e e e e e e e e e e
e e [Music] for e e e for hi B
hello how are you all right yeah are you headed off for a long trip or a short trip uh I got kind of back and forth but I'm Gone the next
a couple weeks that's too bad although you're you're running away from some really lovely weather yes for sure this is great today yeah I know right I I feel like it's the first really good winter we've
had for a couple years but the um the rain on top of the snow is no fun I don't like that but like this week storm just keeps changing from being you know 12 Ines or 15 Ines down to only three
Ines if it turns to rain like nobody seems to be able to figure it out but we'll see we'll see but all right it's 7:01 so I'm calling this meeting of the shutesbury Conservation Commission to order it's
7:01 on February 13th this meeting is being recorded I see mayor and Jan are here I'm sure Bob's going to pop up at some point um but we might as well get
going I think um all right comments from me it's first thing on the agenda um I think I just sat around tonight um some info on the MAC Conference so they have this big Big Spring conference
um I think Jan went to their smaller one that they do in the fall just last year is that right Jan yeah yep um this so the spring one is bigger um
and it's coming up on March 1 I sent you guys the info and feel free to sign up and you know to read about it sign up if you have questions Reach Out to me um you can definitely get reimbursed from one of the Conservation
Commission accounts uh for going it's I I went for many years when I was the conservation agent in ammer um and you know it's great they got all the posters down in the basement they also have the whole area where you can go look at all
the uh all the equipment and stuff of you know people are trying to sell or just advertise um then there's the uh presentations which are great a variety of different kinds of presentations from a lot of people but then there are sometimes classes being offered too some of the the units the
Mac units get offered so anyway nice good question um should I attend like should I do some of the training before I do that or is would it or you know is that kind of over my head at this point or or is it everything
just adding to the picture um I kind of think everything just adding to the picture I haven't looked at the the list of what's going on at the conference this year but often they they actually have some of the unit classes available at the conference so
okay if you were gonna go I don't know if they're doing that this year or not but um yeah I I I can speak to that there there are some really good uh classes honestly I think I think any of them would be helpful for you um um and uh I
can't believe that Beth left out the free lunch part of the show right free lunch uh and um also interestingly enough there there is a um uh a meeting uh discussing uh the how how to remove a
dam and it's in a town called what's that called again oh yeah shy massachus yes so uh I do plan to to to that and um there a lot of other different really cool uh programs as well
okay yeah they they actually I was they asked if I wanted to be part of that panel and I volunteered eron shop so she'll be there so that's nice yeah so um think about it and and let me know if you have any questions about
it um the other thing I wanted to mention and I I know if you guys have heard anything um National Grid has a really large project I think name of it yeah they're calling it the central
to Western Massachusetts energy Improvement project it's along the transmission lines that go across cack Corner Road um it's a very large project it goes through multiple communities um they will eventually be bringing a
notice of intent to us but it may take a year or even longer than that for that to come but they recently filed an enf with um meepa so meepa is the Massachusetts uh Environmental Policy
Act is what that is and large enough projects have to go through additional um permitting you know with different agencies like the Army Corps and um so meepa oversees certain projects that meet certain criteria and it's typically the
larger projects so anyway this this project qualified for Meep application they submitted an enf which is an environmental notification form um to meepa and that allows for public comment on that
application um and Michael di Kiera kind of came forward and talked to the select board about it in terms of submitting comments from the town and so Michael put some together I read them and added my two cents really about so um meepa
kind of covers a variety of different environmental aspects not just Wetland stuff but it has a wetland section to it um so that was kind of mine anyway I can send the enf around to people if they want to see it or maybe just the comments that Michael put together and
he did submit those from the town to the meepo program comments on the project um I just wanted to let people know that that's going on um and like I said they will eventually be filing something with us but it might take a while but it's a
really large project it's it's along that transmission line and it involves um replacing towers and um taking down a lot of trees to kind of open up the right of way a little bit um stream
Crossings um it's typical it's kind of like other work that we seen along some of their transmission lines in this area over the the last 10 years but this one's uh it's it's just big and it happens to go right through shsb so
wanted to let you guys know about that um oh and I want so Mark Stinson isn't able to come tonight from the D to give us a little training just just thought it would be good for him to he's been offering
um so and I was thinking of having having it be a night that's not one of our regular meetings because we never seem to have enough time really for him to to give a good good training um so I think a couple of you guys responded about something next
week um so mayor when you said you're available like all week is that in the evenings you yeah you you only said in the evenings so that's what um yeah so you only said in the evening so anytime in the evening just not only Monday
through Thursday but yeah yeah Monday okay Monday through Thursday and Scott you're going to be away right Jan what does your schedule look like for next week yeah that might be a problem for me yeah no Monday through Thursday of
next week that's too bad um Bob how about you oh I think you're muted next week is fairly good uh Thursday might be the exception but but I'd have to take a look at my my calendar at
work okay all right well let me check in with Mark um and see he had actually thought maybe possibly of trying to do something that he might combine with some other towns too like have a training session that would include Commissioners from from other towns too
um all right so let me check in with him about that the only other thing I had listed I wanted to mention we did get that a force cutting plan which will be on our agenda for March 13th that'll be on our our next agenda and just so um
mayor knows um when we get these Forest cutting plans um our role the conservation commission's role is to really just comment on them we have no regulatory power over them but but when they are
submitted with with DCR they are required to send us a copy and have us review it and we have I think 30 days to comment on force cutting plan so Beth you only have 10 days 10 days okay we
have 10 days to comment on a forest cutting plan um so we'll put that on our agenda where is March actually I suppose I should look at it did I I forwarded it to you
guys um yeah let me take a look at that I was thinking we can use it put on the next agenda but not if it's going to be too late to comment on it um anyway all right
[Music] um moving on to number item two on our agenda is to review and comment on the minutes from January 30th does anybody have any comments on those
minutes nope okay um all right then I need a motion to approve the minutes of January 30th so move second
second great con Fox hi Rowan hi Douglas hi and Wilson hi um Miriam you have your hand up yeah
I don't know when I could make a comment I wanted to make a public comment about the um enf um that you were talking about earlier um yeah you might go ahead right
now okay thank you um so um I we've been looking over this enf um with Janice Stone um who for those of you who are sort of newer to the commission is a wetland scientist who um used to be on
the Conservation Commission and she's a conservation agent um and owns property in shits spury and used to be um used to live in shits spury um and we're going to be making some comments
and um what might not be so obvious to the commission is that with these enfs um there's kind of a um some decision making that gets baked into the process through the meepa review so that when um notices of intent
are submitted to the commissions later down the line the project is in a a much more finalized State um so a lot of decision-making has been made and one of the decisions that gets made is what kind of mitigation would be provided by the
applicant in exchange for the alterations of resource areas and in shuberry the area that these power lines crisscross is a highly sensitive environmental area it's in the amorist
Watershed and it is a mapped priority habitat for endangered species and I calculated I thinking 40% of the square acreage of they're going to be altering is in a resource
area um so it um compared to other towns where these C these power lines are crossing um shutesbury has a lot of wetland impact um and so um my our comments are to urge them to um have a
conversation negotiation with the town of shutesbury with the Conservation Commission in order to identify mitigation projects that are specific to Sho bar and would benefit the wetlands of shutesbury because um sometimes what they do often is a bundled mitigation
project so they might acquire a Conservation Area Property you know Five Towns over and that would be the mitigation for all the projects but if we felt as a town that the impact needed to be more locally based in order to
benefit wetlands in shsy you know there there is negotiating room and so that's one of the recommendations that we're making um with the enf is that um before the final environmental impact report is issued that there be direct
conversations with the town of shb about mitigation um what I also wanted to just what I also just want to remind the commission is if you remember back in 2022 um eversource had a very similar
project that there was an enf for and those power lines intersect these power lines in the same critical environmental area so there is also the question about cumulative impact um for two large energy
projects um that are going to involve many acres of alteration and well um in energy projects like this are obviously necessary and you know nobody wants to have an unreliable grid um in other
areas like in Connecticut a very similar project was conditioned with a selective cut so that rather than doing clear Cuts within the power line they were more selective around resource areas to remove only those trees that were going to be um a threat to the infrastructure
and leaving uh vegetation in place in the resource area so there are alternative models yeah know that's all great I really appreciate we all really appreciate um you um and Janice going through it I guess my one question would be um
I think you know I think Michael was also definitely asking for meepa to work with shuberry and I and I got the same feeling that it had to do with um you know work with streber on talking about some mitigation here like some like what
you're talking about some potential large mitigation so I guess I'm wondering if you and Janice are submitting your own comments how how is it being coordinated with Michael's comments that are coming from the select board and from the
town um well they're separate um and we'll have comments that I I would imagine the town is not providing um okay no I think it's great that as many comments as made I don't think the town would object to our
making recommendations that the town be a stakeholder so um I don't think they're inconsistent I I I'm sure that the comments that we're going to give are going to be a lot more Det detailed um than probably what the select board was going to give because we're going to
be focusing on um you know discussing and quantifying the impact to the resource areas as well as looking at this larger kind of cumulative effect of of multiple projects in the same area I mean there is even a question about
whether these two projects should be viewed in relation to each other because they intersect in shoots SP and there's a requirement with mea that you segment project so I'm not really sure but you know we might throw that in there yeah no it's that's great I was
just wondering about sort of the coordination if if meepa does reach out to the town to have some you know bigger meetings and talk about some large mitigation and that kind of stuff I I'm sure they'll they'll be not you know
taking in your comments taking in the comments that uh the select board has put together too um so that's all that's all really good when the enf was out for the eversource project I had a number of conversations with Becky Weissman who
was the project manager for swika for that project um and so as the chair of the concom I was talking with her about mitigation and um I believe that they are looking at possible mitigation projects that would benefit shutesbury
but that's eversource so you know one possib ability Beth is even at this stage you know nothing would Bor you as the chair to reach out to that project manager for the National Grid which is a different environmental firm I forget what who it is it's a BSC some somebody
else um and have that conversation just so you have a relationship with them and um because you know as they're planning they're going to be negotiating with natural heritage and D to come up with the mitigation requirements and knowing that
a particular wants to be involved they'll take that into consideration yeah no I I I think that's great um I just also I guess want to remind everybody that um whatever they whatever happens with
some sort of meepa NE mitigation or just dealing with the meepa permit that's different than the notice of intent um and the Order of conditions when they do come to us for the order of conditions you know we have our own power we we can
we can ask for our own mitigation you know it's it's it's a different program it's a different permit um oftentimes meepa is just looking at a much larger picture because as I said they take into more they take more environmental things into consideration than just
Wetlands um and so they can look for some large mitigation with towns due to that but in the end when they file their notice of intent we have all the same Powers you know as any project even if if project that hadn't gone to mea you
know we still can ask for our own kind of mitigation and stuff like that but so all right well all great National Grid um all right next on the
agenda site visits update Jan has there been anything exciting uh the only site visit we had uh and I went over to uh 375 locks Pond where they want to cut down a couple of
trees didn't seem to be any issues uh other than the fact that there is an intermittent stream within 50 feet of both trees um they're concerned about the proximity to the buildings and
safety so there's that uh and I think that depending on how they choose to cut the trees whether they're going to have climbers or Machinery we can condition you know so they can have uh erosion barriers if they're going to be
doing you know a lot of dirt disturbance thought he said based on the I thought he said based on the location of the trees that he had to have a somebody climb it no that might be true M yeah okay okay no other resource areas
besides the intermittent stream no other no bvw around the the intermittent stream is more of a ditch it's a drainage kind of a narrow passage for water to run from the road down to the other side of his
property so it's it's not exactly a flourishing Brook all right well we're going to talk more about that a little bit later so all right we had two other scheduled site visits at the library but um the first one was
on January 21st and I can tell you that was an arctic cold day after a snowstorm I I went out there no one was around you couldn't see anything so there was no way to you know make any observations I
did a drive drive by on February 4th again same thing and um I spoke to or I communicated with uh the library director and we'll start scheduling again when it looks like either they're
doing something new or uh we've got some sort of thaw happening yeah so have they they've just been working on the structure right yeah yeah they haven't started seems like when I drive by there's nobody there
most of the time I think they must have like dispensation for super cold or something I don't know yeah it's hard to get work done when it's that cold out you know yeah do the building even have any kind
of a roof yet or they're just like out the open doing their work so it's cold it still looks pretty open yep yeah it's pretty cold all right well thank you um item number four Land Management update
Scott not much to report I I thinko can confirm this but I I think we did submit three Grant applications two for Southport conservation areas the ones that we talked about I think with the
the full Grant proposal as our preference but we did submit the the the scaled back version as well and then the top of the lake so um I guess we'll see thank you Beth for covering that on the
20th when I'm out of town but that's I think that's all I had I did touch Bas um I did reconnect with Eric from the snowmobile club there um regarding Southbrook and um I I think he
was interested in maybe helping with some of that told we submit the Grant application if they want to submit a letter of support for that that would be great and I haven't seen that yet um regardless I I do think we can likely
count on some mattch volunteer labor that we hadn't accounted for in the grant but I I think the club's going to be interested in helping us which is great that is great they actually have enough snow this year to do some
stuff first time years talk he just said that he wanted to take a look at it and it looked I know he's helped before so I'm not committing him here he didn't say for sure but it sounds like they're interested in the project so that's good that's great that's
great all right uh item number five order of conditions for 58th Lake Drive let me bring that up Mato can you allow me to share my screen yep I just turned it on oh thanks
might be under the option all right so 58 Lake Drive if you guys remember is the project where they're just squaring off an existing deck
um squaring it off and putting in some stairs um and I don't know if there's anybody here for this right now let me see have to stop sharing um I didn't see anybody I didn't see Ward
Smith or any or the the burns folks guess not but they don't they don't have to be here for this but um in case they wanted to make any changes to the order conditions so these are the special conditions for the order
conditions we've got findings of facts just talking about the project um 117 square foot addition with the stairwell 11 holes for concrete peers soil is going to be removed from
the site they're going to install erosion control between the work area and the bank of the lake um closest point is 50 feet for the work 20 square feet of permanent impact from
the digging of the for the the installation of the peers um yeah no vegetation being removed um it's not in uh natural heritage and then we refer to the plan
set and very standard condition don't think there's anything special about this project um so there are standard conditions highlighting that they need to send us a letter within 30
days um that they've read our order of conditions 30 days to record it at Franklin County registry of deeds erosion control needs to be inspected yep standard nothing special and then a post construction
visit application of certificate of compliance that's it did I fly through that too quickly just apologize Beth the very last condition was talking about erosion controls
yes remain in place until all exposed soils have been stabilized um and goms authorize their removal great thank you okay all right just go back to the
top all right does anybody have any comments while I'm still sharing it just just one thing that came up during the site visit we just wanted to be assured that there wouldn't be any uh effect of the of the water line or the vegetation there and it sounds like
it's it's well covered in the in the order good all right okay so I need a motion to issue the order of conditions for 58 Lake Drive motion to order the conditions
nice second all second all right Fox bye con hi Rowan oops you're muted Jan I abstain I'm a director butter ah
good Douglas hi and Wilson I right great all right item six is um I talked with Donna McNichol
about reviewing the um conservation restriction for Mark Mark Whitman um and she she asked Mark if that would be all right with him and he said yes and um so
let's see she sent me kind of what so we need to vote to sort of approve that Donna is going to review the conservation restriction for us um bear with me this is what she sent
for the motion it says move to approve Town Council Donna McNichol to represent the Conservation Commission on the review of a conservation restriction for the property owned by Mark Whitman um on Leverett Road Lot h151 B Mass even though Mr Whitman was a
former client of the Town Council approximately 10 years ago concerning property not located in shutesbury so there was a little bit of concern for Donna at least that she' represented him before so that's the
motion for us to vote on and if anybody has any concerns bring them up now comments or concerns can I can I ask just um it seems a little odd
to to be the way that was Ed um because it it insinuates some like a potential conflict of interest but I don't I me attorne is work for different
clients um I don't I don't see that here but the having that in that language that way and having us V on it just is confusing to me um is did did she have concerns about a conflict of interest or
why why did she write it that way or do you know yeah I I sent it to her and said you know we we'd like you as Town Council to take a look at this it's a legal document you know for the Conservation Commission and she responded by saying she had worked with
Mark previously and so she wanted to to to make sure it was all right sort of with him and then yeah I guess she felt like she wanted she wanted probably us to know that she had worked with Mark before and wanted us to be okay with it
you know that she's she's reviewing something that he's trying to get us to you know kind of be go along with and and approve and all the different sections of the CR and so maybe she's thinking she wants us to be okay with the fact that she knows Mark and
you know has worked with him before and isn't because we could look at it as a commission as is she giving him favor you know because he know she knows him and has worked with him before and he's been her he's been her client um so this vote is basically saying that we're
aware of it and it's it's not an issue and we're fine with her reviewing it for the commission and she didn't work with him on this property in particular I think that that said whatever she worked on was not even in shsb oh okay thank
you I don't I don't have any concerns okay okay so that's the does somebody want to make that motion that I read as you read it great second oh
second okay Rowan hi and I appreciate her full disclosure yeah me too Douglas hi con hi Fox hi and
Wilson great so that will be on our um our agenda for March 13th so I I've I've sent it around to you guys before but I can certainly send it around again conservation restriction because I'm I'm hoping by March 13th I'm pretty sure Donna will have her comments ready
because she's been kind of prepared to to review it um and then any more comments we have and then maybe we can finally um make a decision on that for Mark because he's been kind of working on it for a while if there's a way to get I I really appreciate
Donna's willingness to look at it um if there's a way to get her comments ahead of that meeting so we can read them that will help me yeah okay Beth do go from us to the attorney general for the further
approval yeah I think it does well I think it all has to be signed by a lot of people first like the the the select court has to sign the actual document I think it get gets our signature it gets the select board
signature I think it even gets the Town Administrator there's a there's sort of a whole lot of legal signing of the document before it goes back to D for their review and signature um and then to the does it attorney general too I I
think it's D that signs it yeah there's a there's a page for D to sign and they only sign once everybody else has signed go goes to the state probably would have been a better way to put it yeah okay yeah goes to the state yeah excellent thank you yeah and Donna Donna
certainly can help us with that whole sort of process too you know getting it to the select board and um getting everything signed um notorized and whatnot all
right time is it um let's just do the certificate of certificate of compliance or certificate of completion for 31 Lake View because I think I see Cathy's here we'll do that
and then the a hi Kathy how you doing good so I'm gonna um well so let's talk about this this is a certificate
of compliance for um order of conditions for 31 Lake View Road um trying to remember which which Commissioners were around for that project
um house construction um it involved it that so the property is right on um The Sawmill River and so there's Riverfront and there's there's a BBW that then has has buffer zone
um and yeah I think most people are familiar with it except maybe not mayor I know where it is do you okay yeah I passed it but yeah I won't I I'm not I have wasn't on it so I wouldn't be voting on it so okay Bob do you know the
project I do we had we had reviewed it once before um while I've been on the board right we amended the order of conditions pretty recently um so anyway um Jan and I did
uh site visit now a little bit ago I think that was in December is um to to make sure um everything in the order conditions the construction was completed in accordance with the order conditions so we did the site visit and
um everything's everything's in order I think a lot of that information was kind of brought to US during the amendment time we talked a lot about the um rock wall that was put in along the no disturb Zone and we talked about
putting up a sign that actually uh indicates that it's a a resource area that's a projected area and the Salvador installed the sign and um Jan and I saw it when we were out
there um it's up it looks fine and [Music] um so yeah so I think we have all we've kind of talked about this before and the site visit went well I felt like everything was in place it was supposed to be in
place um how about you Jan did you think it looked yeah they ticked all the boxes the last thing on the list was that sign and yes indeed we can confirm it has been installed yeah so I I can bring up
the the certificate of compliance all right so here's the DP form can everybody see my screen yeah okay all right so oh and the um the Salvador submitted a a
form AA and paid their paid their fee AA is the request for a certificate of compliance um so they did that we've got the order conditions information we've got the recording information for
both the original order and the amended order we did a site visit on 1212 and we are issuing a complete certificate of compliance that's all that form is um no
ongoing conditions that I can think of Beth wouldn't you have the uh the maintenance of that stone wall as an ongoing condition or they remain in place we could include um you know
maintenance of the no Disturbed boundary because in addition to the stone wall there are some after the after the rock wall ends there are actually some posts too that kind of continue the um no disturb Zone
marking right in the sign that you mentioned I think I think that would be appropriate to have that ongoing yeah h yeah I think that's good too um yeah I think that's this with with
the amended order we uh there was a deed attached to that amended order which talked a bit about talked about the no disturb Zone and that kind of thing so I think that's kind of
ongoing already but maintenance of the notice term boundary is good um all right I can't think of anything else because I think a lot of it was covered in that amended order anybody have anything else they
want to add no Okay g stop sharing all right Kathy you have anything you want to add thank you that's all I want to add okay um looking for a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for
31 Lake View Road I'd like to make the order that we approve that okay second approve that second I
second okay um Douglas hi Rowan hi Fox I abstain con hi and Wilson I all
right so we'll get that to you Kathy um you know next week and it needs to be recorded okay thanks again sure I think you're up with what what's next on our agenda too yep we'll hang around yeah so
we've got an administrative approval request for 31 um Lake View Road um so Kathy if you want to share that that'd be great sure um we've just got a couple of trees that are along the road
that are dead um and we'd like permission to take them down we've had an arborist look at them um to make sure we what we were looking at was actually two trees that were on their way out um and they agreed that that was the situation
um you have seen them I I believe um and I forget who was with you Jan I think um and so we're just looking for permission to remove those to dead trees okay I think I sent around to
everybody a map that um Kathy and made showing where the trees where the trees are um and then just TR their application um so I don't know we could we could bring
up the map if folks want or are folks feeling pretty comfortable about issuing so this would be an administrative approval um um so yeah we can bring it up or we can
just vote on it Bob yeah I just wanted to ask um in in and and I don't know the the history of of decisions in the past but if if trees comes down does the uh board require the replacement of say placees shrubs or anything like that as
a as a as a condition or an exchange or mitigation um that's actually the section that we're going to go through with the regulations tonight is the vegetation um replacement section um
now this entire property is uh buffer zone pretty sure maybe we should bring up the map but I would have to find it tell you don't happen to have the map for
the uh request for administrative approval for this property um I might be able to find it let me take a look I would have it I have to dig around and I'm all for Kathy taking down
the dead trees just to make be clear on that yeah all right so this is a little challenging um trying what I'm looking for is the the buffer zone lines
for for example that Wetland that's over there I don't know if they're on here or not is it in the 200 foot riverr resource area pretty sure I think really the whole site is
within within within Riverfront those trees may be on the are you know in the outer 100 um and may also be either outside the buffer zone for the
wetlands I yeah I think they might be outside the buffer zone so in terms of um replacement trees are regulations that we're going to be looking at um yeah I don't see the
buffer zone lines uh if you're in the outer 50 ft of the aura so the aura would be the 100 foot from the Wetland um it's different than if you were in in the in inner 50 in terms of what we
require in our regulations see if I can find that the outer 50 feet of the aura is a one to one kind of tree replacement um and then it's different if you're in the aura in the in in 50 um and then I wonder about River
Front well um you know I think we're definitely in the kind of world of the outer 50 so we we are certainly certainly could ask for sort of a
onetoone tree replacement Kathy were you planning on replanting yes probably not right where those two trees are but in that general area we're gonna leave those the stumps of those two trees will remain um so
somewhere in that area we'll put trees in and just how many trees and a similar species to what was there yeah we could we could duplicate what's there two two additional trees
okay all right well great that answers that question all right Mato can you stop sharing thanks for finding the map um all right does anybody else have any other um comments or concerns with
this request no all right any comments from the public nope all right so we need a motion to issue um an administrative approval for tree removal at 31 Lake View Road so
moved I'll second second great Fox right con hi Rowan hi Douglas hi and Wilson hi all right great
thanks Kathy we'll we'll get that to you next week also okay perfect we'll look for it thank you guys very much have a good night you too okay we are just cruising through the
agenda this is so great um 7:45 we're definitely past that um administrative approval um request for 375 locks Pond Road is there somebody here to talk about that yep
actually Dave and I are both here but um the same thing as Kathy we have two large trees on our property fairly close to our garage um and I think May and Jan came out to look at it and um with the storms we've had quite a few branches
come down large branches so we really like to take both trees down okay and was there a map provided yes this application yes okay uh
Mato do you happen to have that map available I do yeah oh you're so helpful all right there we go all right so I I this site I didn't go on this site visit so I'm just
curious um I guess what types of trees they are and how tall they are and Dave could probably answer this better than me one's a pine tree it's probably 90 to 100 feet and the other's a
maple okay and did you say you had an arborous look at them or yes yes yeah and then they're on their way out yes yes okay and do you plan to replant
if we have to yeah all right there's the inter I see the intermittent stream I I know the the property I think you guys came before the commission a while ago to put in a a a
driveway and a retaining Mall yep um in fact that tree one of the trees is right in front of the new garage it's actually the back back of the garage there's a porch there
so how close is the tree on the right hand side of this map here to the intermittent stream 8 feet okay that's a little that's a little concerning just um so how how are they planning to how are they how are
you getting the trees taken down by hand uh I do concrete work that you know the uh I don't know how the tree guys would do it they did come and look at it though but I don't know if they would do it they they have all these special
machines that they grab onto the tree and and uh bucket truck rocks if they have to climb it I'm sure they'll climb it yeah um the reason that I'm just concerned that's awfully close to the
Stream So if if say they were actually going to use larger equipment um you know it could actually impact the stream or also we would want to sort of require some erosion control and that kind of thing between the stream and where they're going to be sort of
disturbing the ground surface with the larger equipment right I mean they're not going to be able to put trucks close to that property anyways but that same stream a week ago the power company cut over the top of them over the top of
that stream and piled all the brush in the Stream and I I've got pictures of it oh what were they clearing trees on um lock Pond or lake yeah I'll write that
down I know they've been going down all the roads and and clearing a lot of trees [Music] um I mean we can put a buffer around yeah I mean they're not going to be able
to bring big trucks where that is where it's located anyways that the one on the right I I plan on tarping the stream so-called stream it's a runoff from the road um yeah I think if if if we don't
really kind of know what type of equipment I guess at this point they're going to use and I think we may want to have some kind of um erosion control between where they're going to be working and the edge of that
stream um so I think we might we're g to will require that okay still problem yeah okay and then under our new regulations we are we are requiring replanting of trees okay um so it would
be a one for one kind of thing so two trees in the general area that these were and of a similar species okay okay does anybody else have any other comments or questions all right um Mato can you stop
sharing thank you um okay um we covered a few things there and all of those things will they'll be included in the administrative order are there any comments from the public no all right looking for a motion
to approve an administrative approval or order whatever you want to call it for um 375 locks Pond Road I motion to approve the order all right all right second
second okay Douglas hi Rowan hi Fox hi con hi and Wilson I okay thank you very much um I will get
that to you next week and then it'll include the things that we just talked about okay thanks Beth thank you thanks all right time is it 8 o'clock
nice on to our regulations thanks good question I just want oh what' you say mayor I ask a question um I'm not that technically literate um but uh you had sent me um the uh the draft
of the regulations and so I downloaded that onto my computer and then I made some you know comments and I saw that Scott had comments on there from the beginning of January so do you get those comments back like
or or do I have to resend it like I don't know yeah you have to resend it what had happened was we had talked about having it as a Google shared document and we had it that way for probably between two meetings like
between one meeting and so everybody had access to it for a very short amount of time and made some comments that's where Scott's comments okay and then then it was sort of discussed at our meeting that that's that really is not in in
accordance with the open meeting law um so I unshared it so now nobody sees anybody's comments I don't see yours and nobody sees anybody's and so now basically if you guys have comments you have to just email them to me I didn't
think it went back to you automatically like it was like a like a a a you know a Google doc but I I was like wait doesn't look like a go anyways I I digress but um okay I did make a couple comments along the way but I also wasn't exactly
clear one of the things that you said about the noi to like which there were different sections that I didn't wasn't clear which one that pertained to um but I think I reviewed them so um okay I'm just gonna all right well
if if when you're looking at it you have any questions feel free to ask questions questions also feel free to send me um comments on you know and um if it was still shared I would have seen your comments but it's not a
shared document anymore um so now you just have to kind of make the comments and then just physically send me the document um or you can just type out your comments if you want with the different sections however you want to do it um and send them to me and send
them to me individually you can't send them to every everybody that's also open meeting law kind of stuff um so before I open it I I just wanted to get agreement we're we're on Riverfront is that where we are are we up to Riverfront
Riv I think we got through the streams and we were going to start unless we already got through Riv for that's the thing I couldn't remember we can go through it again I I think we haven't gone through it yet I think that's where we're at I think we ended on
intermittent okay yes that's where I think we are too that's correct about to say y nice okay Riverfront here we go okay can you enlarge that bth by any chance
yep I think how do that oh here we go how's that is that good I can go bigger yes if you wouldn't mind for us old people that'd be great how's
that um one more 200% whoa now we're talking now we're talking so fun I have to like move the pictures of everybody around so that I can see it all because it's too now
whatever okay Riverfront area oops oh my goodness all right are you guys seeing what I'm seeing in the all of the language is kind of getting cut off on the right hand side it's getting cut off on the right side can can you
enlarge the box or or if DB shrink it down fine I don't know how to enlarge the Box can you just scroll across to the right on the bottom there yeah we'll have we can do it that way we just have to keep going back and forth a little
bit there you go here we go all right and now you g to move your pictures again all your little faces where am I going to put you guys I'm hiding you um okay Riverfront
Preamble um I had no comments on this the beginning the Preamble oops anybody have any have anything this love riverr sure
this is just a preamble telling us why Riverfront is so wonderful definitions Riv front area is the area of land between a river or perennial streams mean annual high water line and
a par parallel line located 200 feet away um Riverfront may include or overlap other resource areas including the aura but Riverfront doesn't have its own
Aura yep that's all in agreement with the Wetland protection and here's uh kind of I guess a little bit how you delineate mean high water and also just a description of
it visible markings changes in character of soils or vegetation yep going the wrong way y it's all good here's something that's ah in the r protection act if a river
runs through a culber that's more than 200 feet in length um the riverfront area stops at a perpendicular line at the Upstream end of the cover and resume resumes at the downstream end yeah all good I don't have any comments anybody have any
comments let me know where where is there a Riverfront in shutesbury just to so I can have some sort of reference as like um along the The Sawmill River okay like where the Salvador have their yeah that's
considered a river okay yep that's considered a river [Music] um where else I mean there's definitely all the Swift River yeah the all the way down like the S
curves oh right okay that's okay um even though it's kind of not running and a lot of times during the year it's not really running at all or which are you talking about the
Sawmill no this along the S curves I'm not sure I've ever noticed a time when mat hasn't been running even during really dry times there's just something in that something okay in that stream yeah okay um um I don't know if this is
helpful this is muriam but um perennial streams are defined um by the size of their Watershed and under the state regulations if the mapped Watershed is over a certain threshold it's a it's a
perennial stream and so there's a number of streams in shsb that meet those criteria under the state law um and in drought periods you can't um unde care a stream perennial qu characteristics so
there could be periods during drought where a perennial stream may look pretty dry but um the state doesn't let you just un UNP penalize it yeah I been um we we talked about
this at the last meeting in the the section above that's rivers and streams it got into the whole kind of definition of of rivers versus intermittent streams right um so that's where that comes from you know if it if
if something is legally defined as as a river then it has a river front Okay um all right so presumptions this was all fine and then this section
what is this one why was why was that struck Beth yeah so that's saying that River starts um with the outermost boundary of
bvw versus versus always starting at uh mean high water which I think it's just I was in my mind I was thinking that that it's always it's always mean high water um you can have
bvw in Riverfront and the bvw has its own um Aura and in some cases you're going to have a large enough bvw that the aura could actually extend outside Riverfront and the aura would
still be protected but it's my understanding that riverfront always starts at mean High Wa mean high water because it's associated with the river not with the bvw I think that was my thinking when I
struck this um yeah I could follow I could follow your logic on that yeah and that that's just that's the way I understand it um so that's why I took that out all right uh performance
standards I didn't really have any changes I had oh yeah 8.41 I was just making and I think I had this later on
but the part that was talking about um the last part of 8.41 except upon a clear showing by a preponderance of credible evidence that any proposed work and its natural and consequential cumulative impacts and
effects shall have no adverse effect upon any of the bylaw values and I just I was just thinking about like what that would be and it seems like that would be kind of hard to
do it's certainly not a very clear standard in a regag for someone to comply with and sorry was just raising that con ER I could see us struggling with that or people coming
and trying to demonstrate what you know that would actually look [Music] like yeah I I see your questioning that that Lang I feel like that language though is is repeated a few times in it
is you know in these regulations and it's you know in layman's terms it's basically for any of these resource areas we we're kind of saying we're saying you know no work is allowed unless you
can show to us that you're um that you're not going to affect the the values of the resource area under the protection act and and the um the bylaw and that's almost sort of it is
it's funny language but it really just is almost for anybody that's coming before us who are doing anything like even you know taking down trees in the aura well straight up we could say you know no no work around in the AA unless you can
prove and so then they come forward and they say well we're going to take the tree down but we're going to do it in a a way that is you know we're GNA leave the stumps and we're gonna you know it's kind of the it's sort of the we say it all the time and it's it's I don't know how else to describe
it no I I I get that I was just saying I I think you know it it is a bit subjective and my I I guess my but my question was you know if that is actually in the Wetland protection act itself that
language and if it is I then I'm just wondering if we need to repeat it yeah go ahead Miriam yeah so I believe that this language is in um 310 CMR 10.0 in the riverfront area um
performance standards and then just as an FYI for the commission the language and these performance standards tracks pretty closely with the state regs and of course you know the idea here is that um yes there's some dup duplication but
because you want to be able to uh apply the bylaw as well as the wetlands protection act you've got to you know Define what your regulations are for how you're um going to regulate Riverfront area under the bylaw so um but I'm I'm
pretty sure that's that language is basically saying Riverfront area is treated like a resource area where no alteration is allowed unless there's a showing of that it's not going to have an adverse effect on the on the uh the values and that's pretty much what I
think the reg say under um 10 yeah it's it's the same language that that the rags use with the different resource areas and I'm sure it's in there for
Riverfront okay well I I think I'll raise the same issue here in a like two more sections what to talk about it there just keep fighting it just keep fighting it's confusing language no
doubt um okay so then those other performance standards seem fine think it's this one about the Alternatives analysis yeah and I I think
I raised the same question here I don't know if this is also in tracks it seems like it might have been an ad um but again I just I'm wondering um
you know it here we're talking about proposed mitigation along that we have no significant or accumulative adverse effect on the values and I think my comment was it just I I'm just wondering if there's an
easier way to define some minimum or or possible mitigation or what that would be but it it just you know for RS it just leaves it pretty far open for interpretation by the commission and that's what we're
going for um I think this would do that it just doesn't really pin down exactly what it is that um an applicant would need to meet or how the commission would would weigh
that and maybe different commissions would weigh it differently depending on who's on the commission and how they interpret you know different projects and what they require
yeah let's see unless project um it's interesting to me there's an echo that um the number two is included here because this is more about the Alternatives
analysis um let's just go down and see what it says Beth could I make a comment yeah sure yeah so this was included because it's in the riverfront area regs under state law so we didn't
want to put in uh regulations that are weaker um than what the commission already has to consider Riverfront area so the Alternatives analysis is required under the riverfront area State regs as
well as these definitions of what a that Alternatives analysis needs to consider so um trying to mirror the state GRE yeah so I I guess I I yeah and I I I get that and I know we definitely want to have the Alternatives analysis in here
and that's I was going to go down and see it this is all talking about the Alternatives analysis so I'm just wondering about this number two unless a Redevelopment project under the applicant must show that there is no practical Al
alternative and the project including proposed mitigation measures will have no significant or cumulative adverse effect on the value so it's almost just repeating what we what we said above a little bit with that number
two um so I don't know if we need that and then it then then the rest of this just really does it talks about what Alternatives analysis should should be and that's all as Miriam
said it's it's in the state ranks so I guess I kind of question that number two part the whole thing is there any let me was since Miriam's on well I'm sorry Bob I didn't
mean to jump in front of you oh yeah I was just going to say you if if if I had a preference it would be to leave the language there it it is in the ACT um but it also I think is a good guidance for you know somebody who's reading through our regulations that that this
is what we're looking for is that uh we we're looking for projects that that are are well balanced and can go ahead as long as they can show that that they have no significant accumulative effect on the the resource areas so I think I think it's to our advantage to keep it
in I don't think it I I think it strengthens our our our bylaw okay I was just going to ask is there anything here that's new in the bylaw or is is
our bylaw in the section just regurgitating the state language a lot of it is regurgitating the state yes like the state has this whole same section on Alternatives analysis in it um
and it probably has that number two also in it I just looking at that just trying to figure out how that kind of ties in with the discussion about an Alternatives analysis yeah can I respond to that sure
so um just as a way of understanding it in state regs the riverfront area regulations are the newest regulations they've been um they were added
after considerably later than much of the other regulations and for that reason they're much stronger um than many of the other regulations like the the aura the buffer zone is not a resource area under the state regs but
Riverfront area is a resource area so so the RS are pretty strong and there's not much room for improvement on them and we don't want to I didn't we didn't want to change these regulations so that they would be inconsistent with the state that would be very confusing but because
the new bylaw does protect Riverfront area um we thought having these regulations would be important so that Comm decisions could be rendered both under the state law and under the bylaw for riverrun area and the analysis for
an Alternatives and adverse effect are is this analysis of the commission has at its discretion already under state law for this particular resource area so so um 8.4 2.3 says that unless it's a re
development project which has different requirements the applicant must show the AL that they've gone through an Alternatives analysis which means that they show that there's no practicable economic alternative and so that's a little different than the
presumption that you were talking about up above because the um presumption up above on 8 3.1 doesn't require an Alternatives analysis doesn't discuss an Alternatives analysis it's it's here in the performance RS um and that's the way it's written in
the state regs as well it's a performance standard this Alternatives analysis and you know the commission uses its discretion to decide you know what it considers to be sufficient evidence I'm wondering and and maybe
this is a better question for Donna but I do know we were looking at the RS before it you know I it certainly makes sense to me that we would you know the that we wouldn't have our
regulations um less restrictive than that of the the state weal and protection act because we can't we can't change or loose or or make more lenient state law we can make it more restrictive and if we're
regurgitating what's already there I'm just I I would think there's an easier way of doing this to just assimilate the state Wetland protection act in our bylaw and and and that way as the ACT is
updated we're we're assimilated with that I think listing it piece by piece like this too there would be the chance for that inconsistency as the state Law changes and is updated but maybe that's
a better question for Donna I do remember when we had legal council look at this before I thought that was their recommendation was to just to to reference the state law but not to go through and repeat each and every single
part of it so maybe we could when it goes back to Don I'd be curious and ask you the question yeah I I hear what you're saying and but I actually think it's a little bit what I've heard in the past is it's kind of the opposite of that
like if if you had if all you did in here was reference sections of the state law that's when you could run into trouble because you're referencing a section that then could be changed to say things that you that you don't want
you know like what's in here right now is our um it's our regul it's our regulations it's what the town is going to regulate if the state law
changes and updates the state law changes but this is still ours you know there's like no direct connection because we're using the actual words whereas once you start referencing another document with numbers and sections and stuff like that that's
often when you can get in trouble um with when they update things and change things and change sections and um that's at least what I've heard in the past but yeah it would be good to I mean usually as the state law changes it becomes more
restrictive typically so I we could have a situation just what Mary mid laid out with the state law changes becomes more restrictive and our bylaw language is now Antiquated and more lenient than what
the state law has said which is exactly what we said we didn't want to do yeah no that can happen too that that can definitely happen I'm just I mean if if our intent is to protect if our intent here is to do something different than what is
already uh a requirement of the State under the bylaw it would make sense to me we would we would enumerate it but I won't um they will put a pin in that and come back to that yeah I think I think in the section above there was a
reference to maybe like a Noah document or something and we and we just added the words as amended so that you know we are referring to something but if it gets amended you know then we're still
referring to it I guess would be my concern like if you if with this kind of thing you just started referencing sections of the rivers act for this and then all of a sudden the rivers act changed the numbers all changed like everything changed and all of a sudden you're
referencing it and it's not right anymore um that can be a problem but you can add language in like you know as amended to to do that but uh something big to think about those are big those are big comments Scott big
comments be could I just add one more comment yeah yeah um I mean I think you raised some good points on all fronts and I think that there's always a balancing act between having this be a document that stands on its own and is not referencing other documents and how
much it's consistent with State regs and um you certainly don't want it to be in conflict with State regs you don't want it to um you know require something that's inconsistent with what the state regs require um in the sense that to they
they can't both be satisfied but uh the RS don't change very often at the state level I I think that you know these rigs are probably what 25 years old and I think the commission would have plenty of time to foresee that there's probably going to be a year runup before they
would make any regulatory changes I think the current regulatory changes have been under consideration for five years so there's lots of time for discussion and updating before you know it becomes a problem I think if everything referenced the state RS then
the question would be why even have these RS and why even have the B if everything about the bylaw is referencing I mean I remember um you know one of the comments I think from uh some of the legal reviews was that the
regs shouldn't even discuss the wetlands protection act too much because it might lead a court to decide that this is just really a rewriting of the state regs or a reframing of the state regs and isn't really its own independent set of Standards so that it's a balancing act
and I think you know some of things are Incorporated by reference just for the sake of you know brevity but sometimes you need to kind of also spell things out yep yeah no I agree with all of that I um you started with the Wetland stuff
in 2011 and this round of like you said it's this round of State reg updates which is taking a long time is only the second one since 2011 they they did Issue some revised big changes in I
think it was 2014 um and now this so they don't do it very often um all right moving on this was all fine I had a question on
25 yep and I just I wasn't sure if I was reading that right and I'm wondering what the other how the other Commissioners interpret that but are we asking for like a a
mandatory CR for that or is that I I wasn't sure it makes it sound like we we're requiring the applicant to maintain the strip of continues I'm not sure if it's just during the project or
is it add INF an item or what we're doing with that um that's I I puted this in in I I guess I could just respond that I think this is in the state regs that the um the discretion at the discretion of the
commission they can require um they can require this and and what is it very is it a a CR or is it I don't that's that's above my pay grade I mean that's a whole legal
question about it maybe it's just at the time that it's permitted I don't know um I don't know I don't really have a question I don't think that's clear and uh but it is in the state regs I understand that there's been discussion
and some controversy I can't weigh in on that but I would say that if you read 310 CMR 10.0 you will find almost this this language so I don't know it's h it's a great
mystery yeah it almost comes across as another one of these sort of like you're not allowed to do anything in a resource area unless you can prove with you know credible evidence um that that you won't uh you know um
diminish the the values of the resource area which is similar to the language we were looking at before where it's sort of like okay and then the applicant comes forward and says how they can still do their Project without affecting the values um but I'll look and see if
this is in is in the rigs because I I can't remember I I don't have the does the State Wetland protection act is it a resource area 200 ft in from Riverfront or I I know that's in our bylaw yes yeah
no Riverfront is a resource area under because I thought in our bylaw that was one thing that we had changed read an update is the 200 feet to reflect that but that's that's where the state law is as well as that's right yep
the rivers Act is uh as Mariam was saying the rivers act actually came a little bit later after the wetlands protection act but it's part it's really become part of the wetlands protection act and Riverfront is a resource area 200 feet
okay yeah but I'll look this one up because it is a little goofy um I'll see if that's in the RS right that down okay and then there's reference to
natural heritage oops and and then this last one refers to um Redevelopment and it refers to the Redevelopment sections that are in the
rivers protection act um and that's a whole another bag of worm but we just this we're following what's in the state Rags there so so there you go Scott there's a reference that just takes you right to
the rags any any anytime we don't have to repeat unclear state language to again I'm all for that okay good
all right vegetation removal here we go I think I had overall had yeah you had a comment there um and that was that I think we need to add something in there about an exemption for invasives for
both trees and shrubs or I would recommend that an exemption for for right for so vegetation removal wouldn't include like if you're going to
remove invasive species I I to me this seems like a something we would be concerned about for Native species in resource areas but if you're removing invasive species it
doesn't seem like it would apply in the same way um I guess I I I agree in that maybe we as we're going down through we can add some language about invasive stuff
um my only thought on that is that um couple things uh one is that there's there are trees that are not um well I mean they're not considered invasive but they're not native either but say Somebody went in to
remove a whole bunch of um knotweed or something um I would think we would still I don't know want to know about it we could talk about it I I I mean but you do raise the point and I that's
another question is like we talk a about native tree removal um and so as you point out there are I think there are a lot of trees that are not native that that you would find they're not invasive either so
I there you go that's my other big comment yeah well let's see where do we talk about just vegetation removal that isn't necessarily trees or is this mostly just trees so
here's why they're significant they are significant uh I think you added that n the commission strongly encourages retaining um native trees and vegetation in their natural state um yeah again I don't know if we want to call
out just native be again because there are trees especially if we're just talking about trees there are trees that like we're just saying that are that are um they're not native but I think we would
still want people to maybe not cut them down you know and we'd actually want them replaced and when we asked them to be replaced we could ask them to be replaced with um Native species but uh you like at least in ammer there's the the Copa tree which is that tree with
the really long seed pods they're all over Amor because somebody planted them at some point but they're beautiful large giant trees they're not native um and so yeah I for trees maybe you're I could
see the point I think it's like 8.35 and 8.36 um but like I'll take 8.35 Top of the Lake we're looking to get rid of the you know the glossy Buckthorn there it's in a resource area
um it's certainly I don't think it's enhancing the values of the bylaw I'm trying to think about a place where we would have like invasive species that would be advancing the values of the
bylaw and and did you say 835 you were looking at or a A35 would be an example where it's not trees okay but yeah so before we get there how do
people feel um like so far I'm I'm fine with it I that sticking the native in that Scott did I'm not so sure about we might want to change that but um just these numbers that have been
proposed um I I'm fine with them um if you're in the outer 50 of the aura it's a Ono one tree replacement oh okay or any part of Riverfront that's what I was looking for earlier okay out of photo or or any part
of Riverfront you can either you do one for one for one for tree or four shrubs for one tree if you get within the inner 50 it's two to one or six shrubs and if you're
actually in a resource area such as BBW or something it's 3 to one anybody have concerns with that no I make a a comment just about why why I did
this sure why we wrote it at this yeah so this is a change from the previous set of regulations um which had a much more complicated um tree replacement chart based on the size of
trees the idea being the more mature trees um you know you would have more um more that you would need to replace and so um it seemed like that was complicated and and not not showing not being very
useful so this was an effort to try to simplify it and was taken from some other towns that do something similar where um the ratios are not based on the size of the tree but on the closeness to the resource area I like it you could have something that's um you know 95 ft from the
resource area and it doesn't as much benefit as something that's 10 feet from the resource area yep I'm I like it it's it is definitely simplified from the other what was there before and that's always
helpful now we've got replacement trees same species um unless non-native um one and a half to 2 in C ER that's good I did have I did have a little trouble with uh replacing with the same
species um my thought was as a as a forest matures the species change over time and so like I'm thinking along a stream you know you might have a bunch of birch
you have to take out because the Birch fail after a while so you might not want to put Birch back you know because of the transition in the forest so I had a little trouble with that and
I and I guess looking into the future I get I get I support the whole native tree thing but also looking into the future [Music] um I don't know there's going to come a time when we're going to have to extend
the meaning of what is native I think and I don't know when that happens but seems like it isn't that far away yeah no those are both good good points
um yeah terms of the definition of native I that's again above our pay grade I think a little bit um well it may be but I think that we as a Conservation Commission in shutesbury need to have some flexibility around
that not get too knotted up with the term native in all cases or exact species all right well yeah how do other people feel about this requirement of same species
do we want to I don't know expand on the language a little bit there I mean another good example is uh we've got hemlocks infested with wo ad delid so whether you would want to replace a bunch of hemlocks now with
hemlocks you know I'm not sure that makes any sense yeah I I think if we struck the the requirement about the same species um I I do think it's
um and maybe we stke the whole thing just and just have it be a tree because I mean if we're to me it kind of depends if if we're gonna allow people to take down
non-native or invasive trees maybe um then not putting back invasive trees makes sense if if we really see the invasive trees as valuable that are in need of protection then I don't see why we wouldn't let them plant them
either like I it's it to me it seems a bit incongruent well another example might be the chestnut tree we can't plant the native Chestnut anymore because their odds of surviving well they may grow for a while and then they they they have a
Prem death but you can put the Chinese hybrid in and now that's not native but you have a shot at having a chestnut tree into the future 99% native well you know but but you know
language matters yeah yeah know all all good so we could just replacement trees Shelby um for for me I I'd love to see it
be just say um sh be not invasive trees but that's I don't know what the other Commissioners think of that but I like I'm thinking
about um aala or other things that are you know grow Wetland areas that are that can be invasive bamboo other stuff that can get away from people that we wouldn't want to
introduce yeah that that actually gets more what I think what the concern is right I think we'd want to facilitate people taking that kind of stuff out and not putting it back but the rest of it I
wouldn't think we would want to dictate yeah no I I I agree I think I think that sounds so what should we say then um we get out we get rid of same species
as what was removed and we need to actually be a little more I guess specific as to what we what we do want to see would we be able to add in something I mean certainly it allow it's already written that we could wave the
requirement but could we also uh uh add in our participation in um approving a species that it would be a native Native to Massachusetts species or something approvable approved by the commission
I like that I say Massachusetts does maintain the um fish and wildlife do maintain the list of invasive plants yeah
and and just like we were talking about also just trees native to Massachusetts but then we were kind of seeing there's others that may not be on that list that would be acceptable to us right so then having a species approved
by the Conservation Commission kind of sounds good to me okay great all right then this talks about [Music] waivers all good that was just a typo that I took
out there [Music] okay so you may want to look I'm not sure native is the right word there any longer yeah I think like with 835 would be definitely a place where I wouldn't I would want to take it out
because um I'm picturing somebody going into to a resource area and taking out a bunch of an an invasive plant um and we would certainly want to be involved in that you know just because it's
invasive if you're in a resource area um you know there can be all all kinds of other damage to the resource area from pruning and from removing vegetation even if it's um an invasive so I I think we'd
want to just still leave that as no vegetation yeah I can see that what do you think for the next one though for extensive pruning or removal of vegetation because of an imminent risk to public health and
safety shall be to the greatest un practicable as determined by the commission so if you go in and you take out a bunch of not weed do you have to put not weed back no yes let's see how can we write that
for extensive pruning or removal and then we could take out we could say of vegetation because of an imminent res in kind replacement shall we turn in kind replacement we could even
put right there other than invasives yeah Beth could I make a comment sure I think you might want to consider adding to your definitions a definition of native um because you for example could have a
a plant that's native to Virginia um but isn't native to Massachusetts um but maybe will become a native plant um in the future because um of environmental climate conditions but
I think you need a definition because um you know you're talking about invasive versus native and those are not those are kind of like two different variables you can have native versus non-native invasive versus noninvasive you can have native invasive plants also there's some
native species they're very invasive so um yes I think you need to define those things yeah well and I think in the end we're GNA take out some of the natives here that Scott has thrown in here
um talks about taking out native actually but I do think maybe is just getting rid of or or modifying your in kind replacement to include species that are not invasive which are we do I think the
state has the definition in a list Inc replacement other than invasive plants shall be the exted by the commission how's that does that help sure okay and I will go back through I'm
not sure can I get rid of the like if I want to get rid of this I you can just not accept it or delete what I it's a yeah delete native down toward the bottom
[Music] find native yep format clearing oh def that says Define not delete uh don't listen to me I think if if if I could shrink the
the the words down the comments are on the right and then I can go through and do it but I've got the the words are so large I can't see the the right hand column but I'll go back I will go back and and make these changes okay three stumps within inner
50 that's good oops Tre six inches or greater oh I like I like snags snags are good here we talk a little bit about Native and noninvasive for all replacement trees and shrubs
trees and shrubs must be native and non-invasive in Massachusetts and must be the same general category of her moose tree or shrub um so again here we talk about being of the same species um do we want to change
that here too uh I think mariam's point about Native and I think others have raised the same concern maybe we it's really the non-invasive piece that we're and I don't I don't know if we
care if it's the same I I would just sort of add you have a lot of discretion here and you don't want to be absurd um and make people plant not weed but um you know the Can has a lot of flexibility built into this so um rather
than trying to anticipate every situation just remember you always have you can grant waivers and this language is a little more vague than up above where it said the same species um of the tree this says must be
of the same general category of the removed tree or shrub so I think Jan Jan you were the one that was concerned about the same species does is this language okay or or do you feel like that it should be changed uh
it's it's a little bit better I'm I'm still a little concerned with Native tripping us up that's obviously the desired thing but not necessarily always mandatory so the must in that sentence is a little
[Music] strong I wonder if we could use the language that we came up with and just say you know what did we say Tre is by the commission n vasive trees yeah just
put it same thing down there okay I mean it follows the evergreen or deciduous is nice yeah I think we said placement Tre is native to Massachusetts or species
approved by the Conservation Commission do we want to leave the must trees and shrubs um must be you say it must be non-invasive and should be native
sure or do we say above or a species recommended by the Conservation Commission by yeah okay all right ball sizes 180
days and then the plantings need to be successful what happens if they're not good question two full growing Seasons commission reserves a right to require replanning so this is what happens if they if they're not if they don't grow
within two seasons commission reserves the right to require replanting um I I hear that the trouble in life is I've planted a lot of trees and you know some have taken and others refused you know and I I'll put
something back there the next year and same noo so I maybe well it says it says re reserves the right to require replanting so it's sort of like that's really not a must
you know what I mean okay so say say there is especially a project where somebody's taking a lot of trees down a large project where we are requiring a lot of trees to be replanted and we we really want it to work and we keep an eye on the whole thing
um again like you're saying if something just keeps failing and failing I think there would this sort of leaves it open enough that we can work with the applicant to try to figure out um something okay sure we did at the
library site right we moved some bushes and all was yeah yeah yeah I think this language is kind of flexible enough for that uh application for V part of any of those
applications uh one more one more question on that y um so we're doing small project permits no we're not doing um admin approvals anymore someone wants to take a tree like we just did four
here yeah it's it's it'll be it'll be very it'll be the same thing as the admin it's just the name that changed with this new version of the regulations and and the small project permits it's a little bit different we haven't gotten to that section yet where we're going to review
that but it was previously called the administrative approval and that'll be conducted about the same way yeah yep and we'll get to the section too so we can we can talk about it
um noi is required for removals in resource areas small small project per required so no more than five compromise trees located in the or or the
riverfront which I think is the way administrative approval is is um yeah so this is where it does get pretty specific about which kind of application you need to submit based
on how many trees you're taking down so I'm fine with that all right and then I I put the limited projects in here that's
next um okay um it's nine o'clock I think I'll stop sharing um I know Scott especially said he needed to go at nine: because he has he's got to get up early tomorrow my beauty
sleep your beauty sleep um yeah so I assuming everybody else is all right with stopping at this point yeah and we'll start up the next section is going to go pretty fast the next section is a lot of just the the
kind of uh clerical stuff I guess you know administrative stuff and there's really not as much discussion so it should go pretty fast um I guess I haven't really thought if we should plan another just regulations meeting I'll think about that maybe and
send you guys an email because we don't have another meeting now until March a whole month um and that's enough time to maybe have another regulatory meeting and just try to finish it
up so I I I would I would be in favor of that um to try and knock it either down or knock it off you g get get done with it I think that would be to our advantage yeah me too me too and I think
this is the last couple months of the the slow time before the real big applications are coming in Yeah we actually have a pretty big Ani at our next meeting um I was going to mention it to you guys it's
um it is the DPW working with uh furog I want us to say Pioneer Val Planning Commission but it's fcog working with them on their bundled n so they they they worked with fog I think
PVP pvpc is also involved with this but um fog has sort of this this template noi for dpws a bundled noi and they worked with our DPW and they have submitted it um and
they're on they're going to be on our agenda for March 13 so you guys will be seeing that nii um so that's kind of a big deal I'll have to think about how we do site visits for that that'll be I haven't looked at the application at all so so yes we're already getting
some big ones that'll be at our our next meeting so it' be good to finish up the rags it really would Matteo you've got your hand up yeah I don't want to keep you too late but um hopefully you saw hopefully all of you saw that um uh the email that went out that we have uh a deficit of
members on the zba and I'm I'm not asking any of you to serve on yet another board uh but if you know of anybody in town uh who has an interest in land use and uh and helping enforce the zoning bylaw um please
encourage them to step forward because we're down to one member on this evva right now whoa one member how many members are there usually what is it a there's supposed to be three three full members and two associate members so we have one
full member and one associate member who does not live in shutesbury WoW that's too bad okay I'll see if I can convince anyone yeah compared to the
concom it's it's very light liting they only meet when an application is submitted uh which is pretty infrequently but uh we do need people so and I I want to thank you Matteo for uh everything that you do um you're doing so when it's so helpful
but also that the project that it sounds like Gabe started with the um all of the documents the historical documents and scanning them and and then uh I guess getting rid of the hard copies of a lot
of stuff that's a huge project and um I'm kind of impressed you guys are doing it um there's there's a lot there's a lot to go through I think some of the some of the other committees and departments are going lot faster than I am because they're not taking the time necessarily to scan everything but um
I'm trying to digitize everything I can yeah I I do think that's important I was surprised with sort of the state guidance because um where where I did most of my work with the wetlands
documents and ammeron we have files going back to the 70s hard copy files um and nobody would think of getting rid of them like oh no no no keep keep every piece of paper you know because you might need it and um so to see the state
guidance that basically says you can completely get rid of an entire project once a certificate of compliance is issued kind of surprised me a little bit I mean I it's having sometimes having those that historical information is is so helpful um so it's good to know
you're scanning things that's good I know it's a lot of work so thank you um all right and if anybody else has no comments I will take a motion to adjourn motion to
adjourn second second all right Douglas hi Fox hi con hi Rowan hi and Wilson hi all right well
see you guys in a month but I'll be sending you stuff great see you at the MC too take care right yep all right everyone