##VIDEO ID:ASAQARySMxA## recording on there we go um say that again this it's 7 o'clock on January 30th 2025 I'm calling this meeting of the shury Conservation Commission to order this meeting's being recorded all right how's everybody doing good Bob's not here um I mean he's coming or at least he didn't tell me he wasn't GNA come see so let's give them a couple more minutes can the person with the um name iPad identify themselves for the minutes hi I don't know what happened Beth it's Jim Martin somehow I lost my name at the bottom I probably hit some button I didn't mean to that's fine now we know who you are I was kind of hoping you were Bob but we Bob we can start the meeting Bob will Bob will just join in all right so first on our agenda my cat is joining us first on the agenda comments from the chair I don't really have any comments except that this meeting um is really we're going to really try to focus on the regulations so I just want to go through the first few items pretty quickly and try to get to the regulations um our next meeting is Fe AR 13th that'll just be a regular meeting um so our next item on the agenda is to review and vote on the minutes from January 9th I think Matteo sent out some revised ones just just today or yesterday so hopefully everybody got a chance to look at those does anybody have any um comments or changes for the minutes no all right then I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of January 9th so motion NOP there you go all right second I'll second okay con I Fox hi Rowan hi and Wilson I all right great um next on our agenda is the continued discussion about the certific ific of compliance um for a 32 Lake Drive and I think I sent around to everybody I know I did the communication I had with um M dos from the D I sent her everything that she needed and she responded that uh she thanked me and she responded that that's what she needed was just confirmation from the Conservation Commission um so she basically said that the license was going to be issued shud in was you know had been approved and uh in addition to that I think I sent around the invoice and check that the applicant so once that was once that was completed I think the whole process moved forward and they actually issued the invoice to the applicant from the waterways program and the applicant sent us a copy of the invoice and the check that was submitted um so I and and the applicant has also submitted a uh form 8B applying for a certificate of compliance so does anybody have any questions or discussion about that my my recommendation is that you know at this point we issue the complete certificate of compliance because it's clear that the chapter 91 license has been issued but we can discuss and people can comment anyone from the commission no okay any comments from the public regarding this Miriam hi thanks um in the past the commission um didn't issue it until there was proof of recording because um you issue it um there's no no further role for the commission yeah I think at this point we are pretty satisfied that this is a done deal so at least I am but I am open to comments from from the commission or anyone else I have aage I have a message that Bob Douglas is waiting in the waiting room oh yeah yeah thanks Tom thank you so what I can do is pull up the certificate of compliance why don't we just review that if I can figure out how to do it let's see this one can you you hear me yes hi Bob oh good hi Internet's been a little wonky just wanted to make sure you're hook up oh that's too bad yeah we hear you and we see you you and we're looking at the certificate of compliance for 32 Lake Drive um can everybody see it yeah can people see it can okay great so this is the ab certificate compliance form um pretty straightforward it's just a simple form all the the info and then I've checked off complete certification and then I put C attach statement of findings um so I think it's more important that we look at that so that's all the form is I'm not sure who's seen these forms before but it's like it's a two-page form with an attachment for um for recording information I'll just show you that too so there's this attachment for the information when it gets recorded but it's pretty basic form and then how do you get rid of the here we go um so the these are the findings that I think we should attach to the certificate of compliance um similar to what was with the partial certificate of compliance got a lot of the same information just talking about what the notice of intent what the work was uh proposed in the notice of intent then there was this um change that was reflected in the partial certificate of compliance so in 2022 the applicant um determined that the proposed infiltration trench which is special condition number seven wasn't practicable so um they came up with an alternative that was uh approved um and while it was in here basically decided that it met the interests of the Wetland protection act and the bylaw um so then the commission is certifying full compliance with number seven um and part of that means that attachment B that was included in the original order conditions no longer exists so there was a little change with storm water which was discussed in 2022 but I just want that reflected here too because it's still something that shows up in the order of conditions so it's important to have it here in case somebody goes to the registry and just sees this certificate of compliance they need to see that that change was approved um then this statement just says that the the applicants got a certified statement from a professional engineer that the project was constructed in compliance with the order of conditions um and that the new storm water situation which they ended up doing some grading instead of a trench meets the storm order management needs of the site and then the last statement is the commission hereby certifies that the applicants are in full compliance with all requirements and conditions for this order conditions so I think that gives a good summary of um what's going on with the pro with the project and that everything was met so that will go with the form um does anybody have any questions on the form or the findings Beth can you hear me yeah uh is it is it too much of an intrusion to ask that um in your findings that in your first paragraph where you talk about applying for a doc license that one has been approved um we can add that to the end where it's saying um that the commission hereby certifies that the applicants are in full compliance with all requirements and conditions of the order conditions and then we can say uh including um approval of a chapter 91 license thank you does that make sense yes okay up Bob oh I think he froze oh yeah I just wonder if there were any ongoing conditions for the for the project yeah can you hear me okay yep now I can hear you no um this you know when the partial partial certificate of compliance was issued um the only ongoing condition was getting the chapter 91 license um so you know mo a lot of this the text that's in these findings is taken from the findings that were included in the partial certificate of compliance and the only thing that wasn't included in the partial certificate of comp clients was the chapter 91 so there's no outstanding conditions they had a professional engineer approv that the that it was constructed in accordance with the order okay great thank you very much yep I'm going to stop sharing that so I can see okay so if there's no more comments from the commission or from the public um I look for a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for 32 Lake Drive all right so move all right second I second okay con hi Rowan hi mayor yeah so um being new um I'm questioning whether uh I should be part of this as I wasn't um part of any of the original site visits like I I kind of thought that you were handling this and that we didn't have to vote on it so um I'm not sure if I should be part of it because I'm because I wasn't n um present yeah for any site visits I didn't participate in any of the conversation like you know what I'm saying do you understand what I'm saying so yeah no and and it's completely up to you if you feel like like that then that's that's fine you can abstain I'll abstain thanks okay um Douglas oh I think he's gone on I don't see him anymore let's give him a minute does anyone have a cell number you might call him yeah maybe Tom can text them I can I'll okay I can text him too oh that's not oh here he is he's back you there Bob I see you yes I'm back I hope you can hear me I I had lost your audio from your your side so anyway am I okay now yeah yeah we were just voting on issuing the certificate of compliance um everybody had voted and I was looking for your vote doulas I okay Wilson I all right thank you very much I'll be sending the that 8B form out to you um early next week and then uh it needs to be recorded at the registry and so does the the license the chapter one license yes we'll take care of those and thank you and the members of the commission for uh sticking with us through this arduous process appreciate it very much and best of luck for the rest of the uh this the term okay and be sure to send us copies of the the regist when things are recorded yeah we'll s we'll send I just had a quick question today's the um 15th the last day to have that issue does voting on that count I just want to make sure that there's not a rug pole that no it'll be they they should date it today so okay perfect thank you thank you everyone we appreciate it okay all right thanks good night folks by bye good night all right next on our agenda is review and vote on CPA Grant applications Scott has done a wonderful job putting together an application Penny helped with one too um so there's there's two that were that were thinking and bringing forward to the CPA I'm G to let Scott tell you all about it all right thanks bth um wonder if I should I've never oh I've never shared my screen here but would it be helpful to share the Grant application bth just to walk through um yeah can can you share or do I have to give you something it says host disabled participant screen sharing I could just talk about it too maybe that's easier I I just I just made you host so that means you can share your co-host or whatever oh here we go yeah you do it as as interpretive dance maybe if you're lucky uh can you see my screen okay the application yeah okay well here we go so the first um CPA uh or CPC application that we had in this one I I know we have Penny here in the meeting as well and so I'll invite her to add more to this as she um would like and and really this is in really reflecting all her hard work establishing um the top of the lake uh Conservation Area that we have here in town and this Grant application is really designed to improve that for those of you who have never been there before this is um on the North End of Lake white Ola um we it's a small pocket park and uh with some parking that parking there and access to the lake that was really designed for um folks who would like to have Cano or kayak that they could carry that in and launch there unfortunately on the the banks of the um of lake wyola in this location there's a quite a lot of glossy Buckthorn which is an invasive species um that has gained a hold there and really not only is it um not good for the the ecosystem health of the lake but it's also impedes Recreation there as it's serves as a barrier between the the um lawn area and and the lake and so what this application is seeking to do I'll get right to it is uh it's asking for a a total project cost of 4,500 so it's a pretty small application 4,000 of CPA being requested with a matching uh contribution from the commission of 500 and and what this represents is um uh contract here to control the glossi buckthorne with the 4,000 and then the matching contribution of 500 from the commission is uh to purchase native shrubs and vegetation that would be ours to to go ahead and reestablish in this location once the Buckthorn is controlled so that's it in a nutshell for this one but I'm GNA I think we've applied for both open space and Recreation um but I with permission from the chair I would invite to to add anything more that she had to this application yeah that's fine it does say $445,000 instead of 4500 right there in that box yeah that would be a that I'm sorry that's a typo there might want to fix that one before it goes but yes Jenny please so uh I I put in the 500 $100 from the commission thinking that you would want to discuss that tonight um from pricing out plants at uh New England Wetland plant I don't think it will be that much but I put that much in um just to be on the safe side and I also don't think that it will cost $4,000 for um Brian Colin's work he put in a very padded um amount and you should discuss whether you feel comfortable submitting at at that level yeah I I would just add for my thanks Penny from my standpoint I I I think this seems reasonable it's a it's a small area um I don't know I'm Buckthorn is difficult to get rid of and whether or not there there could be um more than one uh effort to to subdue it before we established native vegetation this seemed reasonable to me but I I think that's really for the for the commission here to to talk about and decide so did did we want to talk about these individually Beth and and talk about this one first and then move on or would you like me to talk about the other applications as well well let yeah let's finish talking about this one I think and then and then do the other one I just um just for a little more detail so the the 4,000 is really will probably be um contracted to Brian colerin is that his name and then the 500 is our match which so you got you're thinking that that's um buying of of plants to replant and then us doing the um the physical effort of of replanting is that plan yes yes so I know from I I did get a um an estimate from Brian he said and I didn't really know how to fill out the form based on what he said because it doesn't um quite mesh with the categories here but he estimated it would be $2,000 to come out here visit the site and develop a plan and then another $2,000 for multiple times um to work on subduing the knotweed I mean the Buckthorn um he listed I think four different trips and so I'm not sure that should really be under supplies maybe it should be under other yeah I I think it looks good still um would he be sort of putting together sort of a little application for the Conservation Commission to be doing the work well that's that's not included in here I thought as a uh I think we would get a volunteer to do the paperwork for whatever the commission requires um you know the buckthorne is right on the bank um and I know the bank is considered a resource area so you would have to decide what you wanted to do with that which set of paperwork okay um Bob I see your hand up yeah quick question is that partial uh Town open space or is it in the care and custody of the commission it's property owned by the town that is managed by the Conservation Commission um but I think it is considered conservation land Right In terms conservation land yes but um it was I'm trying to think uh I think it was actually I think this one was purchased by the Conservation Commission with your um the trust fund money great thank you okay all right um I think I'm I'm good with the application um what do others other people have comments just I just want to say you know if it if it is padded a little bit as was said I think that's okay because really costs are just going up on everything uh from year to year uh it's it's astounding so uh I think building is probably a practical idea the only comment I have it seems like the uh category of funding I'd put it all under contractual for the $4,000 if you're hiring a contractor to do the planning and the work um whatever supplies he does would fall into that right uh I yeah I guess so I was you know I wasn't sure um I deferred to the commission on this I think that's a great addit Dan I think we could make that and um take we while this may be a low high we pray we'll take the extra zero out that's the top thank you and um I so I filled this um application out I C uh Scott can you scroll to the end yep and see if you're comfortable with what I put in there for who's actually applying I put you that's what I do I think you and I just you were you were okay with that yeah I'm I'm fine with that okay I would defer to the chair but I I think yep no that's that's fine I'm certainly willing to help um make sure this happens to work with Scott on that but it seems since it's Conservation Commission um property that it should be submitted Under the Umbrella of the commission yeah no I agree I think it that that's fine it's good do you w to roll on to the other ones Beth yeah I think if we're done with this one if nobody's got any more comments and um yeah we'll look at the next one all right um just by way of History um several years ago there was an assessment uh the commission actually had CPA funding to do an assessment of our South Brook Conservation Area and a few of us that were on the commission uh after this assessment was done had a chance to walk the trails and look at some of these areas I think the the headline that I would share are there are several places here in South Brook and you can see this is the it's really two parcels and I'll I'll get to that here in the application but this portion here right around where that comes from the town beach and and then connecting down to um to this North portion of uh South Brook down into U this southerly portion here that kind of goes in along wendle Road um there are several locations here and uh in this assessment that showed deficiencies in the trail um a lot of places where there's uh the trail goes through resource areas um places where there's inadequate bridging there um bridges that have been graffitied and and are not um accessible here or kind of makeshift Crossings um and um some degradation here from um from Trail use going through Wetland areas where uh we think we could either reroute the the trail and or uh put down additional bog bridging so U this assessment was done but there was no money um put in to actually Implement any of the the recommended changes and so um we I have two proposals here for consideration from the commission and um both being put in for open space and Recreation and I think we have a choice here um and I I am recommending that we submit both of these for consideration uh one is a a a project after I'll get to I'll share that one first um here we go so these are the different lot numbers here for the the like wola town beach section was acquired in the mid 60s and then the South Brook uh both both owned by the town here and both managed by the Conservation Commission um and they're reflected on that map that I showed you the first one that I thought would be good for us to talk about is a proposal here um actually maybe I have that at the top here we go um where we would recommend um a full funding amount for this project this would be a design build to actually hire um a contractor to design the bog bridging uh design the trail reroute and then Implement those I did get a um I contacted a couple different Consultants that were referred to me from kestral folks that they've used before just to get an idea of what the scope of this work might cost and that was reflected here they estimated about 73,000 2,900 uh of of cost to do the design build um I have also identified about $8,700 of matching contributions that I wanted to review with uh the commission here so let me skip to that part of the application um and what that consists of um again I have 72,900 for contractual this would be the design build part and then here I have other funds from the commission that would be put as match uh part of this is um personnel and this would be efforts of the commission and volunteers to do the Blazing uh here of the trails and so that was a deficiency that was found I think that's something we could do as a commission Andor with volunteer Labor uh from Neighbors and others that I think would be interested in helping to blaze these trails and so that's represented here by the 5700 I have $3,000 of contractual from the commission and this would be for the purchase of signage that would be put up here to uh for the trails that were recommended and um so that would represent the total so this is one application um all taking place just to review how that would happen um here I have a timeline that in the spring of 2025 um we would part of our contribution would be um hiring some of the Wetland delineations that's part of the work there that would take place um so that we could uh complete our own relative uh determinations and help issue the design build here so that they would know where the resource are is worse if they could design around that um that we would um the contractor would complete their design work here this summer we would get our all of our relative permits and then in the fall the contractor would complete this Trail work uh install all the Wetland Crossings uh we would do the the repainting of the bridge and blazing the trails with us and volunteers purchase the sign and the highway department would install it so this is kind of in a nutshell one Fell Swoop getting all the deficiencies done in one year the second proposal um is a phased approach where the same project cost although we're only requesting half the amount from CPA and kind of the timeline for that it's a little bit different and then thinking about how we could divide this up um that we would complete the um our work there with the delineations um we would issue a a bid and design build here for the total design uh but they um and that would be for the whole project but the build would really focus on the southern portion you know this part that I shared here it would focus on this part here because this location does not have any of the large bog bridging that was designed for up here and that's where a substantive amount of the cost are so they would um do the whole design but they would only do half of the building that start from the south and work their way North to complete as much as they could uh that and we would do the repainting of the bridge and and Blaze the trails and purchase the signs um actually let me well I want to make sure I have the right one up here um so they would complete all the work here in um the trail work on the southern portion we would repaint the and Blaze the trails here uh and then the signs would be um purchased and installed in year two under a separate Grant application so we'd be really dividing this up in summary in the year one and under this grant likely we could probably get a full design done we'd get a partial build and we'd need to then seek additional funding in year two to complete the work and so these are two applications I I guess my thought in doing it this way and submitting maybe both to CPA although I defer to the rest of the commission that this would give CPA some options to think about here and the looking at the totality of the projects and what they thought they could fund uh they might you know I I think funding it all at once makes sense if there's money to do so although this gives an option for partial funding so maybe I'll stop there and see if there's questions or anything more Beth you want to add or questions from the commission um yeah um I think I think submitting both applications um is a good idea I'm the rep for the Conservation Commission on the CPA and you know it it really is so much about the money in the different accounts and what other applications come in and um what the CPA how they feel they can fairly distribute you know the fun this year so giving them the option of giving us you know a lesser amount this year I think is a really it's a good idea I think it's kind of a nice thing to do for them um but it helps us too um I was wondering about so the the match um are we splitting that uh for the two different years too like what you're submitting with the one that was half and was just 2025 with kind of half the work well how are we what are we going to do with the match I guess that gets a little confusing yeah it is a little confusing um what I figured is for here um that um we we would do at least the um the delineations here for the planned Trail work and so I I think that would be focusing on the the southern portion I've tried to reserve some of the match for a previous or for a subsequent application um same for the you know the the Blazing here that we could go ahead and and do that um um for for repainting the bridge and and blazing the trails um but the signs like the the actual sign and the purchase and installation of the sign is a big amount of the match and that would be under a separate Grant application that would be next year 2026 that would be 2026 or a future Grant it's not represented here in so the so the five I'm just looking at the money so this year's match total so it go go up I guess the match total of $5,000 is that's just this that's just this year so that's just this year and it this is how it's broken down um us removing the white blazes you know all the stuff for year one so Wetland delineation of about 10 hours um that um we would do you know this's permitting here and I have that repres Ed um having new blazing here that we would start and and um on the southern portion because that's the part that's going to be worked on and and see how far we can get but I have 16 hours represented here of doing that repainting the bridge and then in year two would be the purchase and installation of the new signs okay so I really didn't know how to reflect a phased application in this it's not really geared towards that but that's yeah yeah it's all good my one concern is the delineation and permitting because the concom itself can't do the delineation and the permitting because we review delineations of Permitting so it would be we' be hiring we'd be hiring someone and I'm I'm wondering if that's enough money um I guess 3,000 for permitting um you know and it can be the same person who's doing the delineation and permitting um and that that's probably a pretty good number actually for that okay I think it's it's it's all good I do have a question Scott I guess I have a couple yeah one one is um is there adequate parking anywhere to cover this for people that are coming from away I I never Park I just walk so yeah it's a great question janon I was talking with Mato a little bit and some others about a potential for the future and I could see you know ideally what I what I would love to see is under year one we get all this work done so all these trails are blazed and safe and well signed uh and aren't going through resource areas there is parking there at the right by the boat ramp which is an you know the overall parking that's really the uh the and there's that where the sign is where there could be some improvements made for parking in that location right that pull off there um ideally it would be great to to think about additional parking uh that could be done I know um we've talked about the U the potential too of maybe creating an accessible trail that would go from that parking at the boat ramp to the town beach I would love to see that done but those those aren't reflected in this grant right now it's it's just parking at that main parking of the boat ramp and then you'd have you know the the rest of these trails to connect to and so that leads me to my next question which uh we're going to blaze the trails that exist and maybe phase out or whatever U some of the less desirable Trails have we got a direct connection to wendle Road in this process uh when you say a direct connection what do you mean so is a blaze Trail gonna take us at some point to wendle Road it does right now yes that would be in this location okay and so that's part of what the Improvement will include the Blazing would be what we would do uh part this Trail these trails are some sections of them are you know from hiking in they're they're blazed but they're poorly blazed and so this is really the Blazing is is just um you know reestablishing the the sections that would have to be rerouted and the existing Trail but it does go down past window Road and so in in it you said in the in the phase version uh we'd work our way north towards the lake yeah uh in the in the the bigger oneye version is the are the Lake trails covered yes yeah the reason why if you look at um some of these large bog Bridges like in photo 3 and if you know from this location Jam where where this is but that's um up here this is the spot where there are a bunch of pretty sizable bog look you know bog bridging and that represented uh you know over half of the $79,000 estimate from the contractor were for those large bog Bridges I see so that's the reason why I was suggesting well we just start in one location try to finish as much as we can again my my personal recommendation is I'd rather see the full amount done I think it will be cheaper and less headache I'm a little concerned about doing the design uh from one contractor and then having to re rebid it in the subsequent year when changes Contracting and the rest of it could be be different and have a different contractor potentially installing it but I was just trying to find a way to to put a smaller price tag on I get it I I really appreciate the the both versions um I would way prefer to get the whole thing done in one shebang if if that could be possible I had a question um can you go over um I I was actually a little disoriented as to where where everything went I didn't realize the trail went all the way kind of South before it it connected to that sharp curve uh on Wendell um but uh could you go over 17 18 19 because that is just the worst part of that trail um and could you say what's going to be done there because even on a good day when there hasn't been any rain it's largely impassible um that area I I agree I think um so again just for disclaimer this was the assessment that was done um previously and these are some high level recommendations but I don't know that all of these when we actually get designed are what actually is what's going to be needed here um but you can see this is what you're talking about here with this existing bridge and then it comes down and they have these you know there are rock stepping stones but you can see that where we have um there bikes there you know other there's heavy foot traffic it says here at the time there's ORV tracks um so this is the part that you're talking about being in pass and I I would agree you know people walk across from these stepping stones but they're all kind of sinking um so they uh what he recommended here was an Upland reroute I'm not sure that there's really a whole lot of room there to reroute it without hitting a resource area honestly mayor but I think that that's part of the design build that would have to see like this could be bog bridging that's really needed here as well yeah I did I I didn't understand what what Upland reroute meant like because it I wasn't clear where you met up land like because there's just a short period I mean there's a short to the I guess the south is like the brook is Right a higher area right along that Brook but right um actually I was actually on the other side where that person is but but um but when you get through that first initial part and then um actually this I see what you're saying the the picture is reversed we're heading back up towards locks Pond okay so might be way through here right okay that's what I was wondering if that's what you meant but it's that it's after that initial section where all this this brushes kind of or this mountain laurel I think it is p there and then there's another section after that just just as here yeah and it's and I just didn't know like what I mean because the Trail's been rerouted here already kind of in more of the up I again may I think you're you're pointing out the real need to do some work here and I I think this would be you know again what we're recommending would be to implement you know all of to take a look at this this is a quick and dirty assessment I don't this is not a design this is just through with pictures um but this is what we really need now is to take this look at design and then implement it great uh Penny you have your hand up yes um well I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions Scott can you go back to the map and this um goes back to um a question a minute ago when you look at the area between uh spot 19 and 21 the trail actually goes off of the South book property there and so that um that's something that will need to be addressed yeah and then I will just say that there's never been any direct management by the commission on the south Brook portion of this property all the trails that are there are um user made Trails um there may be completely better places than where they are now so hopefully when you do a trail assessment and and a design you'll consider that and and who knows the trail system may look quite different than what you see now but certainly that spot that goes off the South Brook property needs to be sorted out because it really does it really hit wendle road is 21 does the property it does I mean this is all russco land here I I I do think there is another potential that the commission blocked through here and and you're right Penny I think this is part of the conversation to see um what the wishes of everyone might be and what we need to reroute this there's also a a fair amount of um Waters coming off of window Road and washing across the trails that's on this property and making it imp passible here too um and this bridge is really quite bad there so there's there's work if I had 21 yeah here there's right here in this location this bridge is in very poor shape it's used by snowmobilers I think that's the other thing that we're going to have to work on is with the some old Club to make sure whatever we're building is passable but then this is also all wet in here and it's coming right off of window Road uh this is the the looking from window Road the trail head and and they have here no parking this is on private property this is on where you're referring to isn't isn't that bridge the one that got replaced no um by Evan that yeah uh that one is further up the other way um let's see I to get disoriented here I think it's I thought that was at 29 but maybe I'm wrong might um well you actually no you're right it's that I think it is 29 I'd know it if I saw it here so it's not that one but it I think it is 29 yeah this one this one get replaced yeah which is good it wasn't in very good shape be nice to get all those uh shingles that somebody dumped about 15 years ago at that trail head out of there too yeah all right well um so that's great just I had one more comment and that I I know it's a lot of but I really feel like doing this all at once will save you money in the long run and um and it'll it'll be a wonderful thing to have this Scott I don't know if you've done this but I would add to your proposal that um from the open space plan residents in town say they want Trails they know they can walk on that are well marked and safe and that and that there's parking nearby and I think uh emphasizing that early on in your your proposal is great and the last thing I'll say is the um CPC said when they gave us the little tiny Grant which was I think only oh something like $3,000 to do this preliminary assessment they said that was the assessment and then come back and ask for money to do the Improvement so I don't know what they're going to say if you try and break up the improvements into two more grants but that will be for them to decide yeah you raised a really good point Penny we did it does ask here um how this will fulfill General and specific evaluation criteria in the SE the community preservation plan and so we did try to lay out as you said having these diverse Trail opportunities and efficient use of existing land all were called out and I think this Trail does or this this proposal does try to facilitate all those goals great and thanks so much for making this happen thanks Benny I see uh Tracy MCN has her hand up h hi thanks for calling on me this is awesome I'm really excited about these Trails getting getting cleaned up because it's a really pretty little area um one of the things I'm just a little confused about is that I know a couple years ago when there was discussion about the boat launch and you know um motorized and passive uh launching the donam MC nickel separated out both areas and said that if I remember correctly was saying that snowmobiling shouldn't be allowed on these trails because it was only for Passive because of the type of grant that was used to get it and I'm I'm fine with snowmobiling because I my understanding is is that when you're snowmobiling on you're not you can't you're not damaging the ground because you're on the snow but I just wanted to just you were talking about snowmobiling um and making the trails you know pass and I was just a little confused about that is that was all cleared up you know that's I guess my question I I think that's it's a great question Tracy um my my understanding is it's a little bit confusing too when we talked about it here before I know we had people taking motorized access down people driving and coming off the lake and driving down and uh and I see maram stand up so I'm sure she'll have more to add but they were driving there my recollection when we talked about this with the U Town's attorney is that the snowmobile access was allowed but it was the other types of driving uh that wasn't but um well she had said in that meeting that snowmobiling wasn't allowed but my reading of the rules was that snowmobiling is allowed so that's that's where it was confusing and but and I just I never heard anything about that since so I agree with you it does seem like snowmobiling is allowed I just know the attorney said you should take the signs down and it's not allowed at at that meeting so can I comment yeah yeah yes you can Mary I'm sorry yeah um so it's up to the dis the uh discretion of the commission to establish what the rules are um I think that the self-help Grant regulations will allow snow billing but it doesn't mean they have to allow it um and I missed uh I was um logged in here but I wasn't I had to leave the room for a little while and I didn't hear are you doing anything to address the ATVs that are tearing up the trails is there any was there any discussion about um doing something about that earlier I that's not part of the plan yeah go ahead I was gonna say we we didn't talk about that Miriam here although you know we have um previously as you know we had uh installed some signage here that talked about what was allowed and I think it says no motorized vehicles except person mobiles and that's the was the language that we worked on with Town's attorney and we had that up but there's definitely more need of uh signage here I think there are places where uh ATVs could be coming on and there isn't any signage and anything to tell them what they can and can't do so uh from the standpoint of signage I think that that will help hopefully address uh concerns with ATVs at least letting people know that that wouldn't be allowed here yeah I think so this application is just for actual you know work to blaze trails and to do Bridges and to um just improve the trails and then there's money for signage but this is not having to do with the discussion of what's going to be on the signage I think when we get to the point of getting the money and saying okay what kind of signs what do we want do we want you know we want proba maybe want some signs that are just arrows pointing you know go in this direction but then we also might want signs that have names for Trails um and then we might have regulatory signs we probably would but we would have to have a discussion about that as to you know whether we want to have them say what the current signs say or maybe you know maybe we'll vote to to to change the signage a little bit but right now you know this application is strictly just to go to the CPA and see if they'll fund this project so it it doesn't discuss regulations at all it does mention SK trying to get some money for signage but it doesn't talk at all about making any decisions as to what would be on the signs they're not talking about like uh any barriers this is not what the proposal is that's what I was wondering about barriers yeah any like any any kind of way of um limiting what kind of vehicles can get onto the trails because that was something we had talked about a few years ago that's not in the proposal right Scott okay no we could always you know I think there's room here and working with the highway department to to look at that I think part of it Miram we'd have to we really need a better lay out here for some of the trails you know I think a lot of things come in here this isn't as p pointed out this isn't even owned by the commission yeah and so like how I think it needs to be a comprehensive plan to address um you know the rerouting what we laid out here in the plan but there's you raised great points and there's there's more work to be done but this is just taking that first bite after the assessment thank you Scott yeah be bet all right any more comments from the commission on the the really three CP CPA applications that um we'd like to bring forward coming from the commission to the the CPA committee uh Scott when are the applications due February something I think they're due on the sixth the six yeah so yeah so I guess we'd like to vote tonight on whether uh the commission wants to bring bring the three of them forward um I guess as Scott said there's the option of for Southbrook just submitting the one that's for all the money um seems to me like a good idea to provide CPA with the option but I don't know what other people think do we want to prioritize them it's a good idea yeah I mean good idea it it seems like I don't I I've hiked the one out from many many times the one out from the the um the boat launch and I so many times I've gotten lost with my kids because it just isn't clear as to where it goes and then there's a hill and then this and that and and I'm like and I you know we just end up going whatever way we can to get back up and and climbed up really you know up onto that last trail that you know comes out um where 17 18 19 are but um I'm never met anybody out there I and as opposed to you know the other Trail 17 18 19 that whole section um you know on any given day I could meet somebody out there because it's more heavily traveled and that's not to say that the other one shouldn't be prioritized because maybe people just don't know about it a lot of people the bone launch is is just a very um you know my my property BS up against um conservation land and down you know and and the um Randall Road and um you know I know how many people go up and down there I hear them with their boats I hear them go up and down but um it's it's pretty busy down there you know is is if people can get down there even in the winter um because it's not maintained um they will you know there's been people that's lived that have lived down there it's it's you know it's a very busy busy area and so I don't know I'm kind of torn because knowing that you know that is a natural way to hike out from that that uh the Gazebo and that full St um but it would be great if it if it did and I see the way it's connected but that's not like when you kind of go up the up these Hills you kind of get lost and it doesn't make sense as to how it connects but it'd be nice if it did connect directly at a different you know like a like a a lower portion of that other Trail where you know 17 18 19 um but uh um I don't know kind of torn because it like I said a lot of people go to the boat launch I never see anybody hiking out from the um from there but a lot of people hike out that trail but um there's no parking there so um you know yeah so like yeah one through you know one through 14 and then it connects to to 25 that's you know from 10 to 25 you never know like didn't know you know it just doesn't it just something gets lost in that section but um but is confusing and this map is even right um because the property lines aren't correct on this map this is actually this does go through conservation land and this does I I I hi this pretty routinely um around the lake and then down here this all does connect through here but you're absolutely right there it's it's super confusing um and there are a lot of other routes and trails that people have developed um I think I think you're really pointing out the need to make it more clear so people can really use it right effectively than they can right now yeah yeah because it's kind of instead of a hike it's a lot of days more like a wander yeah and it and it's and it's pretty much off limits like you know the first parts of that like 1 through 13 or kind of off limits and you know like in kind of mud season because right um you know you got to jump to get into this you got to jump to get to that um but all these to go through but it is it is a I mean every part of this unit is truly beautiful there are some awesome uh views here along the way you know and I think this really builds it's you know it's not very far away from some of the the Brightwater bog and some of the work that Castle's been doing there I know there's there are lots of opportunities here to to to Really enhance the surrounding areas and trails but you're you're right we need to to make this more clear so people can use it I don't know so I maybe just go for everything you know hey hey Scott I think if you added a line in there that um suggested these improvements would help link uh the South Brook trails to the bog that would be a nice enhancement yeah they don't they don't actually I thought about that it's not far though they they're not far they don't actually touch you know you have to hike down window Road I I know but that's I to to the link is there and it and it's a nice link if you really wanted to go for a a good walk yeah yeah yeah they've done such a great job too it would it would be lovely if some of that could be part of this as well you know what I mean because they you know it just it is it has to be elevated at different times because it's just not possible you know I've gone through there with stroll regularly and it just it does not work even an umbrella stroller does not work going through there it's hard it's you know it's hard I end up like carrying it with my grandson so you know but uh but yeah I think everything should be all in like if we can you know to get the whole thing looked at you know yeah I agree Bob you got your hand up yeah Madam chair may make a motion yes I'd like to make a motion that um we submit for the CPA with the whole project uh related to the trail we've been recently reviewing as our as our top priority okay so that that can be number one and then do we want number two to be sort of the split up version of Southbrook or do we want it to be the top of the lake as sort of number two and then number three would be the split up version of South Brook I like that yeah speaking strictly for myself I would say the split up version as as the second tier South Brook's important yeah I'm I'm inclined to go the other way I'm inclined to put Top of the Lake in the middle uh it's a small project and it's doable and it would be good to get that crap out of there and grow the right stuff you know and say that I was specifically contacted by the CPC to put in a proposal for that so that's the only reason it's here right you had to give back some money right well I had to give back a couple hundred dollars yeah but you know so and I was told um that instead I should s instead of using that money as seed money for the uh remediation of the buckthorne that they requested that a uh full proposal go in all right so we've got two different motions on the table here um how do other folks feel stop mayor I I think I be inclined to do I I do think doing South Brook alls one makes the most sense and I I have concerns about the implementation of breaking it up I think it it could make it more complicated and maybe more expensive in the long run um so I I like doing that first I like doing top of the lake and getting that done it's a small project um different than um the trail work um and then the phase for consideration maybe is a third tier okay mayor yeah I I kind of agree with Scott but um I don't know I'm I guess I would go for the the um the Southbrook one you know first the whole thing and then and then conservation I mean then the top of the lake second I um I know there's parking there but I I maybe I'm missing something I I don't usually see people there but um it be the time of day I mean I don't know but uh I think there's an opportunity to to add to Southbrook and and make it even you know more welcoming like people could park at at at um the the boat launcher Randall Road and and and you know hike all the way over to the janowitz you know the um the kestral land trust property and then and then back you know I mean that that's we all all the way around the lake and then you know but it and there is parking available there that could take you on a wide variety of trails and then back to to um the Randle road so right well I think I'm hearing that um our first our first choice would be the Southbrook with the with the total cost and then our second is Top of the Lake which is a little bit smaller ask so maybe that's a good one to have in there second um and then our third would be the the split between FY 25 and FY 26 for South Brook yeah okay motion for that I make a motion for that all right second I second okay con hi Douglas hi Rowan hi Fox I and Wilson I all right great I think the next thing to happen with that is um I get to present them at the CPA meeting because Scott can't be there um so that will be the next and I'll let everybody know how that goes my cat has been enjoying this whole meeting we've been enjoying your cat too she loves to watch TV and follow Mouse the mouse I you know go all around the screen she's fa all right so next on the agenda is the regulations watch out Kitty that does Tracy so for a hand up from yeah I think she just put her hand up Tracy hold on sorry yeah I I I have to get going so I just wanted to just bring this up before I went um I probably should have brought it up when you were talking about the um what the what you're going to be doing at the uh passive boat launch over on Merill are you aware that the police department is um planning on putting a boat for their boat in that area apparently they were they're getting a boat dock donated to them by an anonymous doter and last night at the boat safety meeting she said that they were putting it in there off of off of a Randall Road down there no Merill Merill I know that Becky Torres asked about that when I was on the commission and um I said they could propose that but they would have to go through quite a bit of Permitting and that was the last I heard of that well this was just last night so you might want to check into it yeah thanks for letting us know we will definitely I'll reach out to um the current Town Administrator see what's going on so what would that entail Tracy since you know well I don't know I mean it was just I wasn't I was just there as a a listener on the meeting and the police chief was answering questions of the committee and okay that's what she said was an anonymous person had donated a dock and that they were going to be putting it basically you know um right in you know off of that you near Bob car's using the town property there to access it so basically parking it there for the summer it makes a lot more sense than what she was initially planning was she wanted to do right at the at Randall Road right off the Gazebo and have a dock that went all the way out like halfway across that kind of you know shallow end but um that you know there were so many permits that were involved in that from what she was saying when um that she must have backed off on that so come up with a easier plan that's like right there you know so yeah well yeah I mean it she may not be aware that it's conservation land so that yeah well I'll look into it conservation land Wetland permitting all that so thanks for the thanks for the tip you're welcome good night good night all right who disabled Kitty move for all right all right back to the regulations I think I'm going to start with the dots and peers section cuz that was something we started but then we skipped ahead all right just saw it five do and beers all right so um I sent out this version um to everybody and um I think in this Preamble I just I just moved some paragraphs around didn't add anything new just kind of move some things around so we talk about chapter 91 we talk about natural heritage we say that Lake O is a great Pond all very important so the requirements of Licensing doc peers and floats on the lake whale are regulated by the waterways program which requires in order of conditions or determination by the commission before the license can be issued unless the project is otherwise subject to exemp exemptions included in the chapter 91 program um and then that the lake wola and portions of the Watershed have historically been designated or mapped um with natural heritage so projects in these areas um need to have natural heritage review prior to in order conditions being issued and this is all language that was in there so so that let's crossed out there I had moved up to the top you might want to go back to 10.1.3 you got a typo oh uh the last line I think it's plant productivity not plant productivity underlying adverse yes plants also I've got one more question on that if you go back up it says um blah blah blah blah blah it's it's it's like the third line of 10.1.3 effects on for water dependent uses in close proximity to each other but close proximity isn't defined and that's sort of an issue around the lake because we have some lots that are quite narrow should we say something like multiple multiple structures for water dependent use within the same parcel have potential to degrade resource areas um because like you're saying there the shorelines are very short so it's not necessarily one parcel it could be you and your neighbor and another neighbor if you've all got narrow Lots but we don't we don't Define it so it gets a little squishy right that's why I was trying to figure out a way to define it well that's I mean uh part of the trouble that I was reading into it was um I think they want 15 feet or something between 15 feet from your property line but if you've got a rocky um if you've got a rocky Shoreline or some some situation where the access is closer than 15 feet and that would be more of a disturbance to move it you know what I mean that I don't know I I had a little trouble with the proximity issue because you've got to use common sense here at you know maybe um uh as appropriate proximity as appropriate or something like that would allow us a little bit of wiggle room where people can't be could I make a comment yeah can I just one thing is to me um just like with all applications we can't we can't control or really look at neighboring properties we we deal with the project that is proposed within the property that it's proposed so when we're seeing close proximity we can really only legally look at that within the same parcel that's the way I understand the regulations we can't start looking at other Parcels so we can't really say oh you put your dock you know and it's it's and we're seeing more impact on the values of the wellons protection app because it's so close to your neighbor's dock because in a way then we're looking at the neighbor's property too and that's not really lead you you're just looking at a project that's proposed within a particular parcel um so I think really the only close proximity we can look at is within within the confines of of one parcel okay I mean that that helps clarify it yeah Miriam yeah um two points um one is this isn't a performance standard this is in Preamble so this is not a requirement that the commission is now bound to it's basically a scientific observation about the impact of development on resource areas and it isn't taking away the commission's discretionary Authority um but it's it's it's just common sense that you have development close to each other there's a could be a cumulative impact the other piece is that if you look at the language of the wetlands protection bylaw it does Define um the scope for looking at cumulative impact including looking at development outside of the project area um and the commission does have the uh authority to look broadly at H how patterns of development are are affecting resource areas that's in the plain language of the bylaw so I just would recommend that you take a look at that passage in the bylaw um because it is different perhaps than the wetlands protection act yeah it might be different than the Wetland protection act um yeah so I kind of agree with Miriam in that this is just a preamble so it's it isn't really requiring anything it's it is just a a you know a general discussion on the commission looking at cumulative effects kind of in general does that make sense Jan I can accept that okay there's more than one 10.1.3 H the numbering is going to have to be um fixed very much as we go through like when this is all done the formatting and the and the numbering is all going to have to looked at um all right does anybody have any other comments on the Preamble just 10.1 point6 the commission encourages land owners to obtain a chapter 91 as appropriate the regulation you know we're just following the regulations all right is this not it's not showing it as a change no there we go now it is okay all right definitions oh I had one more thing there definitions yeah yeah it was in definitions um I mean it I don't know if it makes any difference 10.2.4 we identify November 1 as the date you pull out a seasonal pier and um that's you know that's traditional that's fine I was thinking about the future a little bit if if um for some reason November 1 moves you know we back it up or go forward whichever way because seasons change a little bit or uh need changes or something in the future I was wondering if we wouldn't be better off to say November 1st or as uh Lake draw Downs are scheduled you know so we're not stuck on November 1 if it switches around a little oops um is that answered by this addition where it says u based on the actual annual um date set for raising and lowering of the lake level that that was my thought it's a little bit yeah yeah this was this was from something that you had you had sent you know comments on long long ago yeah um yeah nope that's good it's in there okay all right presumptions oops again just some some word smithing of things so you got a typo on the third line of presumptions presumed to effect we're missing a two in there that be presumed to effect okay construction or use of water depend shall be presumed to affect the values of adjacent resource areas including my limit to the land under water Bank White Wetlands when subject to flooding Ora it's rebuttable okay that's just word smithing performance Standards Commission shall review a proposed um dock Peter walkway that is not a seasonal float buoy or swimming platform upon the submission of an noi such application shall include proof of submission to natural heritage for review of applicable and proof chapter 91 lights license application submission the commission shall review seasonal boats buoys and swimming platforms under small project permit application how do people feel about that I'm wondering if we want to keep 10.4.2 the the thing that I see here that is kind of weird um we're after Wetlands protection stuff and chapter 91 is about navigation and boating safety those aren't the same thing so when you look at buoys for example uh I I I am hard pressed to think that we're establishing something damaging by throwing in a you know a bucket of concrete a rope and a float um right so that that is really the question like yeah so so you you think that we're not and that we shouldn't shouldn't be um regulating those I mean the the argument would really be that if somebody's doing anything um that involves any kind of a impact to bank or land underwater so this would be land underwater that's being impacted by having a big concrete block sitting on it um we're not talking about you know a two-ton block you know a lot of times people are using a Clorox bottle so I I mean I think we ought to have some sensibility here about what's an actual issue and what really isn't yeah I think it's already also covered under voting safety because as you know you as as Property Owners on the lake you're only allowed to go out a certain amount of distance you know then it becomes the kayakers at a certain distance and then the boats you know so everybody knows where they should be and shouldn't be um I don't know like there's one seasonal float it's a big Unicorn it's white it's down at the other end of the lake down at chanen but you know the swimming platforms there's um other than there's just a handful of them and and two of them two of them belong to the association um and everybody knows where those go like there's everybody knows where they're supposed to be in their own Lanes I I don't think that I don't know I don't think that cons ation commission should be part of I think the whole thing should be eliminated I I didn't think it belonged there either wa so you don't think the the floats buoys and swimming platforms is what you you don't think belongs there I don't I don't think so um it's already I think it's already regulated by um but what we're look what we're regulating just just um just to inform I guess is um you know the commission these resource areas have particular things that we're TR trying to protect and so in the case of the the lake and in terms of floats buoys and swimming platforms it would certainly would just be the lake Bottom which would is land underwater that's one of the areas that we we protect um and so my only thoughts would be you know obviously they are impacted by whatever weight is used um and then they would be you know more impacted the more of these kind of Weights that that people start putting out there um but you know if people are swimming they're walking around on that monkey bottom uh this you know I mean disturbances happen that's yeah I think that it's inconsequential and we can probably accept that yeah I know I totally see where where you're coming from um Scott and Bob what are your thoughts on the impacts of seasonal floats booies and swimming platforms um you know I think um anything that impacts something that that is that is under the the commission's jurisdiction um is uh you know is something that should be in our bylaw and that could be um uh you know the Clorox bottle or a naval anchor um certainly one one one has um uh an impact on on the resource area that we've all taken a oath to protect that that that that pond bottom so um I I think we are obligated to protect that resource um and uh this is one way we can do it is by putting it in in our bylaw yeah I tend to agree that that um that just like we protect uh the aura for example if somebody's putting a a some kind of a relatively small um you know structure or something you know there there's there's there's lots of areas where we're asking people to submit applications um and to me this one Falls in it isn't it isn't less significant than some of the other applications we require people to do for different resource areas is my thought but Scott do you have any thoughts you summarized it well so I won't belabor it I was in the same spot okay how does this work then I I I'm very confused because it says the commission sell you know at the commission shall review seasonal floats buoys and swimming platforms under a small project permit application how is I mean is every homeowner who has a dock or a seasonal float or um I call them docs but the swimming platforms like and so now the association has to apply for that every year like how does that work it there's nothing is there something defined like I I don't understand because I think it would be at this point I would I would want people who are deciding to put in a new float that they've they've never put in before that they would be coming to us with an application um describing what they're using you know basically like the square footage of the weight that's going to be at the bottom how they're going to get it out there um that would be what we'd be looking for the grandfathered um idea of people that have had them for a long time um you know I think we would probably not be requiring that but that's something to talk about on this Miriam could I make a comment okay um again I'm I'm trying to go back to the bylaw and what the definition of a small project permit is under the bylaw and the reason why when I drafted this I didn't put a small project permit in because I agree it would have been great is that the bylaw doesn't allow you to permit work within a resource area it's only within the aura and it's the outer 50 feet of the aura so um uh a buoy or a float in a resource area it can't be under a small project permit I I agree that you know that that seems like a reasonable thing I'm not suggesting to put in like unnecessary burdens on people but that was the reason is that this is the way the the U the bylaw was written um I suppose you could do it under an administrative approval um it just doesn't make sense as to how like every so if somebody takes as it has a seasonal float as a seasonal swimming platform every single year they have to do this that's you know it it doesn't um it doesn't make sense right well and I'm not even sure what a seasonal float is defined as and and every and there's buoys that are you know Mark everybody's allowed to go out a certain number of feet from the lake I mean from the land in order to Mark where the boats can and can't go and where the and then the kayakers know that they go past you know where the boobies are and they have a certain number of feet and then like I said then it gets to the boers but um any it is no it is a debatable it is definitely a debatable question I mean it really comes down to uh yeah the amount of impact that we think they're having but then also like you're saying sort of the um what are we going to what are we going to require and it would it really need would need to be built into the regulations you know if somebody gets a permit you know these permits for typically a wetland permit is for an actual project and so then it's good for three years three to five years um so that they can get the work done but in this case this would be more sort of something that is a again an annual thing thing a seasonal thing um I to me I think we could write a permit you know if somebody came and said they they want to put in a new um swimming platform and you know this is the size of the platform this is the size of of the anchor and all that um you know I'm thinking we permit that forever you know it's it's a one-time deal um you know it isn't that similar from the seasonal docks you know if somebody's somebody's given a somebody files an noi to to put in a seasonal dock they certainly don't have to keep resubmitting them every single year when they put their seasonal dock in they get a permit that has conditions as to how we would like the dock installed and you know installed every season and and stored offseason and and all that kind of stuff is kind of included in their permit and then that and then they're done so it would be the same for um the swimming platforms um and if we can do it certainly under an RDA that would make it easier I'm inclined to say I kind of disagree the whole okay you've got something sitting on the mck bottom which humans can walk on and dive and throw crap on and pick it up and all of that so it can be disturbed in this whole Zone I think it's 150 foot um the the buoys and even the dive platforms swing in the wind so it's not like they're having a permanent impact like a like a dock might and and then and then and then you're telling you know these residents that have had these things forever that now they have a new owner requirement to get a permit at a cost right I'm I'm I'm more inclined to say if if you if you wanted to say uh GPS or or or set up some sort of database that shows where these things are for I don't know some future study or I don't know to look at ramifications at some point you know know maybe do the administrative approval and then you've got a record of where the things are but other than that I I I can't I just I can't make my nogin think these things matter that much to to charge people and and cause so much of a Ruckus it's a lot yeah I agree with the administrative approval part I guess you know the the idea that um I understand it's a smaller impact The Docks but the fact that we're you know making somebody do a notice of intent for a dock that also is seasonal and comes in and comes out um to ask for uh you know the buoy and the float it's just a similar it's just of much smaller scale um but it can really be permited the same way but I think let's change small permit to administrative approval and see how that goes and are you saying administrative approval for any uh new installations say it's similar to the the seasonal docks we're not going to run around right now and tell everybody so basically anything since 1987 that's where that's where the starting line is yeah but again I think with the docs what we've been doing is is kind of only asking for the permitting when somebody's either putting in a new dock or they seem to come forward with some other project for their property um you know we're not running around going house to house and saying you have a seasonal dock you need a perate um so anything that gets Disturbed the things that get Disturbed at the lake and and muck everything up are the boats the boats that go around fast and Fast and F like the big boats the boats that don't belong you know they belong out on the Connecticut River those are the boats that cause and they're going very you going faster than they're supposed to be that's what stirs up the lake if you get out on the lake and you swim out to the dock you know first thing in the morning the lake is usually crystal clear because nobody's out there stirring it up um the you know I I just don't see the impact that these seasonal floats buoys and swimming platforms have I I I think people are just going to be incredibly up in arms over something that I don't think is a problem but I mean is this new is this I mean I'm again I'm new to the com to the commission is 10.4.2 new is it or is it something that like where what was the reason that this was brought in um this whole section is new yeah the whole section okay is yeah it's new yeah the regulations in 2023 could I respond to that question because I wrote it so you're asking a question I don't think anybody else can really answer okay go ahead thanks um you know I think that the thought process in including this was not to create a burden for land owners but um in the past um the commission did get feedback from the community sometimes about confusion about buoys and um racing lanes and things that were put up um on an ad hoc basis where people didn't know who put them up or how long they were going to be up for um and um in the past I believe in Years Gone by the commission has given administrative approval for temporary racing Lanes or or things of that nature I think the the reason for having the commission know about it is not because any particular buoy is going to have a significant effect but there could be a cumulative effect if if people put up buoys and then they cut their lines and leave the anchors for example and so that's kind of you know leaving material um in the resource area or let's say somebody wants to put up a 20 foot by 20 foot you know do um platform which I know is an extreme example and is unlikely but could plausibly happen that would be something that probably the commission would want to know about because it would have the same kind of impact as a dock I mean it's not just how it's anchored it's also the effect of shading and the effect on vegetation um things like that so that you know I think you know you can figure it out how you want to do that but that was the thought process I mean people who are in boats in the middle of the lake they camp out in the middle of the lake they throw their anchor down that stirs up the lake like what is you know why they're fishing um I and that's not being regulated like you're talking about something that seasonally seasonally is being put in in the beginning of the season and taken out at the end are we should we be looking at the fishermen who put their anchors down like this just doesn't I don't know this it just doesn't make sense I I don't know what a racing Lane is and um I don't see any definition of any of these things in here um as to how that it even would be reviewed under administrative approval but more importantly I don't see a problem like I I don't see a problem with anything in these areas okay um no I understand kind of that that perspective um and I you know it's it's it's it's left or right you know some people look at it as okay it is a resource area it is land underwater um and we we certainly are like I said regulating other resource areas for um sometimes it seems like some pretty small impacts you know buffer zone and everything else but it but it's what's in the bylaw and it's what is in even the the wetlands protection act in terms of what is what are resource areas and and which and we're supposed to you know basically protecting them um from even small scale type impacts I guess it's the sticky way I look at it Beth the Sticky Wicket here is that in front of any house uh essentially it's a beach right and any amount of human traffic in or out of the lake anywhere you know in a beachfront area is going to cause a disturbance personally I like to swim because I don't like my feet in the muck but that's a whole another matter but you see what I'm saying I mean it it we're moving into a theater of absurd here by saying we're impacting the the Wetland resource cuz I don't think we are in any in any long-term in any longterm way and and and and you know that because if uh if somebody's going to reinforce their uh wall on the shore you know uh they have to go to see if they've got any endangered species there and uh then they have to do Wildlife studies and so on but we don't make people do that with their front yards that are lakes you know yeah yeah no I get it um yeah I mean I'm I'm flexible about it I guess um to me it just it just like I said reminds me of some of the small things in the aura that we still require people to submit rdas for you know something that when you see the work you're like there's no way that's going to have any kind of an impact on a resource area but you still have to file an RDA because you're within the buffer zone and that's just the way the bylaw and the regulations work um so I guess I'm not seeing why this small amount of impact that's actually to a resource and maybe it's just that my head just automatically goes to the regulations you know and sometimes yes the the actual uh bylaws and regulations including the Wetland protection act um The Common Sense kind of stuff may fall away and you've just got these categories of like Bank as a resour resource area land underwater is a resource areas flood zone is a resource area any activity in those areas you got to get a permit and sometimes like I said the the actual impact to any of those areas is is extremely minimal and it seems really silly that we're requiring anybody to file anything and pay any money to do whatever work they're proposing but we still do it because that's what the law says and that's what um that's our process that's our lovely Wetland permitting process um so I guess that's my argument about it is just it doesn't matter in the end how small it can be if if we're doing it in other resource areas we may really have to still do it in this resource area um but I see both Scott and Bob have their hands up Scott yeah I I think um I'm looking at this maybe more similar to you Beth I think the I and I understand the the other argument that there are other things taking place boat traffic and other things that may be more impactful but that's not what this is the regulation's writing about it's it's talking about a resource area that is under our Authority in the bylaw I would I look at the same way that U we have small impacts in or and in resource areas on private land that we're permitting and and this isn't private land that we're talking about either this is you know the submerged lands under the lake that aren't owned by the adjacent land owners I don't believe and so I I think having a process and uh to go through and to to comply to ensure that there aren't impacts I I I think is really our responsibility I I don't know that we could just say that we didn't want to do it all right and Bob you had your hand up no I I I guess I would um second um Scott uh uh that we have an obligation just just as um all the other resource areas cited are regulated it's our duty as uh conservation Commissioners to to regulate that I think if you look all the uh uh surrounding towns that have uh this type of bylaw they they apply to all the resource areas including swamps bogs rivers and land underwater body so I I I you know I think and and I'm arguing against my own self-interest here because I do have a a pawn float um but um I think they should be regulated all right seeing no more comments from the commission Tom see you've had your hand up for a while sorry oh no worries thanks a lot thanks a lot for noticing um I had a few comments and I'm sorry the weight did make me forget on a few of my points um one of them is I just I want to I'm on that uh voting and safety Review Committee and these are on the radar and I think they're going to become more present the buo the floats and whatnot um I just wanted to offer some correction on on the notion of lanes in the lake or areas for kayaks or motor boats or whatnot that's not actually what the bylaw says and that's part of what we're clearing up as a committee so I didn't want that to go on record as what is um the case with our current bylaw about the distances where kayaks and motorboats are allowed um and we are also looking at the effects of boats that churn up the water and might affect the shore or the water quality or other things um and how that relates to safety as well the waves that they make um I did a lot of research uh because of an applicant um whose application interested me a few years ago and I just wanted to offer it was very interesting to learn that um very small pieces of matter put into the water did seem to matter to the state person who showed up because I had made an appeal on an a permit that was granted or it might have been an RDA with conditions and um what's considered in my learning to have an effect or be permanent can be something that might only be a few months in the water and be very small according to what I learned so um I don't know if that's very different from what people are already saying but I also wanted to add that the um boating and safety bylaws refer a lot to designated swimming areas and to Moorings and to booies and in enforcing the law it's going to be difficult if what is if it's not clear what is a designated piece of matter in the water and as far as we're understanding it the designation largely comes exactly from chapter 91 or from the town's approvals or other mechanisms for permitting and acknowledging the existence of these structures because it could come into play for the distances boats need to keep away away the to keep away from those designated areas and there's not really another mechanism to designate what is a private or a public uh swimming area for example um but I think the key word in a lot of the regulations that affects how to operate uh boats and other vehicles on the water is the designation factor that comes from this particular talk you're having now so I just wanted to offer that it might be important to include these because they will also serve to help designate clearer for what then becomes a boating and safety usage Beyond just the conservation impacts on plants and Light and Water and whatnot what you're looking at um if that's clear I hope it is I just wanted to mention that yeah no thanks Tom that's that's definitely that's clear and good to know um and makes sense too actually it isn't because navigation and safety on the lake are not part of the value use of the Conservation Commission that's a separate animal right well he's just talking about sort of um you know designating them as as as something almost you know having them have a an ID you know and if if if a if a buoy or something gets a permit with the Conservation Commission it would probably you know be be associated with an address and have you know some kind of a all I mean is it's kind of like a zipper or something like the two laws end up or the two regulations whatever they're called they end up kind of forming a unit together that works for how the lake is used there's no other way to designate a moing or a dock or a swimming area than through chapter 91 so and those are the designated areas referred to in B20 CMR 12 or in um chapter 90b um sections 1 through 19 is somewhere where it is so it's as far as we can discover they they work in tandem because we're we're referring to chapter 90b for what we do um so chapter 91 kind of gives the like embodiment of some of the mentions in chapter 90b uh but I I don't want to didn't mean to get into a like a debate about it I just wanted to offer that I believe I I could be wrong that it's going to be an important um topic here about what are designated things in the water thank you for that information uh Miriam you have your hand up yeah I'm trying to remember when I was going to say um so just as another um point of information um the bylaw the Sho spray Wetlands protection bylaw does have Recreation as a value so you know that's one of the things that the the bylaw protects so that's a factor for the commission to think about is you know um what kinds of pro impacts projects have on on recreational values so um I think that the reason why commissions include these kind of uh performance standards or regulations is um to make sure there's some sort of orderly process and there's some standard perhaps conditions for how they get used again you know yes you walk on the floor of the lake and you're stirring up sediment and you take out a seasonal float and you take the anchor with you but you wouldn't want someone to abandon one of these structures and just leave it in the lake or you wouldn't want somebody to to cut the anchor which is what I was saying and just leave the anchor at the bottom of the lake without removing it um at the end of the season we did have a a complaint a couple years ago um from some residents who contacted the commission saying that they were unhappy or concerned about some and I can't tell you what they were I mean they were described as racing Lanes but they were buoys lines of buoys that were up I think in the middle of the lake that had been there for several weeks and nobody knew who they belonged to um I think they were you being used for water skiing perhaps um but um again the idea being not so much that any one activity destroys the resource area but there could be cumulative effects and so having some standard conditions that you attach to it administrative approval for example maybe would be the best way to go I I'm um it was not adding this was not meant to add to be on reasonable it's just that the language of the small project permit in the bylaw didn't seem like it was appropriate thanks and did did this language um come from other towns that have I I know like beler town for example has yes by law and regulations they deal with docks and buoys and stuff yes a lot of communities do um definitely Coastal communities do but a lot of communities with great ponds regulations um around docks and buoys and some of these definitions and terms um are coming out of chapter 91 so chapter 91 has some definitions of what a water dependent use or water dependent structure is and and so um this was drafted using the same language so there wouldn't be confusion between those two things in terms of the terms all right what would what would be the administ tra of approval like what how would you review a seasonal float buoy and swimming platform like how would that be reviewed under administrat just you know that you have some instructions on your website and somebody Miriam Miriam I was asking B well I thought you were asking me because I sorry um so um administrative approval right now with our current regulations the small project the small permit is actually called administrative approval but but we're changing that to Small permit application because um administrative approval is something that's used by a lot of conservation commissions where somebody so there's no form in terms of an application there's no fee in terms of an application um they're submitting a request that's more like in a letter form and the commission is allowed to issue basically what's called an administrative approval where we're approving um what's being pres what's being put forward um in this case you know we we could basically have a few requirements that we would want information from them for and what would be a reason for disapproval then so if if like why would you know if there's no fee there's there's no like it's not clear what the requirements are what is it um if you're saying that like for instance if you go on under um you know if it's too close to some other person's property like what would be the reason to reject it like how would you know if if it gets approved automatically then what would be a reason for it not to be approved um well like for example say a say somebody this seems strange but say some somebody wants to put out three diving platforms and they're they're both they're all 10 by 10 and and they and you know as as Scott said that the bottom of the lake isn't owned by anyone right so they just put it put these off of their property um I think that that that right there to me cumulative impact it also has to do then of course with in a way permitting can help um abutters and things like what if people have issues with with that situation somebody's deciding to put in you know way too many platforms um we can be we're the body that would look at that and and we would say you know that has too much of a cumulative effect on on the resource area and we're only going to allow you to put one in Is there is there is there notice requirement then is there to to a Butters I mean what not for an administrative approval okay um yeah I mean I say we leave this language like this as is right now but it's certainly something we can go back to and discuss again and think a little bit more about how's that sound I can move on commission yep there's more against cumulative effects 10.4.3 maintenance of docks peers or walkways or any portion thereof uh sheler outside um towards the end of that paragraph we get into wooden structures we may still have a wooden one or two out there that somebody might want to stain or whatever and that makes sense to say do it outside the water area but if somebody's just doing maintenance on a dock like U replacing bolts and whatnot I I don't know my idea of what maintenance means might not be what is meant here but do we want to Define maintenance AS application of paints or stains or preservatives or something so that that's clear as opposed to just taking a monkey wrench out there and tightening stuff up I see structural maintenance of dox f or any portion of shall occur outside the resource area if this work is done in a resource area including the aura the owner must inquire with the commission as whether the work will require filing maintenance of a wooden structure shall not include the use of hazardous chemicals cleaners paints or wood treatments ongoing maintenance conditions if applicable may be included in an order of conditions so it does say hazardous chemicals cleaners paints or wood treatments shall not but but in general most of our most of the peers and docks that I observe aren't wooden anymore there's a few there's a few wooden floats and stuff out there uh and and I get that part so specifically for the wooden ones yeah y da that makes sense um but for the ones that are are not receiving any kind of paint or whatever you you know then maintenance winds up being they're tightening the bolts so the legs are the right height or or whatever so so there's different types of Maintenance that I don't want to be included in that paragraph you know you don't have to take your dock out to make the legs the right length right um I guess I'm wondering what types of Maintenance would people be wanting to do when the dock is still sort of in the water on the bank like you're saying they would you know just tightening of bolts and stuff like that but I wouldn't think they'd be doing any cutting or um you know any only other thing think of really is the staining and the painting and that kind of thing if it's wooden that's that's the greater concern I would think specifically that yeah so we could we could just include that you know we could just say um staining painting of wooden structures or any maintenance that involves the use of hazardous chemicals cleaners paints Hydraulics Hydraulics um you know must be done outside the resource area would that kind of then allow smaller thing like what you were talking about just like tightening things or you know I don't own a dock so I don't know what maintenance is for a dock I don't know what you do there's not that much not that much on the newer ones yeah do you wash them do you wash like you know if um if they get starting getting moldy or plants are growing on them would you wash them and do people do that while they're in the lake I'm GNA guess no I don't know anybody that's done that which I you know there could be somebody out there with a scrubby but I've never observed that yeah well and then we do have cleaners here in terms of um so yeah I'm I'm all I'm all right with changing that do uh other people agree that maybe we change this to just say let's just see we said we said just say m maintenance of doesn't even have to be wooden you know maintenance of what are they called water dependent what's the term water dependent structures water dependent structures so maintenance of water dependent structures and hazardous chemicals paints and stains covers it I mean that would be include Hydraulics if someone's messing with a lift maintenance of water dependent structure shall not include the use what maintenance of water dependent structures within resource areas well I I I I stutter a little on that because we talked about this before when we were talking about docks uh they're allowed to store them within the 50 Foot of the lake and that may be as far away as they can get so you know mindfulness really if you're using something um not in the lake not on the water you know mainten is of water dependent structures we could say within resource areas other than the aura yeah I think that's how we solved that before use preses chemicals cleaners paints or wood treatments you can just say that yeah okay floats docks and boats must be stored in an area outside of the resource area except or a Riverfront it must be transport there without causing damage storage plan for docks in the application all right that's the end of docs peers and floats here's where I stuck in limited projects it used to be in the um wetlands area in the BBW um section but I think it fits better here Beth could you screen share I am screen sharing I'm I'm not seeing it is everybody else seeing it no yes oh I don't know why some people I think I heard more than one no but not sure why it's definitely being shared so all right now moving on to what time is it 9:17 all right the next section we were going to look at is Rivers and then Riverfront we're going to try to get through tonight these strike me as a lot faster yeah I in other words I don't have a list of things yeah thing if you get to 7.1.3 I got a typo okay zip to there I started at 7 uh 1.2 actually right here we are river streams Brooks and Creeks miam you still have your hand up is that just from before okay so yeah I at least okay so what which sections are you 7.1.3 okay it's the third line I had to read it three times to realize what my problem was uh snow melt and or storm water runoff just add an ore yeah okay all right anything else in the Preamble from anyone I had no comments I did um I had under well 7.1.2 um I was looking for I'm looking these things up as I go along so I I you know hypor heic H in 7.1.2 h y p o r he i c yeah there no it's not I mean there should be a definition for that up in article two um and then under 7 point 7.2.18 should be defined in 7.1.2 so so now you're so you're in 7.2 7.2.18 it says the hyper hyperic zone is the region of sediment and porest space I think that should be defined up in article two which is definitions but it also should be defined under 7.1.2 because we get all the way to 7.2.18 to find out what the definition of this was in 7.1.2 right just move it up just move up probably also the phonetic pronunciation of the term i' love to know how to pronounce it too me too yeah know I had to look that one up myself yep all right so it's first mentioned in 7.1 so it's first mentioned 7.2.1 point8 and it should be moved up to 7.1.2 somewhere in there or that but it also should be up in the definitions of you know yeah um yeah right yep exactly okay all right anybody have anything else in the earlier parts of the definition definition section I was fine that oh under 7.2.1 point2 um I was also thinking that pool slash rle system should be defined as well because having a hard time figuring out that one um where is that 7.2 7.2.1 point2 um under like halfs and riffles and system I'm sorry I said rifle what did I say I can't see yeah riffle don't we have a definition section in the very beginning of this or did we do away with that right and that some of these things I already look don't have a definition okay no and that's why I'm like raising it because I'm looking them up and I'm oh good yeah no no that's good yeah no I'm writing them down We'll add them to the to the definition section yep all right oh all right um streams so in in right here they do to to the definition section actually to help with sort of the definition stream and I'm wondering how people feel about this uh type one and type two for intermittent streams I actually don't mind that um but I do have a question in because it it comes out in the performance standards where it winds up confusing me uh 7.4.3 and 7.4.4 the aura for a type one intermittent stream the commission accepts and adopts uh the definitions requirements and performance standards for the inner 100 feet of river front area and then for the type two it's the outer 100 ft feet of Riverfront area and I'm I don't know what the hell that means because I thought that intermittent streams have a 100 foot Aura both types so what the heck is an inner versus an outer yeah um well so I think I can answer that at least is that um they're referring to the inner and outer of the riverfront so under the riverfront regulations which would be for a a perennial stream you know yes so that's a yeah so the 200 footer has an inner and an outer if you look at the r Riverfront regulations the inner is the first 100 feet right outer is the second 100 feet I get that so what is going on here is trying to say that there's two there's two different types of intermittent streams based on how often they flow and that what's being proposed and I question it just out of year it doesn't correlate with the wetlands protection act I it's I find it a bit confusing but I'm willing to you know try I don't know we can talk about it but what this is saying is that then those two different types of streams one of them would H would be meeting the standards of that first 100 feet of Riverfront and then the second type of intermittent stream would need to meet the standards of of the you know the the the stream that flows less I guess you could say the intermittent stream that flows less only has to meet the standards of the outer 100 feet of Riverfront which are less restrictive than the standards of the inner 100 feet of Riverfront we're g i get that okay I get what you're saying now but if we're gonna keep it that way then I think we need to use a couple more of our words so that when you read it you get what's saying because it's clear in there when we're talking about a a river you know you got your first hund you got your second hundred for the whole 200 but that wasn't clear to me that we were talking about the Y we can jump down there and take a look at it where is it think get seven point it is four 43 and four4 right so my my one I yeah we more language more description make it a little clearer what's what's being proposed definitely there's apples and oranges right there and my con one of my concerns performance stand for the inner 100 feet for the so that what I what I don't get here a little bit is that if it's if it is a type one intermittent stream now we we're basically taking the type one intermittent streams and um I guess you could say treating them like like their perennial in terms of their standards um because the inner 100 of Riverfront is the is the more restriced restrictive zone of Riverfront so we're were treating intermittent streams like like their perennial in terms of protection um and I guess you know that's that's for debate that's for what people think of that um so in the in the wetlands rules the uh the intermittent stream would be treated how under the wetlands protection act any intermittent stream which is you know a stream that doesn't run all years uh ephemeral or um um has 100 number has 100 foot buffer zone to bank um and and the and bank is protected land underwater is protected and it has a 100 foot buffer zone and it has so it has an aura you know the 100 foot is is is the aura so it would it would be more under what we you know we just went through the aura section all the performance standards that are in the aura section are what would apply to the buffer zone of intermittent stream we're about right now to look at the riverfront section which is a little bit different and that's really been written to protect perennial streams um and it it's it's just it's you know Riverfront Riverfront is considered a resource area under the state regulations and it's self whereas buffer zones under the state regulations are actually not resource areas they're buffer zones we we've created the aura to act to be a um a resource area so we have made it more restrictive already um and we have our whole section on Aura so there there is a little bit of a difference between um protecting the aura to an intermittent stream versus protecting Riverfront to a perennial to regulate it a little bit differently and we'd be we'd be making it a little more restrictive around these types of intermittent streams type one I think that's a little bit tricky now too because we've had some Summers now where it rained from June 1st to August 30th and you know the intermittent streams gushed straight through we've had drought Summers where they've been dry from June 1st you know basically to August 30th and and then we had regular years where you know it'll go dry for months at a time or not you know depending on the stream or the you know the flow there if we start susing them out as type one or type two I I think that we're in a in a weird world now where it's going to be hard to categorize these intermittent streams through time I mean right now the one down from me is behaving properly but we've had a number of consecutive Summers where it didn't behave properly you know and so one at one time it might be a type one another couple years it might be a type two you know it's getting funky yeah that's a whole another aspect to think about um you know I was in ammer doing the wetlands work for eight years and I I would say it came up numerous numerous times where people debated back and forth whether a stream was perennial or intermittent and got out the official definitions which is in the well protection act and actually is very similar in our our regulations here as to how you define um whether something's intermittent or perennial and people battle it and um one of the things that comes up is say something's designated for a particular project to be perennial well that definition goes away in three years when that project's done so then somebody upstream or Downstream from that same location five years later can come forward and argue it again and and there's a certain Brook in ammer that's just gone back and forth as it's for its definition as being perennial and intermittent and then you get groups of people that say hey wait a minute 10 years ago you made me treat it as Riverfront and now this other my neighbor who lives you know it's you changed it like what's going on so it's um it is tricky there there's there's pretty clear definition in the wetlands protection act how to define whether something's perennial or not um but I get what you're saying is in this case if somebody comes to us with an application and there's a stream whose job is it I guess is it their job to show us whether it's type one or type two type one continuous standing water disappears for at least five but not more than 30 days annually type two standing water disappears for more than 30 days annually right so somebody comes to us I'm just playing this out in my head somebody comes to us with an application and there's a stream on their property and they are going to go with type two because they're most likely looking for Less regulation um do we go out and look at the stream and figure out whether or not it's you know type one or type two who who's gonna do that I guess well then it gets tricky because you know uh a lot of times we'll faint back and say well you have to hire a pro to figure it out but the the reality is uh the intermittent stream below me is usually a type two but in odd years it's been a type one so if I was trying to do something that year you all look at me like I was crazy if I told you it was a type two because it would be just the flowing by you know yeah so it might not be a beneficial to have the two distinctions although I you know I get why you would want to have them if you have less onerous restrictions It's Tricky it is tricky um unfortunately I'm going to fall on the side of I think this might be more confusion and work and everything for the commission than it's really worth um you know that it's hard enough it's hard enough regulating intermittent versus perennial and now to jump it to almost three different types of streams to be regulating um I just see it as as causing issues but again I'm willing to listen to what everybody else thinks Bob you have your hand up yeah th this was a new one for me I I haven't seen the uh inter streams divided into different categories like that um and I think what you just said kind of highlights the trickiness of it um there are ways that you can calculate uh an perennial stream throughs like stream stats or uh the ls protection act refers to the USGS map you know what particular type of line it is on that on that map um and this this would make it kind of tough uh for the also specifically for the reasons that Janice just mentioned that um from from a year-to-year basis it's very difficult to judge so um so I guess I guess I concur with you that um we may just want to go intermittent and perennial rather than uh split intermittent into two different types of stre dreams okay thanks Bob um Scott orir do you guys have anything any thoughts on this I have two thoughts I'm in the same place uh with what Bob just laid out and I also think it's starting to get late I'm I'm a at some point here I think I'm going to need to drop or or call for yeah well we're we are once you get past where we just were looking with I think this is the crops of this section so maybe if we can just get through River streams we don't need to do Riverfront tonight we'll move Riverfront onto our next our next meeting does that work for you stock yeah I I I need to drop off here at about quarter two okay yeah no I think we can we can do this um basically this this is a question area um and I think maybe I will try and uh potentially rewrite it where we're we're weet turning it back to just intermittent versus perennial I think that's if we do that that's fine with me then when we get to the uh inner versus outer 100 feet where do we land if we just have one that would disappear too it would it would go back to um to me in my opinion it would go back to an intermittent stream that has a has a 100 foot Aura associated with it um which is sort of similar to other resource areas like bordering you know vegetated Wetlands you know you've got your wetlands and then you have your 100 foot buffer zone Ora okay um and then we regulate the aura as the section on the aura that we just went through um and then the other would be if you actually in the resource area and in terms of streams you'd be if you're impacting bank or land underwater um we would be looking at that under the bank section and under the land underwater section in terms of impact all right I'll give an attempt to that um Miriam you have your hand up yeah but just to let you know where that came from um there were several other communities that have this typology but actually uh many of them have four types of intermittent streams not two so um but if you look at like you know language out there and um about stream uh morphology um there often is uh a typology of a perennial intermittent and ephemeral so they break down intermittent streams into two categories sort of an ephemeral and intermittent um you know intermittent being a little bit closer to perennial um and the idea I it like with a perennial that you know the commission would make a presumption that would be then rotable um but you know if you want to simplify it you certainly can do that right thank you thanks for the the history of it where it came from and I I think I have seen the the Emeral versus intermittent somewhere um all right so I'll take a stab at that um let's see the aura exists for both of them no Riverfront streams hydrology right standards whoops uh so I I like how the performance standards are written the commission shall apply the performance standards of bank and land underwater and assessing proposed projects for either perennial or intermittent streams a river or perennial stream has an inner 100 and an outer outer inner 100 foot and an outer 200 foot raran Zone I usually call it the inner 100 and the outer 100 think about that protected Riverfront and then it refers to the yeah I think this is the inner inner 100 and outer 100 of the 200 right but if we're going to collapse those we don't need that right this is for perennial this is for Riverfront yeah these two are the ones that are are most likely gonna go away we apparently passed my time to look at things I think this would go right right yeah we just I'm gonna Market that for now those are going and then I do like the requests for reclassification of stream section is good this is how somebody who wants to argue whether it's intermittent or perennial can um go about that um by B so be caused to deny change from yeah all right I didn't have any other changes does anybody else have anything else within the performance standards no all right I see something that you put in Scott this and some of the RS cited above may change oh you're referring to the rainfall data um yeah it's true I think this is what most people are referring to at this point though should we put as amended sure BAS atas I think Don I had some language right was that B all right um I think that that's as far as we're going to get tonight thank you all very much for everything tonight about the CPA discussion went great um our next meeting is February 13th um and I'm not sure when that CPA meeting is I have to look and see but um if it's before that wish me luck I think it's after Beth I think it might be the 20th because I'm not I wasn't able to make it okay excellent if it's the 13th let me know because I could make that well the 13th is our meeting I think that's our meeting yeah yeah that's our meaning but all right great um looking for a motion to adjourn I motion second second all right con hi Rowan hi Fox hi and Douglas hi you were frozen for a second H Wilson hi all right thanks everybody have a good night you too see you soon thanks everyone good