yeah okay yep yeah it's it's just starting to come in that'll take a while let my cat out all right my clock says 7:15 so next on our agenda at 7:15 is the request for amended order of conditions for 31 Lake View Road DP file number 286 0286 um um and I'll just read my little this hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth an act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and the town of shury General Wetlands protection bylaw all right and we have a few people here for this one and I don't know how you guys want to maybe um maybe one of you could sort of present the the request letter that we received today I will defer to attorney Martin sorry I had to unmute unmute myself although most people would like lawyers to be muted more except for uh good evening uh We've visited you a few times now thank you for your patience and your time that you spent with us on the topic of the uh conditions that we are requesting be amended with respect to Kathy and Joe's Salvador's property uh at 31 Lake View Road shutesbury Massachusetts um I started this process by initially writing to the Conservation Commission in the chairperson uh about a position uh that we believe is correct with respect to the uh IL illegality and onerous conditions of imp perpetuity that were incorporated into the order of conditions um yeah Kathy Salvador who's on uh call here with us today um and her husband owned the property uh and they were very concerned U about the long running effect of imp perpetuity conditions I sent a follow-up correspondence to the commission chairperson and Council uh about my analysis of the legality of the Imp perpetuity conditions uh and Then followed up with another meeting with this uh board uh I have uh subsequently uh taken the responsibility for drafting a proposed uh petition to have the condition that we believe are not consistent with the law be deleted and amended um those were submitted this afternoon uh they are still conditions 27 uh and 28 we are seeking to have the uh category and classification as imp perpetuity deleted from the condition uh as well as uh imp perpetuity conditions and uh conditions 31 and 32 uh with respect to condition 30 there has been some think I think productive discussion amongst my client councel and uh myself with respect to uh that condition which severely severely limits the owner's ability to even quietly enjoy uh their property um we have proposed that the uh condition be uh deleted for the imper it language but that the uh conditions state that the town and the home property owner will reach a mutually agreeable um uh agreement uh for some limited use uh in the site uh such as putting out a bench so that they can sit out there and enjoy the beauty uh of the topography which they purchase and they have grandchildren who they could uh allow them to learn about uh the ecological benefits of that property and um and enjoy it as well uh all in a non-disruptive or disruptive uh Pace there other two conditions 33 and 34 were conditions again that I think are in violation of the law there they require that uh that the uh applicant had to provide a s a signed letter to the Conservation Commission notifying the committee notifying the of the transfer of the property and that they have notified the grantee about the Perpetual restriction well since we're seeking to have the Perpetual restriction deleted we think that's either moot or or should be completely deleted and likewise I think a very clear example of of overreaching uh with respect to the context of the law is paragraph 34 which requires that any what what the permit the condition refers to as grantees so any someone were to buy their property that places a burden on that person to submit something in writing that they understand the requirements of the order of conditions including the Perpetual Wetlands conditions here again if we are uh fortunate to uh have you uh accept our petition that Perpetual Clause would go away but it would not uh release or relieve the Future Property owners from having to submit that letter uh it's uh if you think about it you're asking someone who buys a piece of property to send a letter to the Conservation Commission saying I I know I bought this property uh and I'm telling you that I I've looked at things well uh again anyone who buys this property or any other property that's uh has orders of conditions against it will be heavily advised and informed uh as they go through the purchase process of any restrictions uh on record or on deed or of public record and uh they'll be aware of them so we think this is just an unnecessary step in a trap for the uny someone forgets to do this and then they go to transfer their property another 10 years later someone's saying wait a second there's no that letter isn't a record and once again it's uh you know interfering with the uh ownership of the property um the the conditions that we uh have are asking to be deleted in perpetuity are conditions that we uh discussed quite extensively last time we think it's uh T to amount to an unlawful taking of the property by placing these restrictions and so uh there are U seven proposed amendments they're straightforward and simple uh I I know that Council uh has a copy of the petition and I know that the chair has um so that's the overall position and petition request um and uh we're ready to available to answer any questions or address any issues uh as a result of it uh uh first of all I'll ask Kathy Salvador if there's anything she wants to add to that overview nope I think you covered it perfectly thank you okay I I want to make sure that the other Commissioners got this because the petition that was sent um today did Count did go to the concom general email so I was just assuming that you guys got it too I know Jan said she saw it Bob Scott did you guys see it I'm looking at it right now I haven't reviewed it up in it was tied up all today so yeah I'm I am in position of it oh thank you yeah I I don't believe I've seen it in am I correct that it was said today what was that was that letter sent today yes yeah um would it be uh appropriate to ask it to be put on the screen um yeah I was let's see let me just see so counselor these are uh new conditions that you're asking be the commission to to vote on this is a a request to uh to modify the conditions that are in the order of conditions there existing conditions and and we're asking that they be modified and this and I apologize I don't have it in front of me this has the language of that of the that modification yeah it's very similar the the um conditions that are listed on this are the same ones that were listed on the sort of previous um gotta letter that we received from attorney Martin um is previously we we I conveyed our position via correspondence and I was asked to submit it as a formal petition for an amendment to the conditions so it's essentially the same message in a different format I try to keep it as succinct and direct as possible can everybody see my screen I can I can okay counselor when when you say um delete in perpetuity from the requirement the requirement would still read the same it's just that those two words would be restricted taken away from it correct correct yes sir um I think we're talking about um and I can pull up the order or conditions too I've got the order I I I just I didn't I didn't see that this this new language had come in and I apologize because this these this whole these all start um under the category that's called post construction slin perpetuity conditions and then number 27 is the first one under there so like number 27 doesn't necessarily say the word perpetuity in it but it's under that category and I think one thing the concom should definitely consider is just getting rid of that half of the definition of that section that whole section should just really be called post construction conditions not post construction SL imp perpetuity conditions um you know that that way at least not all of them are considered imp perpetuity um you know we can talk about each one individually but leaving it as a whole category I think does cause a [Music] problem and and I I I apologize Scott I just to do want to do one uh quick followup before we get to you the um uh so my my main thought on this is that uh when the the commission and I wasn't on the commission at the time put in these Perpetual conditions they wanted to see that that b Boulder wall stood and um as a um as an allowance as a mitigation for uh doing this construction which is with you know within a within a Riverfront resource area quite uncommonly um that that a certain amount of area would be protected uh I just wanted to would want to find out what assurances there would be that that area that was set off to be protected by the boulder wall so to speak would continue to be protected yeah no I think we all we all are concerned about that um I do think it would be good for us to like go through number by number because you know they're all each condition is a little different um Scott you have your hand up yeah thanks I was just wondering I I know Donna's on and I was wondering if Town attorney has had a chance to review this and if if there would be an opportunity to to hear from her Donna yes um yes I have had a opportunity to review it I've had an opportunity to review all of the documents that attorney Martin has submitted um I share his legal opinion with in perpetuity being a BL sort of a blanket condition for post construction um conditions I I think everybody needs to understand that your jurisdiction is relative to the wetlands and protecting it and that doesn't give you the right to basically put conditions on property that in some ways operate as a taking of those properties so I don't want to in any way suggest um that you're Authority around protecting the brook and um putting conditions on the property for construction and um mitigation and certain conditions on the land that protect the brook during construction and and going forward are our our conditions but the idea of in perpetuity um I think Jim gave a great example of having to condition in perpetuity that some third party has to sign a document somewhere down the road and closing and if that doesn't happen and you and the property's transferred 10 years later there's a cloud on that title because that document was never gotten you're not doing certificate of compliance every single time that PO Property Transfers and a document comes to you I mean some of these conditions are onerous and they're and they're just not necessary and they're just not really within your jurisdiction that said I think that um and I was very clear with Jim that the Do Not Disturb Ariel I don't like that terminology at all is area that's within um the brook that it's really important that bank be protected and that's why they came forth with the um in three of deleting imp perpetuity but basically what I asked them to do is sort of give a list of what they would want to do down in that area so that the con when they're looking at this had a really clear understanding of what they meant by want they wanted to do down there and as you can see the Salvador and and Jim have put in that they want to be able to place a bench um within that area so they can sit and view the river um not disturb it in the sense of dredging or filling or any of the things that clearly are in violation of the wetlands act anyway and you would have the right to act but to be able to use it in the sense of enjoying it as their property as long as they're respectful of the conditions that are put on it and I think that's really what we're talking about here today not to lift the conditions of protecting the wetlands on that property but rather getting rid of some of this legal language that just really isn't appropriate in order of conditions and trying to still meet the what you tried to do to protect that River but to clean up the language so that it doesn't really um go further than your jurisdiction or authority regarding conditions on a wetland on an order of conditions I ask just a couple follow-ups so that is super helpful Donna I'm wondering um you know the maybe one observation is I think you know this whole area in question is you know within the 200 feet of Riverfront that are already you know protected in the aura by the bylaw and so it already by by Town byog restricts a whole host of activities taking place within the aura aside from the aura condition so like it seems to me a little it would be a little weird to actually Grant things that could be done in there that are maybe already restricted in the bylaw um you know the the bylaw is pretty specific in the you know the no distrib to vegetation and um you know other other activities that could alter the Wetland within that within that area is what we're talking about here and these were orders of conditions that were set forth to you know to offset work that had been taking place and in this case the taking place really already had started before the um uh before the Salvador had approached the cons Conservation Commission we actually had a it was in violation and we're trying to find a way forward so I'm I'm wondering for each one of these conditions if it seems you know in one hand we could we could delete you know all of these what's laid out but I still think just by the nature of where it sits it already Pro it's already protected because it's in a resource area um and I'm wondering if if you have reviewed each one of these are you saying Donna that one through six you reviewed and and you believe these modifications are ones that you also support as as Town Council yeah but let's be really clear we're not getting rid of the condition we're getting rid of the language it's in perpetuity and that's a real distinction you're absolutely right you have jurisdiction over this area you will continue to have jurisdiction over this area through your bylaw and through the wetlands protection act imp perpetuities very specific legal language that says forever if you change your bylaw because there's changes in studies in science that allow something else to go on down there or say you should plant this down there because it's healthier for the stream than the vegetation that's down there if you want to make an order saying you have to get rid of invasive species you know all of that kind of flexibility in both the changes in the law the changes in the bylaw the changes in science this impetu language would stop and and you just don't have the authority to do that is what I'm trying to say so the conditions themselves outside of this do not disturb language which I really don't like given that it's part of the bylaw you know I don't think put that kind of thing in a condition is to get rid of the nature of this condition is forever yeah understood thank you Don thank you Kathy you have your hand up yeah I just wanted to so that so that Bob and and uh you whoever has not really seen the property in a while just so that you understand that all of the things in the order of conditions that we were required to do to protect the wetlands we've done and the things Bob I think you mentioned the boulders um and concern about those being moved perhaps or or something changing the um permanence of those markers we've got Boulders there that you have to be Hercules to move um and I know Joe has a tractor everybody knows Joe has a tractor because he rides around town on it every day but our intent was to make those Boulders part of our landscape and that's what they are they're huge Boulders delineating that line and then the concom asked us also to install pins as markers along that that um line of demarcation which we did and they're pretty obvious I think when you got guys whoever comes to do a post construction visit will realize that those mean something they're green we painted them green they're concrete they're they're fixed in the ground they're not going anywhere so that line of demarcation is really clear that you know that's where the wetlands protections begin and there's nothing to be happening in the area right before the Waterfront so and every other condition um that was placed on the property we've satisfied so the only thing left to discuss in our minds was this imp perpetuity requirement just just a thank you two quick fults if I may um the house is occupied now yes yes it is um has the uh uh post construction site visit taking place within 30 days of the project completion it's not complete because we wanted the vegetation that we'd put in place to be more established and we knew we had a I think a three-year period um before we had to schedule that um or apply for that certificate of compliance so and then we had this issue that we wanted to get resolved um and then one other thing we're struggling to to get is the as built planting plan from our engineer we're having a hard time getting in touch with him and I may just have to to do that manually myself hopefully that will be acceptable um the um thank you for that the um and I'm excited that the there's markers in place and I'm excited that they they big heavy Boulders and um I just want to make sure that it not only has the weight of the boulders but has the weight of the law is and I'll ask address this to the chair has this commission ever put a deed put put language in deed that um a uh this a boulder wall will serve as a as a as a marker to protect the resource area well that was going to be one of my questions as we move through the actual order of conditions so there was a deed restriction that was part of this order of conditions and I'm wondering if that got recorded already with the order of conditions yes it did it did I'm sorry I was on mov yes okay um so other Commissioners have you seen that that page that's kind of at the end of the order conditions isn't is a de restriction so then my next question we haven't heard at all from the Salvador's about about that is that something that you're willing to leave um as part of the order of conditions I can bring it up should we look at it let me see let me find it well there's go ahead bring it up please yeah okay so here's the order kind of at the end of the order with the on the conditions were concerned about there's that so this is the deed restriction um and I particularly like number two um any future clearing of vegetation or grading or other disturbance of land surface within areas labeled on the attached registry exhibit a as no disturb um so so these are these are restriction this restriction prohibits imp perpetuity clearing of vegetation in that area prohibitive shall include placement of fill leaves grass clipping garbage cutting of IND indigenous plants so it's sort of an all sort of you know leave that area alone no vegetation removal no dumping of waste um yeah so that was part of the order conditions and then this map was the last page of the order of conditions showing the showing the line that was marked with the boulders um that's already all in place um and that that's exhibit exhibit a or attachment a that's referred to um right here exhibit a so anyway I was just wondering um if people have comments about this Scott yeah I'm glad you mentioned that and Bob for asking the question I think you know the the assumption that this deed has been filed and and I believe the deed restriction is a Perpetual condition right that it's a Perpetual restriction on the deed with that understanding that that's been filed and it's been restricted this way I don't have concerns with making the modifications that are being suggested um but I I I'm glad that we're clarifying that we're not talking about removing or changing or unfilling the deed restriction but but if I may point out we have requested the that deed restriction language which uh the chairperson just referenced does have at the end this restriction prohibits imp perpetuity and we have asked if that language for the reasons I have stated and your Council has stated be delet needed uh and further we have asked with respect to the no disturb area that the town uh Conservation Commission uh agree to meet with the landowner to see if there are some modifications that can be made to that that must be mutually agreed upon to do things such as going in there to pick up things putting a bench in there to sit things like that that would allow them to have some enjoyment for of the brook without do in any way dis disturbing uh and having a negative impact on the on the property but I think there's kind of two different topics going on then there's really for me there's what is what is illegal or what what the the the perpet perpetuity language that is in our order of conditions above the seed restriction that's it's with the actual conditions what I've heard from you and from Donna is that we can't really legally have that imper petu amongst the conditions and that makes sense to me because I saw what you sent around that is M Mass General Law whatever that said conditions can really only last for 30 years I get it I I understand then that means orders of conditions and also certificates of compliance because those are actually just on ongoing conditions so if you're using the word conditions and saying conditions can only last 30 years I get it and and we will take it out of that document this this is an actual deed restriction and I I guess I'm just confirming that Clarity and that and that what you're saying we can't have in Legally is what we have within our conditions but we could we can legally have a deed restriction yeah I to build on that mam chair I'm in the same place I think it makes sense to me to make the modifications that are being requested for the order of conditions the deed restriction um you know that was identified at the time we had you know proceedings where this was agreed to I I I'm not as interested in going back and trying to revisit a deed restriction that was put into place uh Kathy uh with respect we agreed to these conditions um might I say under duress um it was a very difficult process that we went through with a very um how can I say this nicely overzealous chair who um I think took advantage of of our um maybe our ignorance at the time of all of the the rules of the wetlands protections bylaws we learned a lot as I said in the last meeting but I think we were in a very difficult position and with an overly zealous um chair at the time and we we had no choice but to agree to these conditions at that time we we yeah we we fully want that lens area to be protected it's right next to our property we you know we would be crazy not to want it protected we don't intend to do anything to the area that shouldn't be disturbed whates it's what it yeah it's what makes the house um as as as nice as I think it is is that Wetland area behind the house so I I just wanted to be clear about why we agreed when we agreed and why we didn't um ask at the time to amend the order of conditions we weren't in a position to ask at that time we knew we knew that we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation it's a different commission today thank you which we appreciate thank you thank you um I I think it would benefit us to to go through each of the conditions specifically and look at them Bob Bob did you have your hand up yeah Bob Bob here I I did have my hand up and I I just wanted to say that um the commission did Issue an order of conditions and I I can't go back in time I wasn't on the commission at that time but they set these conditions up up for a reason and the um any applicant has the right to appeal a decision if they're not if they're agreed by it and can go to the state for a superseding order my understanding this was not appealed at the time now I do I and uh it sounds like um the common ground is is we want the boulder we all both you know both their proponent and the commission want the boulders to stay in place and the area to be protected and we're just looking now to see what uh what method to to protect that area is I can tell you that this is an extraordinary site I can't think of a single new home that has been built in a uh in a flood plane this close to a jurisdictional river in any of the surrounding towns so I I think this does require special attention and the agreed on in the in the order again I wasn't here for it of that protected area needs to be protected by D restriction or or something similar that's all you want to say okay um we're not taking public comment yet but we will take public comment Miriam I see you have your hand up but I think we're still just having a discussion with the commission and the applicant um so but we will take it soon so do people agree that maybe we should look at each of the conditions specifically um so here's the section as I was saying it's called post construction SL imper imp perpetuity conditions which seems like we're hearing from our lawyers that this that the Imp perpetuity part uh can't really be applied to just an order of conditions um so I'm in favor of removing that part from the from the definition of that section you know that section should just be called post construction conditions how does the rest of the commission feel about that I agree okay so now number 27 if we get rid of that imper petu part in The Heading I think number 27 is fine because it it doesn't say the word in perpetu anywhere in it um and it really just refers to coming back to the commission which is really what folks would have to do anyway because it's all it's our jurisdiction um then number 28 wait a minute I I do have a question because it's probably going to come up as we go through the rest of these conditions yeah but if the uh Wetlands protection act or our bylaw already calls for uh um people to come in and and you know deal with the concom or request things from the concom why are we repeating it here what's the value of repeating it in this post construction conditions yeah I'm just trying to keep things simple and make as little changes as possible to the conditions as they are um I agree I think when we were talking about this before I brought up that if you scroll up to number 18 is it 18 of the general conditions or is it I think it's number 18 of the sorry I'm probably making people nauseous the just general conditions under the D which are in all of our orders nope that's not it was it R number 18 r conditions yeah sorry it was 18 under the conditions under the bylaw this order authorize only the activity described in the approved plans and approved documents any other additional activity in areas within the Juris of the commission it shall require separate review and approval by the commission or its agent um and we know that the majority of the site is within our jurisdiction all right so how does the commission feel about then uh removing number 27 I'm inclined to recommend that yeah I think that would be better I would say um the more information we can give uh the home owner and future homeowners the better and um I think um I would be in favor of keeping removing the Perpetual conditions thing but keeping the conditions in place which is in in fact what the pronin is asking it's it's already in number 18 and it's already in our bylaw so that if anybody wants to come back in the future a new owner or or even the existing owners and construct or pave or whatever this one was for permeable surfaces they would have to come back and and try to get a permit so you know I'm I'm not in favor of making documents long for the heck of it it's already there I think where I'm at on this is we have a request and and for 27 and for 28 was to delete the Imp perpetuity this this permit I I guess I look at a little bit different Jan and that we're not crafting a new order of conditions for a new project we revising in in response to a request and so I I would be supportive of making the the um Amendment to the request for both 27 and I think we're up to 28 I and that was deleting perpetuity I understand the point but once you delete the perpetuity it's redundant yeah I yeah but I think as Scott saying at this point we we really should just be responding to what's being requested by the applicant to be changed um that's a good point and and in the end with our with new permits that we're issuing we should really go through and look at the general conditions that DP has in their conditions and then then look at our general conditions and and look for um redundancy I agree but I think in this case we're just looking for making the changes that are being requested upon us so number 28 future Landscaping within 50 feet of the protected a series boarding vegetated Wetland shall include only indigenous ious plants shrubs and trees and planting some invasive as allowed any on the property um again all we're being asked to remove is the Imp perpetuity parts of that statement yeah okay 29 no not 29 27 28 30 all right so 30 really gets into the marking of the um no disturb Zone which they have done build with concrete I I did have a question on this one um the deed restriction presumably is using these same markers and I can see where in the deed restriction it protected the pins and the and the stationary Boulders and so that was a question that I had because the deed restriction itself is in perpetuity and these are what are defining the area of no disturb for what that's what it says here I if I did make it clear we're not asking for changes to the pins or the boulders in this we're asking for the imperor language to be deleted and for some reasonable uh ability for them as I Ed as an example put a bench down by the river and be able to sit there and enjoy it as opposed to um not being able to even step in that area yeah and I'm I'm wondering that I hear what you're saying I'm wondering if we were to remove this piece the deed restriction itself I mean typically they that would be marked or it would be referenced in such a way as to what is being you know the area of the property that is under a deed restriction and typically it would say that you can't disturb the markings that denote the area that's under a restriction and that language seems to be here in the order of conditions my question is is it in the Deep restriction of South right you're talking about the sentence it says the applicant shall maintain and repair the markers and boulders as needed yeah correct yeah well when we get down to the D we can we can look at that okay and see if it's included future activ should be allowed um okay so what they're requesting for this one is um delete basically the imperity part and allow for mutually agreeable and limited use and activity within the area such as the placement of a bench within the area so that the owners can sit and enjoy the riverfront view that's what um Jem was saying and so how does the commission feel about that this is clearly saying no disturb Mark the no disturb maintain the line um and yeah no future activities shall be allowed that involve clearing grading except for what's under the condition activities required to eliminate safety adds maintain the driveway covert control invasive species and then no dumping in a disturbed area um I mean to me I I think well I'll just go back I I do think that the maintenance of the pins and the boulders to run concurrent with the Perpetual deed restri rtion are important um as far as placement of a bench or structure if you know the deed restriction itself I think I'd have to go back and look at that language I think it talked about placing of structures as not being allowed and um I I think how I would prefer to to use that rather than um uh start to get in to amending the deed restriction I I think that that could be a separate item to come to presumably back before the commission to really just talk about like what are we talking about there because structures have a way of you know sometimes it's for like a simple bench I'm sure or at least speaking for myself I I don't see that that would be a problem to permit something like that I think we could also concoct you know all the other things that can start to go along with that and um before you know it you you know the benches a gazebo and I more structures more things I get built on so I prefer to to handle as a separate request keeping the deed restriction as is and to have the language that goes with maintaining the the limits of the deed restriction in place in perpetuity but that's I think here's what other Commissioners thought if if I may chairman Wilson yeah the um the language and the DP uh article that they wrote specifically about um uh amendments states that um the determination is made that the project purpose or scope has changed substantially are the interest specic spe specified the one's protection act are not protected and the ising authority should not issue the amendment should require the fire filing of a new no of intent so I I I think um the the bench was not something that was envisioned in the original uh order that was issued the unappealed order so I I concur with uh Scott that um uh that sounds like a separate matter that could be applied for separately and I think think we just be shooting from the hip too much to to just put it in here we don't know what size bench where it's going to be uh Etc so it's it would I think it would be inappropriate to put that language in at this time okay well we we did put language that are you know mutually agreeable with the commission so if Kathy's okay and the commission is okay with the other uh amendments we've asked perhaps we could put together um a presentation to supplement that and submit it as a new filing but I have to you know I'm saying that without having Kathy's authorization we're okay with with not including the bench if it gives everybody heartburn where the bench is located right now is right along the edge of the boulders on the opposite side of the of the protected area so um we're okay if you if you're not comfortable putting that in we're not planning to put anything else down there no gazebos no building no disturbance nothing so if the bench gives people AA take it out yeah and I and just to clarify thank you Cathy for that I think just to reiterate I think what Bob and where I was coming from I'm not sure that you know the the bench itself is is of cons concerning or giving the harburn I just think making that more clear exactly what we're talking about and and not have that be just kind of lumped in and have that as a something that we would deal with with full understanding of what was being proposed I think that's what we're saying but not not saying that it we wouldn't entertain a conversation around that okay thank [Music] you okay well so the last sentence I think maybe we just strike out of number 30 this condition s arrive the expiration of this order and shall be included as a continuing condition in perpetuity and the certificate of compliance you know if we've got the deed restriction I and this is a discussion for with the commission you know if we've got the deed restriction possibly we don't need to include any of these conditions as ongoing conditions in the certificate of compliance um that's my thought but maybe as we go through them we can kind of look a little bit more at each one of them but um this one is certainly talked about in the deed restriction so that last sentence maybe we take out we certainly have to take this word out um all right so that was number 30 that was a good discussion 31 one the marking pins and boulders identified in 301 should be inspected by the commission before any sale of the property in perpetuity the applicant shall instruct all agents to explain these markers to buyers leses landscapers and all persons taking over the property from the applicant the intent of this condition is to mitigate the adverse effects of pror development activities and to protect the riverfront habitat including shaving what I'm hearing from the lawyers is is this is the kind of language that we just can't be saying it just doesn't um it's really not legal and you know and in the end I I don't yeah I think with the deed restriction that that's that's the typical way of doing it and that that's the legal way of doing it what do people other Commissioners think so you want to strike 31 completely that would be my yeah suggestion sounds right to me Bob and Scott I I guess I mean to me I again the request was deleting the imper petu which I think is the part that is problematic and Town Council also concur that that language is pro problematic so I would be uh good deleting and perpetuity requirement from condition 31 I I would I would support that that that is the request of the um the applicant so are you in support of getting rid of all of 31 um speaking only for myself just a perpetuity language shall be inspected by the commission before any sale of the property if you don't include the perpetuity that sentence doesn't really make sense right it kind of goes with perpetuity think has something to say here well if I could um I think the the we would be inspecting these with a deed restriction we typically inspect them every year and so I would I would imagine that we would be doing that as a matter of course and so I actually think it could be confusing to I I don't think it it matters honestly um because I think under the deed restriction My Hope and when we finally when we get there I think it's going to be important to keep the deed restriction along with the maintenance of um the the markers and that the commiss would would be doing that as per our responsibility on a on a routine basis and so but I'm just deal going with the request before us was to delete imp perpetuity so I'm I'm concurring with the request that's being made that's not helpful Scott because I'm talking about language so if we say so you're saying we should say something like the marking bins and boulders identified in condition 30 above shall be inspected by the commission on a routine basis something like that instead of saying before the sale of property because sale of property to me implies perpetuity because the property is going to be sold for the forever and ever and ever on and off um I I understand what you're saying I like the routine inspections especially if it's some if it's a deed restriction kind of thing um so maybe we that would be again my suggestion shall be inspected by the commission on a routine basis according to the deed restriction yeah I'd be supportive with that okay I that I don't want to prolong this but routine basis is not a legal term what what does that mean is it once a year how about annually I'm sorry how about annually well you know that's up to you that you now you have to take that responsibility and do it annually when you commit to that or we just not maybe we don't put a date we don't put any because annually could also be interpreted as imp perpetuity we could say shall be inspected by the commission period um well I'll defer to your counil on that um right periodically periodically I could that I mean the request that count that the the applicants have made it was just to delete imp perpetuity so um but I I think it's important when you read these and you're going through this exercise yes to do with the applicant stick to basically what the applicant's requested but having a requirement that an applicant shall instruct all agents what agents who are they you even talking about how do you approve that how do you make sure that's happening um that these markers to buyers lesies landscapers and all persons taking over the property from the applicant whatever that means I mean there's some really broad vague language in here that's really problematical and I think that I don't disagree with going over these and not necessarily taking out ones that they have that Salvador haven't even asked to and stuff but I do think when you come a on language that's so Broad and vague or so overbroad in conditions if that cleaning it up some is is not overstepping the point of this hearing I think that if you went to every single condition even though you were requested to look at six I think that if you um really change conditions as far as protecting certain areas or the importance of the boulders and that kind of thing I I would agree completely that that's overreaching the point of this hearing but there's certainly if you're looking at a condition this closely um and considering it that certain language in here is is really over Brad and I and I think at least it's worth a discussion up to all of you ultimately Kathy sorry Jim Kath just just a quick comment that I think the com the Commissioners who haven't seen the property um their minds will be put at ease once they realize what these um what these things look like these Boulders are massive um now that the house is there we wouldn't be able to get equipment there to move them um and the pins the markers are in concrete two feet or three two feet into ground they're not going anywhere and I think if once you see them when you come to do the post construction site visit I think it will put your mind at ease a little bit more about you know our understanding of where the protection begins and why it's important to have it protected that way okay and further to Donna's point about language section 31 it's unusual for a condition to have an explanatory introductory phrase Like This is Our intention well what your intention is is different than what the condition is and I think that language is vague and confusing as well so um I know what we try to limit our requests to be specific but I do agree with your Council that you have the opportunity to clean up language that is vague or inappropriate or uh that you it would be nice to do so otherwise we'll all be back at some point in the future trying to clean this up again just a suggest I just want to comment that like this last sentence the intent of this condition I think this is what he was talking about to mitigate the adverse effects of Prior development and protect the River from including shading well great like that belongs more in in our bylaw talking about why we're doing anything that's more of a like hey let's educate people like that's that does I've never never seen something like that in a condition you know conditions really need to be extremely straightforward you're telling somebody what to do um so again I just in a way some of the language just gets me a little bit with these that just is not something that should be in there but and I I don't disagree Madam chair I'm just wondering I'm you know I I'm looking at the request from the applicant and I I'm and I said I was in favor of the change the applicant was asking to make I think what I'm hearing now is the applicant would like to change what what the request is for 31 and I'm wondering what their request is is there a specific language that you would like to see the request is to delete imp perpetuity is are you asking to to modify your request for for number 31 uh uh Mr Khan are you talking to me I'm sorry yes sir oh well um again you know without having cleared this with my client if the if we go through these and there's General consensus on things that the commission agree should be either deleted or Rewritten to make it less uh ambiguous and to make it cleaner for all all parties benefit we could um we could sub we could do that and you could then hopefully finally approve it um but if Kathy would like to take um a half a loaf now and come back some more I would it's her property and it's her her investment so Kathy where where are you on that well I just thought that I know in in past meetings conditions have been modified um certificates of compliance have been issued you know after having discussions not it doesn't seem to me that just because our petition only addresses in perpetuity language that to Donna's point we can't clean up some of the language while we're having the conversation rather than to waste your time and our time you know going back over and over and over again um meeting to to get to the same point yeah I'm I'm that's exactly where I'm at Kathy I'm trying to so there was a written request that said we're looking to make this mod I think what I'm hearing is that's not the mod we would like to make we would like to make a different mod and I'm and I think we can do that here I'm just trying to understand what rather than have the commission us try to to guess what your request is and approve it can you articulate what edits you would like to see made to 31 now or would you like to come back and do that at a subsequent time well Kathy we could um we could submit a a more robust uh request for amendments um rather than just in the perpetuity and have it ready for your next meeting if that's okay with you Kathy but um I think we'd want to make have some have some Assurance from the commission that they're on they're on the same wavelength that we are and your Town Council is uh about uh where we're going with this and what the outcome I I Jim I'm not sure that's fair to ask of the commission I think that what the commission is saying is that they understand that that 's point that in modifying conditions that lots of times that's a discussion not just a document put before the commission but I don't know that the commission can give you any assurances well that was future modifications um in this one we've already talked about the fact that people wanted to say the marking pins and boulders identified in condition number 30 above shall be inspected by the commission periodically because that gets rid of the language you requested before any sale of the property in per perpetuity but it still puts the commi you know puts everybody on notice the commission has the right to go in and look at the boulders and look at the pins and make sure that they're being maintained because they're so critical to the protection of that area so I think all I was saying is that if we're modifying that section by sort of rewriting sentence one and you were asked by commission member do you want any other modifications in this paragraph I mean Kath um Beth certainly said the intent of this condition is really not something that should be in conditions that either goes in your bylaw or your regulations but it's not how how do you give a certificate of compliant on the intent of conditions if everybody's looking at these they should be looking at them and saying when we go to do our post construction inspection how do we give a certificate of compliance on this condition that doesn't mean that we should revise every single one here I think that if all of you want to come back and continue to refine these that may be something but you know um I I think we're sort of working on 31 we might as well if everybody's inclined to get 31 done and then and then move on and see if there's any others that we even want to amend like this outside of getting rid of imp perpetuity I think that's fair Donna okay so looking at 31 if we if we do change that first sentence to say um the marking pins and boulders identified in condition 30 above shall be inspected by the commission periodically and then we leave the rest of the language the applicant shall instruct all agents to explain these markers to buyers lesies landscapers and all other persons taking over the property from the applicant um is are is the applicant okay with that yeah I think the last sentence though I think everyone's in agreement that that sentence is inappropriate in a condition the intention the intent of this condition okay other Commissioners are you okay with taking out the last sentence you know I would just like to you know I I I I guess I guess I am but um Beth you've been in the business long enough that you've seen places that have had protective barriers that are taken down when once a new new new tenant moves in so I think the intent of of of maybe you and the different people that crafted this was to prevent that from happening and I think that's why that that word that that the intent spelled out so it's it's clear to everybody why why this condition was put in so that uh a new new buyer wouldn't uh automatically undo all the good things that the previous buyer had done guess so I see it as saying the intent of this condition is to mitigate the adverse effects of Prior development activities almost referring to the enforcement that happened that that that they went and they they did stuff that they weren't they had not ask for our permission and some future homeowner I don't think is quite going to get that out of that sentence you know they're not going to know about the enforcement um and then it does say in to protect Riverfront habitat which is kind of the general idea um including shading which which again is is just sort of the general idea of of all the protecting we do um yeah I just agree that I don't think intent and belongs with a condition um I I appreciate the applicant uh clarifying the request for 31 and with the the suggestion to change uh perpetuity and perpetuity to periodically and removing the last sentence I'm um I am supportive of that little I'm a little concerned with uh I'm a little concerned with that suggestion that we're going to inspect this property even periodically through time it almost to me it's it it it makes it seem like we're doing some sort of easement on the property I'm not sure if that's what we want to to do here I think that's what we have in the deed restriction we have an easement you do not have an easement no no you don't have an easement is a deed the deed restri right that's a Perpetual deed restriction on the property and the is that what was filed right but that's not a easement but it is a deed restriction and then that deed restriction at least in other properties that we have where we have similar deed restrictions we do annual monitoring of those deed restrictions right do we have many of those instances I think we're aren't we going on one coming up in that not an easement October I think let's be very CLE deed restriction une easement conservation restriction are the town having an interest in land that has to be done by a recorded deed an order of conditions is a form of deed restriction because it's a Perman it's a permanent document in the registry basically expressing the order of conditions on the property and then if those conditions are ongoing they clearly restrict the use of the property the wetlands protection act your shsb bylaw all restrict uses of property they're not easements they're not deed restrictions they restrict uses of property though by your laws um on this one Donna I'm just wondering sure go ahead sorry yeah no I just I mean interrupt I'm just wondering at the very bottom here could you flip down Beth yeah I just want to make sure we're all talking the same thing are you oh you want to look at the data restriction I at the Deep restriction so I I'm flash forwarding not talking about the order conditions I'm not talking about the CH PR our our Wetlands bylaw or the Wetland protection act I'm talking about this deed restriction here and my question and my understanding is that this does perpetually restrict the land to do these things and it is the responsibility uh to periodically inspect this property to ensure that the deed is that these um uh activities are not taking place on those properties so that is my question they are ongoing compliance requirements correct for this property okay thank you I'm asking a beginner question here so how often does the Conservation Commission actually go out and riew compliance on on properties are we doing that as a routine I haven't done it yet so we have we have a number of conservation restrictions um we were on our walk with um off a lever Road where we're being asked to hold a conservation restriction Y and all of those sort of um larger pieces of land that that's the entire piece of land that it comes under a conservation restriction the actual document talks about um mostly it's often annual inspections of those properties and and Scott is sort of in the process of inventorying a lot of that right now and just making a good schedule for us of of those properties um I guess a good question for Donna um and for for Jim is the difference between a d restriction a conservation restriction and a conservation easement because I've we've all seen them all and it does get slightly confusing as to uh what's allowed sort of like something like a deed restriction I know is is something that follows a piece of property but it you know we don't own the property there's a deed restriction put on it for the owners who own it um how much of a right do we have to do things like inspections and things like that especially if we don't actually write it in the deed restriction I think so let's talk about the the most onerous control of a property is a conservation restriction and if you've all read the conservation restrictions you know that that both really limits use of the property you know that it puts a duty on you to make sure that that um initial survey of the condition of the property is basically not changed and that's all of the prohibited activities aren't don't take place on the property so that's a duty on you to make sure that that conservation restrictions enforced and in effect and a real restriction on the owners as to all the prohibited activities an easement is a shared interest in property conservation easement um would be not necessarily restricting the owner's use of the property so much as that their use of the property can't interfere with your conservation easement so it's a little less onerous than a conservation restriction where they're prohibited from doing most things to basically saying they're ownership of the pro their use of the property can't interfere with your conservation easement so if your conservation easement says that they can't build on it then they can't do that but if it doesn't then they may be able to build but they couldn't in such a way that would interfere with the conservation easement conservation easements are not terribly I mean I don't think most real estate attorneys would use them because I think that they're not as clear as conservation restrictions and so I think it's not always clear what the real legal restrictions on the property are um the the final one is really essentially your order of conditions which is essentially a permanent record for the property that basically acknowledges there's Wetlands acknowledges that those boundaries acknowledges that within in those boundaries the Wetland protection act and your bylaw are controlling law and prohibited practices like under 13140 dredging filling blah blah blah blah blah cannot be done in those areas your bylaw comes in and says cannot be done within 100 feet of buffer areas those are all restrictions on property that you have by law you don't need it in a deed you don't need it in order of conditions that's your power that's what you have over every property whether they've ever come before you or not whether there's ever an order of conditions anything that's what you have under the law so but you also have the authority to do ongoing conditions and that's why when Beth uses the difference between imp perpetuity and ongoing conditions it's really critical because when you have something like the sensitive area right by the river you forever have jurisdiction over that land and they're forever subject to your bylaw and to and to the wetlands protection act and so this deed restriction that the Salvador have granted you in these order of conditions is essentially a grant of ongoing onerous conditions on their property that they acknowledge are there explains itself and and inspecting them what I'm hearing because I'm just looking at it it's really and I that's super helpful D I think that here it's restricting certain things from happening and it's outlined in the order of the conditions and the Order of conditions spelled out who would be doing it and I think what we talked about doing is saying periodically right and so yes so the truth of the matter is it says that you don't never have to do it to answer Janice's qu ultimate question I think um but you have the right to and certainly if you hear that Joe's brought his tractor down you know you're you're gonna go out and you're gonna look but it's like Kathy said the house is there can't even get to some of those Boulders anymore because of the house and the construction on the property and so you know if you're driving by and you see the boulders sitting there because you can't miss them they're huge you know you you know they're in place and you don't necessarily have to go out there purposely annually and walk by every single Boulder and look at every single tag if you go by and there's some sort of horrible um rain event and you go by and you see the boulders aren't there past the driveway past the parking area you'd probably want to go inspect and you have the right to thanks Donna super helpful yeah very helpful I I do like that clarification and I like the fact that it doesn't pin us into having to go and see the property you know every year every other month whatever you know as needed is kind of what's what we're left with which is good yeah all right so you disagree with that anything I said there or can clarify it more you you directing that to me Donna yeah no I I don't I you described the the deed restriction as onerous and it I would maybe take exception with owner from a legal standpoint it is what it is and it's a it's a legal uh document that in which the property owner agrees to certain restrictions placed on its property hopefully they're not they're always reasonable some aren't at times uh but you know it's um we are uh Kathy and Joe certainly understand that they have obligations and duties that they've committed to by developing this property and they're doing it I think towns particularly smaller towns should be careful not to take on too much homework um and then not do things and then get themselves in a pickle 12 years later when they haven't done anything and they say well you know you didn't enforce this and you know so I I think your advice there is is is um press hand for them to not go down that road and that's why um you know we're uh if we can accomplish that we'd like to make these changes that we've discussed we're um we just uh finished 31 uh 32 um again we were a concerned about um I get my numers straight here yeah just taking out the Imp perpetuity Clause uh and again it's you know not necessary uh and then we went to 33 and that's um where we've been um you know I think we do have some issue with that about the requirement that the applicant in this case now the Salvador but future buyers have to submit notifications in writing that they understand the terms of this conditions and that sort of thing and I I I think that is uh overreaching for both uh 33 and 34 and U I'm happy to have that dialogue with you if you think I'm off base on that but I do think it's is overreaching and and what if an applicant a person who buys your house refuses to do it um you know so you get into all those little tussles anyway have I answered I think I hope I've answered your question yes thank you so are we on 33 now I hope so yes we're on 33 all right so 33 um request is delete the inity requirement from condition 33 and the requirement that the applicant shall provide the letter with an original signature to the conservation committee notifying the committee of the transfer and affirm that they have notified the grantee about the Perpetual restriction bound to the property I'm good with that yeah too so let's see write a letter with so that's that's almost the entire number 33 is the entire 33 that's what we're saying okay and I'm I'm in support of that I just want to make sure the rest of the commission is Scott got the thumbs up Bob are you okay Jan yeah honestly it seems a very minor thing to me in the there's when you sell a house there's a thousand things you do this one is just simply a a letter with a signature so I'm and and uh I think it would go a long way to uh let people know that they can't modify everything about this new house but I'm I'm I'm comfortable to sit back on this one okay Jan no comment from Jan we're moving on okay thanks Bob all right number 34 that is the mirror image of the putting the onus on the property owner and it's putting the onus of a buyer and I as I said before I'm concerned that if a buyer chooses not to comply with that what impact that would have and it it's again overreaching it's the conservation trans Mission interfering with the ordinary transfer of real estate through the Massachusetts um rules and regulations and statutes and you have all the Protections in place you have deed restrictions you have conditions you have everything in place and to put this on again I think is just uh overreaching but uh and I would invite Donna to comment on that as well Donna you have any comments on on that yeah I don't dis I don't disagree with Jim I just think it's you know I think that the whole point of orders of conditions being filed in the registry is so that in fact um that you know buy new buyers see the orders of conditions and their attorneys explain them to them to make sure and I don't know that putting as a condition in your order of conditions that the order of conditions be given to the buyer um isn't somewhat duplicate I think that if you want to put in something like this you can put the Conservation Commission will notify you know when the assessors get notification Property Transfers you can notify people you can remind people you can send out messages to the entire town you know once a year put it in the shy newsletter saying I just want to remind all owners of property in shsb that if you have orders of condition on your property you need to make sure you're abiding by them you have all that authority to do that and so I you know I yeah I and how do you do a certificate of compliance on this I don't if you don't get it are you going to haul them in and find the violation of the order of conditions i i i amen is what I say to that because it's just Quagmire I I frankly think it's ridiculously simple it's a letter with a stamp and um uh it's just another thing that somebody does when they they sell a a house it would put a buyer on notice that uh Hey There is this order of conditions think and guess what you signed off on it that you received it so uh I I see it as a very minor five minute job and uh I think it would have a payoff and that somebody could not be able to say that they weren't aware of the conditions which I'm sure on your job Beth you've heard many times Well if I may give you an example if your grandmother passed away and you or your grand her grandchildren were selling the house and they made a deal they have they get the purchase and sale agreement and then they get to the closing and their lawyer for the buyers runs the title and says oh by the way you have to give this letter and they say oh well I'm not going to give that letter I know about it but I'm not going to give them a letter and then they say the deal falls apart and someone's lost the sale uh and then you're back to square one and that sale might have been important for of bunch of a variety of monetary reasons it's not a five minute stamp and just do it it's a lawsuit and why you know that's just one example that sounds like a an attorney that didn't read through the order conditions because it's right there in black and white it's a it's it's a stamp it's a letter it's a signature and um uh I really don't see this as honorous at all no how you going to enforce it Bob uh well if uh if if the letter is sent that it's a compliant correct if it's not sent no but if it's sent it's compliant if it's not sent it's it's it's not compliant and what are you gonna do then the the person would would have to comply which is to uh uh to provide the required notification so you're going to bring an enforcement order uh certainly the idea behind this would be to uh prevent an enforc an order by making sure that all parties are informed uh that there is a uh order conditions in power over this particular property that's the point of recording the order of conditions so the buyer doesn't want to send this letter and they don't send it and you you know write them and say you have required to get us this letter you didn't get us this letter where are you going from there enforcement order you know I I think this this this silly letter is purpose is to prevent enforcement orders of people who buy house don't understand uh what the the order conditions is and then uh proceed to clear the entire river front uh of an area like this which I get why it's in there I get that you know you have it in there because you want to ensure that sellers of properties for3 three and seller buyers of property for 34 are absolutely on notice why in this order of conditions is that here and not in every order of conditions because you want buyers and sellers for every order of conditions to know correct oh absolutely absolutely every one of your order of conditions yeah I can't speak to that again I'm I'm the new guy on the commission but I do think this is a way that um somebody who has signed off on this can't say that they weren they weren't aware of it and when when the the bulldozer comes in and takes down the riverfront then then in that enforcement action if it happens hopefully it's prevented then you've got the ability to uh um to to to show that this was done knowingly and and really I think I'm going around circles here that's I don't see this as particularly honorous um and but I will I will I will stand and listen to say I don't think this is illegal I think the commission can have this in there so it's up to all of you I you know I it it's not illegal to have it in there the imper petu I'm very concerned about but the requirement itself it's not it's certainly you you know it's certainly not an illegal condition Scott I um I think the the request of of removing this I can I I really appreciate what Bob is saying and my own experience working on some of these I I do think it's surprising how many people buy land without the use of fraternities and don't do a title search and then they end up with problems down the road and so I think this is a good practice to have that in there and could help all parties you know down the road that being said um the condition is going to remain on the deed regardless of whether or not there's notification and if there were a violation down the road and um and discovered during inspection it would give us a way forward so I'm you know in the interest of working through this I'm I'm uh supportive of moving forward with the request made by the applicant but I I do appreciate what what Bob is saying in terms of the the reason for this is um I think to help to avoid headaches so if we do remove it I I hope I hope future um owners when they're selling the property they make people aware yeah I guess my thoughts are you know with most of our orders of conditions we we don't go as far as to do a deed restriction and to me that's the part uh considering as I keep as we've all said that these conditions again if it's a condition apparently it's only good for 30 years um whereas the deed restriction is really perpetual and forever so maybe what we really want to see we need to put in that deed restriction um so I guess that's how I feel about it is that um I'm okay also removing this this number 34 and making sure that what we have in the deed restriction is what we really want to see uh staying with the title or the deed you know forever basically I can agree to that okay all right we got through all of those do we want to look at the deed restriction I think maybe we'll take some public comment at this moment Miriam have had your hand up forever yeah um yeah I would like to make a comment um I'm here as a member of the public and I'm only expressing my own personal opinion here um it's concerning to me and I'm disappointed that I've had to wait over 45 minutes to uh make this comment um I think I'm entitled to be treated with a modum of courtesy and respect as a visitor to this meeting and I just want to object to the commission allowing an ad homonym attack on a member of the public and allowing it to go unchallenged I was accused of some improper conduct earlier in the meeting tonight and the comment went by without any challeng or correction from the commission I had my hand raised and according to Robert's Rules I should have been allowed to be recognized to respond and rebut to the attack on my character in real time so I'm disappointed that I had to wait um and I also want to just say for the record that I disagree with the characterization that was proferred the commission as far as I'm aware was acting in good faith and was doing the best it could to be reasonable in the past with a permit the permit was voted on unanimously by the Commissioners present and also the applicants came back to amend their permit and the commission agreed to the modifications they requested I don't believe and I might be wrong but I don't believe anyone on the commission was aware of any of the objections that are being raised tonight it sounds like some modifications to the permit are in order but the original language was written with the best of intentions I also want to remind the commission that we issued this permit in 2022 without advice of councel because I did reach out to Town Council for advice and she recused herself having just purchased a property from the applicant at the time I would like to feel welcomed to attend conom meetings in the future and I hope I'm not put in this position again thank you well I I would just like to say that no I I 100% agree that the commission when these conditions were put together it was under good faith and you know we did we did uh you know the best that we could at that at that moment and um I'm sorry that you feel that way Miriam you're a member of the public and I was simply running the meeting the way I thought you're supposed to where the commission has a discussion with the applicant um prior to having public comment just so that the commission and the applicant can kind of really have a good discussion um and then allowing public comment is just how I thought meetings were supposed to be WR so I'm sorry that you felt that way Betha I think the difference is when there's an ad hominum attack on a member of the public um I think um the public person who is being attacked has the right to respond and I did raise my hand and ask to be recognize so I've been waiting patiently and respectfully but I don't think I should have had to and honestly as um the Commissioners who are present I I Look to You to also create a an atmosphere climate that's welcoming and is safe for people to participate and um I would not as the former chair have have um been comfortable not saying anything if somebody had been attacked who was a member of the public um anyway enough said and we can move on all right well I'm sorry that you feel that way I mean I will take that into account and know be more cognizant of these of these things as chair I'm sorry um Mike S you had your hand up um hi Beth it's Anna Mano uh Mike's wife um 26 Lake Drive um I've been listening very intently um um about um you know the the um conversation at hand and the language of perpetuity my question would be there were a number of projects that were reviewed and processed during the same time as the Salvador in 2022 and the former um chair and the members um from my recollection um the the conversation centered around issuing conditions that were more boiler plate and standard and I was going to make that sort of a standard for all projects going forward so all of those projects now have language in them around perpetuity and I'm wondering how the commission today is going to notify those project project and owners about this new uh ruling um in fact if you all rule to remove the language in perpetuity as illegal that's my question yeah that's a good question um I guess I don't see it as such a broad um issue because um since I've been share we we we have our standard conditions our sort of boiler plate conditions and and they don't include a whole lot of per uh perpetuity language um I guess my thought is that there's not that many out there um and you know we can certainly take a look and see but I don't you know we don't we don't necessarily issue that many orders of conditions you know a year this is tiny little shoot SP um so we can certainly take a look back at that time frame and see if we see any other issues um yeah I just want I just want to understand the process we were affected and so selfishly I'm asking on behalf of myself and I know of several other people around the lake that were going through review at the same time so I think if you looked within that time frame you would see all of these that you were looking at removing and um removing holy wholly so 31 or 33 34 um were applied to other projects and language of imp perpetuity is throughout our conditions so if you come back to me with a process I'm happy to write a letter requesting a review a hearing whatever you would like me to do but I would like to put that to the commission tonight of how um how I can go about that and and others that might be affected yeah well if you feel like you are affected um then you can definitely email me with your concerns okay great you thank you very much yeah um Kathy um I would just like to apologize publicly to Miriam deant um since she was offended by my use of the of the term overzealous um I used that word because at the time we were going through our process several others as uh Anna mentioned were going through the same processes and having the same struggles and feeling like we were being asked uh we were being put through a process to protect the wetlands which we all agree need to be protected but it was with with it was zealous is the only word I can come up with I'm sure Miriam probably has a thesaurus there and could come up with a dozen others but our feeling as applicants was that this process was going above and beyond what was necessary to protect the wetlands and so that's why I used that adjective um and I apologize Miriam I'm sorry but the 45 minute wait was shorter than some of the weights that we um endured waiting as members of the public during some of the concom meetings we attended back in the day so that's pretty standard practice um I'm sorry you had to wait that long but at least now you know how the rest of us felt when we were waiting that's all Tom Seer good evening thank you Beth and thanks commission for having this discussion tonight um may I ask two questions and make a third point please and just start with the third point because it wasn't going to be a point but it's unfortunately become a little bit highlighted um I've been at other concom discussions where it's become personal and in this instance I think it's really important to remember that the commission is a commission it's a a unit of a group of people um so I would really caution any singling out historically future present of any one commissioner um because it weakens the power of the commission as a team um and then I had two questions please procedurally uh would uh the Conservation Commission be willing to have the Town Council respond to whether she is acquainted with the applicant and has a conflict of interest to discuss this matter and then second question is is this a hearing it wasn't listed on the agenda as such and I was surprised to hear that word used tonight um and I would have been prepared for a hearing if I had known there would be an actual hearing um those are my two questions please about the conflict of interest and if there is one was any notification given like to the town clerk or anything and then is this an actual hearing please um yeah I can answer oh can I can I do two and then you can do one um this is a this is a actual hearing to um amend an order of conditions uh applicant first comes to a meeting where the commission decides whether or not um an amendment is appropriate and then they're basically instructed to to hold a public hearing so that's what this meeting is um notification was issued lethal ad was posted so this is the public hearing for uh looking into amending the order of conditions was that supposed to be on the agenda as a public hearing I mean our agendas our agendas don't come straight out ever and call something a public hearing I think the word hearing is a critical word I just wanted to make sure um I actually heard two meetings ago when the concom had the discussion about this permit that um if they did approve anything there would be a public hearing stage and then the word hearing was never used after that and then the agenda tonight didn't it just said request it didn't say hearing so I thought it was going to be a continuation of the discussion and that the hearing was going to be after tonight well I think at our last me meeting we made the decision to yeah to have the hearing and and I think we probably said that it was going to be at our next meeting okay I thought I attended and I don't remember hearing hearing public hearing for 31 just wanted to ation um well it is a public hearing I I okay um it I didn't know if it was in thanks but the other question is still there thank you yep okay um Donna did you wanna sure um just so everybody understands um when the Salvador first came before the Conservation Commission I had just brought 11 king um Road from them and so there was not an actual conflict of interest because I did not have a financi interest in their property but because that transaction was ongoing it was clear that um people might feel there was a bias and so I stepped back I've owned that property now for some years I have no other Financial dealings with the Salvador and so while there wasn't an actual conflict of interest there was certainly an ongoing business transaction and it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to be advising the concom at that time does that answer your questions Tom thank you yeah I really appreciate it it was just welcome nagging question very much thank you okay Mariam um was there a legal ad and it Butters notifications for tonight yeah okay I just noticed on the town website that there was nothing on the active projects about uh the proposed changes usually there would be the plans for an amendment um put up on the website yeah we haven't been necessarily keeping up with the with the web pages we haven't had a land use clerk um problem's notices and the legal ads say that you can go to the website to get copies of the documents don't they no I changed the language so it basically says um like in the legal ad it says contact the Conservation Commission and then I have you know the email or the phone number but now we have a new land use Clerk and I told him about the web page and I'm very much hoping that he is excited about doing things with it um Tom thanks that was part of my point as well I wasn't able to find any information about the um permit on the town website so thanks for clearing that up I hope that in the future it will be aailable hey um so we got through 34 um this is the language that's in the deed restriction is everyone comfortable with that I know Scott you had you had concerns about maintenance of the 100 foot I mean the no disturb uh boundary so the rocks and the pins yeah I do well I'm I'm wondering um with the with the order of conditions as we said that they would be there and would be subject to periodic inspection and then we we State here that you can't do work in those areas um I do think it would be more clear if if we were to include that same language about maintaining the boulders and markings in the in the deed restriction to make it more clear of the area that is the um you know the area that the prohib activities would not be allowed in okay so so if we were to take that same language I think from the order condition and put it in the DAT restriction I think would address my concern yeah okay yeah I'm wondering if um so one thing I wanted to do tonight was actually have a version of this that was editable but I um I couldn't I I didn't have time to track it down um so one suggestion would be that I produce a Redline version of this um and we meet again in in two weeks if I bet this is a question for the applicant if they would be willing to if that would just make it more clear um and better for folks if we uh continue the hearing till the next meeting it's really up to the applicant actually if that would be better for them I think that's fine okay and Beth I would you like me to send you a a Word document that you can edit yeah that would be great yeah I'll do that in the morning good is the commiss does the commission support that idea produce a Redline version of everything we just talked about um and then go over it one more time at our next meeting Ju Just to be clear do you want me to redline it or do you want me to send it so you can Redline I'm happy with either way I think at this point I think we kind of made some good decisions tonight so I think I I'd like to redline it if you just send me a editable version of it um and I'll copy do on that all right all right is that other Commissioners look you know what I'll stop sharing this I think that sounds great right thank you thank you for your time and patience very much appreciate whoa whoa whoa whoa just to be clear if you don't want to have to repost and ren notify but everything you've got to continue to a date and time certain date time and place certain so let's do that on a motion yeah let me look at my calendar all right so today's the 26 two weeks is the 10th of October yeah so yeah we have a meeting schedule for that day so um I'm guess we're asking the applicant th right with continuing the hearing until October 10th at 7:5 15 yes okay great I need a need a motion from commission so motion second a second okay Douglas hi Rowan hi con hi and Wilson I Beth do you want me there all right yes that would be great that would be helpful all right thanks everyone we'll see you in two weeks thank you Beth and Commissioners thank you everybody have a good evening thank you thanks Kathy thanks J thank you thanks Bob have a good night done with me for the evening yes thank you Donna thank you so much nice seeing you all have a good couple weeks you too all right so next on our agenda is site visit scheduling we kind of did that earlier right Chan well you've got one to schedule can you just run through those dates you're muted Jan okay yes I will run through those dates on October 5th we have two site visits one to 43 Old Orchard Road at at 9:30 one to Top of the Lake at 10:30 and I'm not sure whether we were going to do Southbrook Scott you're here now were we gonna try to do something with Southbrook uh what would we'd be doing with South Park I thought you had something about parking or something there oh that was you mean in the beginning of the meeting know I don't know when this was you brought it up that maybe South I don't know okay well we do there is work to do at Southbrook in terms of the we have work to do on the trail rerouting and there's some money left there to spend but there's no site visit plan for Southbrook that I'm aware of okay and the next one was October 6th at uh 2:45 from 2:45 to 5 uh we're going to have a table at the Town birthday party on the town common I hope there's GNA be cake a big cake cupcakes I hope so every day is your bir day on the conom wow Scott nice a tagline feel free to use that do you do you guys think either one of you are gonna be able to make that Bob and Scott yeah I'll have to have have to check my calendar I I I don't know um I think that's a sock soccer tournament so I may be away that that on that Sunday unfortunately okay yeah I had looked but I um when do you need when would we be there when would you need help are we all trying to be there at the same time or we trying to rotate through or it's just two hours 245 oh it's only two hours yeah when is it I know it's the 6 but what time 2:45 to 5 yeah it's on the town common 245 to five very specific yeah it's funny yeah right um that's good though because you know we're small town won't be a lot of people short little time frame you you know be good I I gotta I just need to clear it with headquarters but write pencil me in I that would be fun if I can do it awesome and I hear this cake yes yes okay and then Jen like I said I sent you an email about one other site visit it's another one of those building permits that I just get notified about and we have to just go see if there's any Wetlands there okay I think it was something out great great did you give me a did you give me a contact for this guy yes I did yeah um I'm wondering if I sent you like an email or a phone number because it was the contractor's name um okay so I know look at the email if you can't if you can't get any more info I can try to find out more grace got me today so it's okay yeah good um okay uh anybody have any other comments Bob yes sorry and I don't know if this is the place but there were were uh a few things that I wanted to to bring up um uh two different educational opportunities that I sent you via email um uh Alicia who's a DP rep on on Monday will be giving a a talk on um when to choose a an RDA versus an noi so that's a that's a zoom link that that I sent you guys um and also um the Mac in in Devon uh is having a uh a conference coming up in a couple weeks too that's a a great way to uh you know get education uh on on the ls protection act um and uh Town laws um and I scared bth away oh oh she's back sorry my we're watching a dog and just in here and I'm not sure what I was trying to do so I had to get rid of it um yeah so the two opportunities from d uh one one at devans and one online um I did want to ask about um the regulations in in a new commissioner um uh so we U I should say you put forward regulations they got voted on a town meeting with a overwhelming vote in order to make those um uh active we need to accept them correct and I I know they're tedious as blazes but I really think it's in our best interest to uh to get those get those done um and I I was going to suggest that um my understanding is there's money left in the um uh advisory uh fund for this and uh perhaps we hire somebody uh to to help us uh March through the rest of these and have and have them them active and and just throwing it out there for conversation um I do think we need to keep working on them and I think we took a little break there because we got sort of really busy for a couple meetings and this meeting we didn't have a lot on the agenda so we probably could have had it but this ended up going really late um did yeah and I don't mind putting it on our next agenda we can I can you know look back and see where we were at um and I can email you guys with which sections we should be looking at and talking about at our next meeting I just um hiring somebody to to come in and do it um I just feel like they're too far along for that you know we we we had this set of regulations that that was 100% approved then we updated the bylaw and we had to sort of update the regulations according to the changes in the bylaw um and I I I don't know I just feel like they're so close that we might as well just kind of slog through and just just do it yeah they they are they are tedious but I really think um uh my concern is that um we might end up in in a legal case and we wouldn't have the the the bylaw in effect so um so I think it is worth I I think all the the heavy lifting has been been done and uh really just bringing them in into the barn I think is important Bob we have the bot you mean the regulations the regulations I apologize yeah yes reg I would like to do what we were doing I understand that we took a you know I mean it's just there's only so much time in a meeting absolutely the fall winds in you know there's going to be more time so we can take this up during the winter I think it's a good idea yeah I think things will be quieter soon um yeah and I guess I'm still sort of confused that um I mean we we have we have a bylaw that got approved and we do have a set of regulations then they got and they're the new ones um that were approved then after having those approved we went and changed the bylaw so there are some inconsistencies between the two like the regulations do need to be updated to be in conformance with the new bylaw but I still feel like the regulations that we have which are tentatively kind of definitely newer than what we used to have are active right now they just don't completely meet our bylaw is the way I understand it we can use them um we just really are under the gun to update them in accordance with our bylaw yeah that's how I understand it I I would be worri that um uh a slick attorney would be able to find that place where where things don't match up and would take advantage of it anyway I think we're in agreement that we want to kind of slog through it so I'm certainly content with that um the other thing is is is I know there was a um a commissioner that um was uh Lo looked at and was was coming into the commission and I understand that person maybe moving and is is off of the uh uh the the commission short list I was wondering if um uh I know that other positions in town have been been advertised on the the website and kind of a a netcast for uh members is is that something that the the commission could do or the town could do um yeah definitely I I I can ask Becky what they're doing with that I think they usually send it out with the uh the the the town flyer that goes out but advertise for you know committees that need members and then just start listing and it's always a big long list of of committees that are looking for people so yeah we're looking again um right now I was kind of focusing on filling that land use clerk position which was very important um and now I think we're set with that so we can start um looking again I see Tom is still listening Tom are you still interested in being on the Conservation Commission first word sounds like yes um thanks sorry to um be muted for that but uh I appreciate that yeah I would definitely be interested thank you you would okay good to know thank you for always being interested still being interested here if you need and we did talk about the B we did talk about the birthday party event being a kind of a recruiting event if anybody's interested we can bring some material to help help further their interest I guess yeah I think that's a good a good opportunity to to have some maybe little description of what it what commissioner's role is and then maybe be sure to be kind of mentioning that we only have four it's a good idea excellent and thank you I I apologize that I tacked another 10 minutes onto the meeting there so um than thank you for listening to those yeah no problem it's all good um all right motion to adjourn I'd like to make a motion to we adjourn at 9:20 pm okay uh con hi Douglas hi Rowan and Wilson I oh and sorry Jen are you doing the said I I was muted I thought you did yeah did you're doing the minutes for tonight I again oh thank you um hopefully this might be your last time having to do that that would be great all right good night everyone great thanks everybody take care thanks for doing the minutes yeah thanks Jan all right bye bye bye