Hi. Hi. I see you now. How are you? >> Yeah. How about you? >> Good. Good. I guess we're waiting for Bob. I don't see him.
>> Um Scott's not gonna make it tonight, so it's just three of us. >> Okay. >> Yeah. How's your summer going? Did you go on vacation? Yeah, I've been to London, Scotland, Boston five times in
one month and then I'm going to Albany at the end of the month. So, and I've been to like a concert like a festival and then um three other concerts till I was busy.
Yeah. You around. You around. >> Did you see um Maryanne when you were in Scotland? >> No, she was um she I was in Edinburgh and she was about and two hours north.
So, no, I didn't. >> Yeah. >> Um but yeah, she had a great time from what she said. So, it was very exciting. >> That's good. >> Yeah, I loved it. It was It was uh it was very nice. >> I'd love to go to Scotland. I would love. It's just everybody who talks about it seems to really love their
trips there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I can't complain. >> Wonder if I should text Bob, see what's going on. >> Okay. He responds, "Yikes."
So, I think maybe he forgot. Thank you. So for everybody, we're waiting for Bob Douglas so that we three of us. So we really have quum. So we can open the meeting. Yay. >> Yay.
Figured it out, huh? >> I did. You can't go in through the uh conservation link, but if you get the calendar, it has a valid link, so we're good. >> Yep. Yep. Great. Well, I'm glad you made it.
All right. It is 7:06 on August 14th, 2025, and I'm um calling this meeting of the Sheetsbury Conservation Commission to order. This meeting is being recorded. Welcome everybody. Um, first on the agenda is comments from
the chair. And I don't really have any. It's a lot going on, but but I don't have any comments um except I guess that we are still in the process of looking for another um commissioner. Um haven't really heard too much. So, I'm kind of
just waiting to see. Um I got a name from from somebody sent us a name and I've been reaching out to that person. So, we'll see. Hopefully soon. Um, all right. So, a second on the agenda is review and vote on the minutes of July
24th. Does anybody have any comments or changes to those minutes? >> No. >> No. Okay. I will take a motion to approve the minutes of July 24th, 2025. I'd like to make such a motion.
>> Great. Second. Second. All right. Roll call. Um, Douglas >> I. >> Fox. >> I. >> And Wilson. I. Great. All right. Next on the agenda,
um, site visits update. Mayor, do you have anything? No, I don't think I've No, I haven't been on any site visits. Um I do think like if possible at the end of this meeting, could we schedule the one for over at the um the bright
bog? Um but yeah, no, I don't have any. >> Yeah, we can do that um at the end of the meeting if people want to. I know Matteo sent an email around about doing one for the certificate of compliance for the transmission line and what I'm
thinking is that maybe we try and do them back to back. >> Exactly. >> Always good to do them on the same day. So yeah, we can try and schedule that at the end of the meeting. >> Okay, >> sounds good. Um, next is land management update. Um,
but Scott's not with us and I don't think he gave me any information to report that I can think of. Um, there's been a few a little bit of discussion involved was part of it about
the the boat ramp area. Um, and I think Scott had emailed me at some point too again just with questions about um the history of that area. Um, so that's something that we can work on
a little more and maybe um get him involved and Bob involved and we can talk about it at our next meeting. All right. Next on the agenda um are some open meeting law complaints that um the commission received from Tom Seaffort.
I think Matteo sent those around to you guys. I thought I would just share them too and we can take a look at them. So just give me a second. Can everybody see my screen? I cannot
>> I can >> Oh, I got it now. >> I can see it. >> Okay, great. Is it large enough? I can make it bigger. All right, so Tom submitted two. This Let's see. This one actually might be
the first one. All right. I I'll just read um what it says. Um the streets conservation commission met in open session on July 10th. During the meeting, they discussed and voted on the following agenda item. Administrative approval request for
subduing notwe coalition. I alleged that the wording of this agenda item was incomplete, unclear, misleading, and not specific enough for the public to apprehend the full nature of the topic. The only application materials that were available on the website of the conservation commission at the time indicated that this administrative
approval request was actually for the town of Shbury. The phrase subduing not we coalition that was in the application materials lacked any clear reference. I believe it was intentional that the agenda item was so worded because I asked the conservation commission in advance of
their meeting to clarify the wording of the agenda item but they did not amend the wording. Um so I believe this was the first meeting we had where um we didn't actually discuss this request because
there was no one to present it. Um, we did, I guess, open it, but it's not really a public hearing because it's administrative approval and we didn't necessarily discuss it. We just continued it to the next meeting because we we're waiting for someone to actually
present it to us. Um, and this is Tom's request. I would like the Shbury Conservation Commission in an open session to acknowledge the violation of a violation that this agenda item was incomplete, unclear, misleading, and not specific enough for the public to understand. I would like the
conservation commission to work agenda items in a way that is complete, clear, accurate, and specific going forward. Um, so there's a second one of these, but then
also I think we should look at so this is the this is the actual regulation. So what's required of um agendas under the open meeting law and the part that refers to what you put
in your agenda is here under B. Um meeting notices shall be printed or displayed in allegible easily understandable format and shall contain the date, time and place of such a meeting and a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be
discussed at the meeting. and then the list of topics shall have sufficient specificity to reasonably advise the public of the issues to be discussed at the meeting. So I think that's really the question. Do we feel like what was
written in the agenda sufficiently um was specific enough included enough specificity to um advise the public of what was going to be discussed.
Um, you know, and I think the commission we should just we should discuss that right now and see how we what we feel about what was put in the agenda for this meeting and whether we agree with Tom or um,
you know, sort of don't agree with his with his complaint. How do you guys feel about that? I think the U final sentence um would like the commission to word agenda items in a way that's complete, clear,
accurate, and specific. I think that that that is a goal we all share. Um and um uh we I I do believe we strive to um hit all of those goals and and maybe it's something that we would want to
just kind of uh double check. uh um this was with a a ne neighborhood group and I I think we um um are are s are sensitive to that neighborhood groups may not be
uh may not have the same experience as say a wetland scientist or an attorney or somebody like that in submitting their things. So, um, anyway, I just want to say that clear, accurate, and specific are good things, and I think we could certainly
strive toward those. Um, I don't think there was anything deliberately deceptive in this particular, um, uh, application. Um, and I think that's pretty much all I had to say on it.
>> Yeah, I I 100% agree. Um, and I So, let's see. I talked with Matteo a little bit about how to reword. Where did I put that?
Let's see. Nope. Nope. Maybe it's down at the bottom here. How how how I think we should do agendas. Um and he Matteo seemed to feel like this type of wording can fit in the um
uh the way we post agendas kind of the software that we use to post agendas because at some point I I remember being told like you have to kind of limit the number of words you put in but Matteo seemed to think that you you can make them longer. This is the way. Um
again Ammerst does it. I did it when I was in Ammerst and I I feel like this is how we should do it which is you know you have the time you have what the application is notice of intent you have who the applicant is got consulting
and then this is on behalf of of an owner so there you have even more of a description but you have the applicant oh this got messed up all right never mind that's not right Um,
for the notweed one though, let's see. Administrative approval, town of Shootsbury. So, you have the applicant, you have a little description of what the work is for the removal of invasive knotweed. Then you have the relation of the work to whatever the resource area is. So, you're listing the resource area
and you're you're saying, you know, where is the where the work is in relation to your resource area. So, removal of invasive notweed within the buffer zone, two resource areas, and then you have the best description you could of the location. Um,
all right. So, this when I copied this, this got messed up. go just so you guys can see what I mean. So for a project that's a little bit got a little bit more information you have what the application is you have the applicant got consulting on behalf
of Courtney Rose and what the work is for construction of a proposed single family home the relation to the resource area and there must have been some more work in and restoration must have said family home and restoration within buffer zone to
bordering vegetated wetlands at 30 Wildflower Drive. It's got the uh map and parcel and then it has the D number. What I'd like to do is sort of standardize that and I was talking with Matteo about it that that would be the
standard for all notices of intent, RDA, certificates of compliance, you know, everything. It would have this kind of what the application is, who the applicant is, what the work is, what the relation of the work to the resource area is, and
then the best description of the address as you can. in this case includes the map and parcel and then also a DP number if it's an NOI application. Um anyway, I I feel like that's the best we
can do to give people an idea of what the discussion is going to be about. And if you know and if if that doesn't provide enough, it's almost like well then they need to come to the meeting and learn more about what their you know bring their questions to the meeting.
So, oh, Matteo. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask, um, did you mean to be screen sharing what you were describing when you're describing agenda item because it's not up on the screen? >> It's not. >> No, just a that uh first complaint.
>> Oh, oops. Wonder why? >> There we go. Can people see that? Can people see my screen? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, did you guys see the
regulation before >> when I showed it? >> No, we didn't see any of this. >> I guess I was switching between documents. I thought that was going to work, but it didn't. Um, so back to what the regulation is about what needs to be on an agenda.
Um, that's the regulation number 940 CMR 29.03. And then the highlighted part is what is required. List of topics shall be sufficient
specificity to reasonably advise the public on the of the issues to be discussed at the meeting. >> I had a question. Um so in the past um like okay so
when there's been emergency um they've come in they've gone to Matteo and and then you've issued them and then we've discussed it at you know after at a meeting but
>> in the past when an issue is has a has an issue ever come forward or been needed. Has the commission ever needed to decide on an issue concerning
town lands in the past that um the town wasn't bringing itself or is do you feel what I'm saying? Like >> yeah. Um, so like I don't know what um I mean I I know that you had talked about
like well the the town is bringing this and and it was stated there and then when um uh I forget who it was um I can't remember her name right now but at the last meeting when she presented um
uh you know she just said it was a b you know was a you know but she was clear that this was something that was benefiting the town and I felt like the area that she used to describe the project wasn't was clear. So, and that
it was town land that this was being done on. So, I I I don't know what else could be could have how else it could have been made clear. Um, plus I my understanding is that is that when there
was a concern raised by by Tom that um that he then proposed language to Matteo and and my understanding is that Matteo used that language. So I don't understand like how
this you know what where the disconnect is. Um the project was defined, it was defined as being on town property. Um it was noted during the hearing that it was or not the hearing but during the discussion that it was a um an informal
group of volunteers in town um and not the commission that's going out there to do it. So what how has this been handled previously? Um, well, I think I think Tom's complaint isn't necessarily what happened at the
meeting, what was discussed at the meeting where I think at the meeting it became a much more clear what was going on because we discussed it. Um, >> and not necessarily at this first meeting. I think at this first meeting, which so there's the two open meeting law complaints. This the first meeting
on the 10th um we didn't discuss it because there was nobody to present. Right. >> Right. And Right. So then the second open meeting law violation is for the next meeting where what was posted in the agenda did change and it got changed
to language that Tom had proposed. Um and then at that meeting we did discuss it and I think you know like with any project many times people may have questions and and really coming to the meeting is when you ask those questions for clarification. So the
question is how much of a description do you need to put in the agenda so that people know I think that they need to come to the meeting you know so it's sort of how that's what I think Tom's getting at is what do you put in the agenda to make it
clear what the discussion is going to going to be about um and you know here's the regulation right here the agenda has to have a list of topics with sufficient specificity to reasonably advise the public of what issues are going to be
discussed at the meeting. Um, so you know, I guess before we even just because I'm on this one page, before we even decide whether
what was posted, how we feel about what we did post for those two meetings, >> I would just like to say that I think we should improve a little bit on what we are posting. And this is my phone is ringing. Um this is my suggestion for
how we should be posting um our meetings and I feel like that provides plenty of >> Sure. Exactly. >> Yeah. >> But how >> going down the road into the future? >> Yeah. And I and that's what my question is. Is that is this how it has been
handled in the past or like what you've have here under >> administrative approval request or like how was >> so this right here like I said is how Ammerst does it and >> right >> when I I think when I first became chair
I remember talking to Matteo's predecessor Carrie giving her the same thing and kind of getting an I kind of getting feedback from her that there wasn't enough space really on how we'd post our agendas to include all of this. >> Okay. >> And so we've sort of we've
>> we've modified it in that I think we you know we certainly include notice of intent. We certainly include typically the applicant usually the address and D number. These are things that over time I've been like we we need to have have those on there so people see what's
what's um what the application's going to be. But >> um I feel like we can go even beyond that. And if if we include all of this these sort of the factors I was including you know the type of application the applicant
what the work is the work's relation to resource areas and then the address that covers it in my opinion you know I just don't think there could be anything else that we could put on there so >> so this would just be an improvement
>> I think under the notweed listing it could also say under um various locations within the town rightaway. Um as noted on a map presented on a map or you know that um
shows you know at various locations within the town right away um and like saying the map is on is on file. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. No, that's a good idea. Yep. That's a very good idea. I could say that for for this situation
because that that's one of those situations where there isn't one specific location and sometimes that happens where you've got various spots. Um not too often but it does and that would be a good thing to add there would just be um
locations identified on the map included with the application that can be reviewed on the website or some sort of a summary like that. All right. So, I feel like that addresses Tom's comment about sort of just improving how we
um put things on the agenda. So, I have to stop sharing and I have to share again if I want to look at this. Can everybody see my screen? Yep. >> I went back to looking at the two actual
complaints. So the the second one Tom filed, can people see it? >> All right. The second one he filed, the beginning is is very much the same, but the date changed to the July 24th meeting and the agenda said administrative approval request from the
town of Shootsbury for subduing not for subduing note coalition. So it it um it changed and apparently that was something that Tom had sent in an email as a suggestion to use after saying that
the first one was incomplete. Um and then his request is the same. I don't understand why it was intentional, but I'm not going to get into how it, you know, the allegations.
I don't know how it was intentional but um right so this one I would like to knowledge for I would like consummation to avoid
wait I avoid the names of groups or coalitions cannot be verified okay yeah so then this one he does get into that a little Um, yeah, I agree. It was not intentional.
And so the way I understand with these uh complaints is that then we need to sort of file, we need to respond. Um, >> and
so we would be responding at this point. We seems like we're in agreement that we would we would we would be responding that we agree that the agendas can be a little bit more detailed and we've put together
a new format for agenda items going forward. Um question is whether we want to put in our response that we feel I guess that this was a violation of the open meeting law. what
we did post. That's where I'm a little bit thinking that that's probably what we need to do. I haven't had to write a response to an open meeting law violation before, but you know, do we feel like this description where it says administrative approval request from the
town of Sheetsbury for subduing note coalition, do we feel like that was specific enough for the public to understand what was going to be discussed at the meeting, which is really what the regulation says we had to do, or do we feel like it was a
violation of open meeting law? I I think it was clear during the meeting that the um that this was an informal it was noted that it was an informal coalition of people that that's
just what they named themselves that the um they didn't know who was going to actually show up to volunteer and we even went so far as to you I think you had stated that um if you know there was some sort a liability form that needed
to be signed um if there was going to be work done on public you know town uh right away. So um I I I don't know why we would need to name the members of the people who were
informally volunteering on whatever date they set up to do this. I I I don't know. That just seems um it seems a little I think goes a little too far for you know a volunteer
um not even an organization but just a group of volunteers who have concerns about the environment. I would think you would want to reward them, not, >> you know, name them and as
not disclosing who they are. Um, >> right. Um, >> I mean, when I was a kid, we used to we used to go along and pick up trash and the kids in the town used to do this um
as like uh I think it was the fifth graders, sixth graders on the way up to Leonard Road for the apple picking. Um, did anybody require them to, you know, sign a liability waiver or get their parents to sign liability waiverss? you
know, it was it was just an informal thing that was done on a date that was just picked. And um so I mean to me, if somebody wants to go out and and has identified where this knotweed is and
wants to do something about it, um I'm okay with that. >> Yeah. Um, I guess my one thought is just that so it's a what it say you're looking at the
agenda and it says administrative approval request. Okay, somebody's submitting an administrative approval request. Who's submitting it? Townsbury is submitting it for subduing notweed coalition.
So, you know, I take full responsibility for having looked at this agenda and and possibly thinking that was fine. But now when I look back at it, to me, what really is important I feel like is for what what what is this administrative
approval request for? It's from the town of Shootsbury, but really it say should say something like for removing notweed within town right ofway because that's what it's actually for. So somebody who looks at the agenda would be like, "Oh, I'm interested in that. I'm gonna come
to the meeting." You know, but when you read this, it's sort of like for the subdoing notwe collection, what I I do kind of agree and I don't even know if I'm agreeing with the same thing that Tom is criticizing it for. I might not be. Mine is more sort of like it does need more description as to what the
work is is where is the work in regard to a resource area. Um, and I feel like the whole word, the whole subduing notweed coalition doesn't even need to be there. It should be, as I wrote it before, the um, it's for the removal of notweed within the buffer zone to a
resource area at at various locations around town. You know, that that's really what the information that you want to provide to somebody looking at the agenda. So, I guess my thought is that it is that it it is a violation of open meeting line that it didn't really
provide good enough information, clear enough information to the public to know what the meeting was going to discuss. Um, that's my thoughts. Bob, do you have any thoughts?
Yeah, I think um you know I I I kind of agree I agree with you in that um you know it kind of needed a verb. It needed uh uh what's what's going to be done, what's happening. So uh I I I think I
would concur to that. Um, it could have benefited by a um uh a description as you as as you outlaid or laid out the um uh this group is interested in uh removing uh notweed from public spaces
along the roadway using lawful means or something like that kind of would would have told the story uh that that somebody reading the ad would would would understand. >> Yeah. So are you in agreement that it then is sort of is a violation of the
open meeting law? >> Um I you know uh I I I guess I could say yes. Um I I I I think it's it it could tell a better we we could have told the story better, but I don't really think we we
we in intentionally did a violation. I guess that's where I'm coming from. >> Well, yeah, that's true. There was no intent. It was just how we were doing our agendas based on what we thought first of all the software could handle and how you know how we also
historically had kind of been doing them. Um, so there I don't think there was any sort of intent. So if there was no intent, does that mean it's not a violation? I don't know. Um,
you know, you go back to what the actual regulation says, stop sharing. The regulation says the list of topics shall have sufficient specificity to reasonably advise the public of the issues to be discussed at the meeting.
um you know so there's not no mention of intent it's simply that it needs to be sufficiently specific and maybe our response to Tom's
comment is that it it wasn't you know that >> it was a violation >> it wasn't sufficiently specific to uh advise the the public as to what was what was being asked and what was being
discussed. I I will concede that. >> That's I guess my my look at it is that and and the rest of Tom's comment was basically to improve that. And I think what I showed you guys, if everyone's in agreement, um, would be a way to improve
the agenda to, uh, to make it more specific. >> Miriam, you have your hand up. >> Yeah. I was just going to make a comment about the agendas. I used to be the one who posted for about three years for the
commission. And two points I want to make. One is I don't ever recall running out of space um on the platform. I never felt like there wasn't enough room. But when we would list um items um we would list the address, the last
name of the property owner, what kind of application it was or request if it was a if that was known, what kind of project it was. I don't know that it's really necessary to describe what resource area because you might not know that. I mean, you might be discussing a
property where you're you come to the conclusion there there is no jurisdictional resource. Um, so it seems to me like that's redundant. You wouldn't be talking about it unless you had a question about whether the commission has jurisdiction, but um unless it's known. I it just seems like
it's redundant to me. It seems more important. It's the property and the type of project. >> Yeah. Well, those I you know, not every agenda item is going to look exactly like that. That's more for actual notices of intent and RDAs. If it's a if
it's a a if it's a wetland delineation that's being um if it's an RDA for a wetland delineation, for example, you'd have the applicant and you'd have four delineation of resource area boundaries and then you would just have the address
and the parcel number. Um, so it does depend on what the application is for. Um, but I do think even that description right there, like what is it? What are they doing? This is an application for confirmation of wetland boundaries, you
know, like that's what they're asking for that just to give somebody an idea of what the discussion is going to be about at the meeting. So, um, all right. Well, so I think we've talked about that
enough and what we need is a motion to um what a motion to it's an open meeting law violation and we are going to respond to it. And so
it's an a motion um to respond to both open meeting law violations submitted by Tom Seaffort. Um I'm not sure. I'm wondering if we want to write it write them up and then have
you guys look at them um and then vote on them. I was pro I was provided a kind of a form that uh the select board has used to respond to open meeting law violations. It's almost like letter format. And um now that we have
discussed it and talked about it, maybe I will write two of those up for both of these um submitted violations and we can vote on them at our next meeting. You guys will get a chance to review review them. Does that sound good?
That sounds good. >> All right, let's do that then. All right. Number six on the agenda is um certificate of compliance for 70 Lake Drive D number 286
1-174. So this is um for Mark Rivers. I see Mark is here. Um, do you have any comments, Mark? I have the certificate of home alliance to bring up and we can look at it, but do you want to say anything? >> Um, yeah, there's not much to say. This
is uh when we bought the house in 2000, um, you need a new septic system and I believe, you know, we weren't even living here at the time. I believe the uh uh the contractor and the uh before we go any further uh Bob has his hand up
and I think we need to hear from Bob. >> Yeah, I I apologize madam chair. I apologize Mark. Uh I have a director butter so I'd like to recuse myself from this uh discussion. >> H okay then we don't have quorum. So,
okay. You I know there's nothing you guys can do about this, but this is like 20 years ago. We put a septic system in. The contractor and the designer took care of everything. We even we weren't even really minimally involved, but it is what it is. So, u we'll try to get it
uh on another meeting when Scott's available. >> I'm sorry about that. Um >> yeah, we'll put it on um on the next meeting agenda. So that's on the 28th. It'll be on there. The certificate of compliance is all ready to go. Actually,
I had one question for you. Do you have the book and page now for the recorded order of conditions? >> Yes, we do. And I think Matteo has that. Uh although I could be wrong. But we had to was all registered. We were, you know, we it took a little
while to understand the process and what had to be done and what the sequence events were for something so old. and the >> um the Franklin County uh group like changed their system so that that messed everything up but I
think we got it all down now and uh um you know it's just a matter of u just pushing it through. I mean the system septic system is 20 years old now 23 years old. Now, here's a question though. Um, was there ever do we need to
do a site visit or um to make this all work? >> You know, I So, I had put So, I filled out the form and I was going to fill in the book and page right now, but we don't have quum, so we can't vote on it. But I had just put not applicable for the site visit because it happened so
long ago. But since we have two weeks before our next meeting, maybe we will just stop by and uh >> look at your old septic system and make sure that it was built according to the order of conditions. >> Yeah. You know, you're going to look at the lawn and uh
so it is what it is. It's been I just wanted to judge just, you know, just trying to figure out any possible snags in in the system. >> Yeah. So, we'll we'll do that. Uh, is there a good time for somebody to come by and take a look? >> You guys can go. Hey, tie view is fine.
>> Okay, that's the kind of thought. >> All right, someone. >> So, I think we're all set for now. >> We are. I'll get the booking page from Matteo and um we'll we'll see you on the 28th. >> Okay. And
do I do I need to be here on the 28th? No, actually uh we've got enough information to um you know to just vote on the certificate of compliance. >> You don't you don't need to be there. So >> thank thank you for your patience. No,
they was actually just it was just it's interesting. Since then, we've probably done five notice of intents and no one picked up on the fact that old one that was, you know, not signed off on and just and it's because just the contractor and the designer
and me because we this is new to all us back then, you know, and uh we just kind of missed it. I think everybody missed it. >> Yeah. Well, we'll get it. We're gonna get it. Gonna get that certificate of compliance in. >> No, it sounds good. Thank you very much
for your help. >> All right. Thanks, >> Mark. You take care. Bye. Bye. >> You, too. All right. Um, okay. Now we have the Elliot Park um signage and Cat, I see you're here.
Did you want to say anything? >> Sure. I I think I haven't spoken to the whole commission, but I think I sent an email to you explaining that what we want to do as the Elliot Park Committee is um put up a sign that says that it's
prohibited to leave um watercraft and other personal property on park. And I've been to the select board and we've worked out wording for this that says that um it's prohibited and that um
items left on the park will be considered abandoned property and removed. So >> I can you want me to share my screen? I have that that the sign. >> If you Yeah, if you want to show it to the committee, go ahead. >> Yeah, they can see here it is.
And can Yikes can people see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, okay. Go ahead, Cat. Sorry. >> So, so what we would want from the commission is permission to put a sign
up and some guidance about where the sign could could be placed. Great. I like this. I like the sign. >> Great. I think it it says >> I mean I guess I guess the worry I mean
the the problem might be is that if if it's put where people are leaving the watercraft which is over near the gazebo then are they going to go put it where the boat launch is kind of to the left there and just leave it in the you
know that those grasses there. >> Well actually they have been leaving them there. I moved them with the help of somebody that was down at the park one day off the grass and away from the library um uh can kayak rack um just to
get it off the grass and away from there. And I have put little I made some little polite little notes asking people to take these away and I attached them to each one of the boats and tubes that were there. And as I'm sure you've
noticed, I got no response at all. Um, but if it's on the gazebo side, um, I mean, we could put up more than one, I suppose. I um >> yeah, that's my that's my question is
that should there be more than one and then should it just be >> um one over where like the library I mean where the gazebo is and the the kayaks are and then also kind of to the left of where people
actually put their boats in. But maybe just I don't know that's not really the park though. So like maybe just storage of personal watercraft or items, you know, on town property is prohibited
because that way you can have two different sign or two signs which you know cover it. But um >> the park would be considered the open grassy area including the garden and the
gazebo and where the kayak racks are. Um we have a welcome sign out on the path >> um that we don't necessarily consider part of the park. On the other hand, we also have the old um changing facility
um which is you know part of what we what we manage there. So, in a sense, I guess you could consider it everything from the parking lot over to the gazebo, stopping at the Littlefoot Bridge, and I
would think stopping at the wetland area that's um that's at the far side of the grassy area. Um, I don't know if anybody feels that changing it from the park to town
property is more appropriate. I have run this past the Oh, I should tell you I was asked by the select board to run this by Haley and Haley liked it and she sent it to Brennan and the idea is for Brennan to make up a couple of laminated
signs, just temporary signs, more than one that we can put up there and try to get those things away for this year, right? And then the a sign like this would probably be for next year. And I think it could reasonably be put
on the the path coming from the parking lot because anybody bringing in a boat is presumably carrying it in. I don't think people are are mooring boats in there and then walking away. Although I don't know because I haven't been able
to catch them. I guess I guess personally I would like it to be part of a bigger issue which is like and just opening a can of worms here but like when you're going down
Randall Road the rotted sign that tells you to clean off your boat has been sitting there you know and people prop it up and then sometimes it falls over and then people prop it up but like that sign should be put back up too and And
like maybe signage in general should be looked at um anywhere heading into Randall Road like maybe like from the beginning of the road saying you know can't you know so you're you're making
it known like once like right where the sign is for like clean off your boat to you know so that you don't have any whatever they're called. um you know like muscles or anything that would cling to the bottom of your
boat. Maybe that's the point where a sign like, you know, maybe there'll be multiple signs, you know, just to make the point clear that, you know, this is not a storage area. But um >> that's not that's not our jurisdiction
there. That's not our our thing. >> Isn't that Conservation Commission's jurisdiction, Randall? >> White, right? But it's not. >> So that's my point. That's I know I know that's not what you're saying, but I'm saying that I've looked at that. I've walked past that sign for years. It just it needs to be
addressed. So, like if we're addressing signage for Elliot Park, we should be addressing and just kind of cleaning the whole area up. And possibly like if we were going to actually look at it in terms of we're looking for signage, maybe should be signage over um at um
what is it called? Top of the lake there, too. Because if people are not storing their stuff here, maybe they're going to go then put it somewhere else on that property, you know, which is also town property. Um >> yeah. Oh, I think I think we're kind of
apples to oranges a little bit, but but I do agree, mayor, that um previously in this meeting there has been some more discussion about um the Randall Road area, things like um some uh vegetation removal and fixing of the boat ramp and
that's what um I was talking. So, Bob's been a little having some discussions with people. I think Mark Rivers is interested in it. Scott also has commented a little bit just hearing what people are saying. So maybe >> that whole all of those things can be addressed sort of at once. Maybe the the
signage right >> in and around the boat ramp area can be improved at the same time that we do some vegetation removal and um some improvement to the actual boat ramp itself that the asphalt has deteriorated
and all that. But right now, we're just talking about Elliot Park. Um, and and this sign, uh, I think is what we're talking about tonight. I understand. >> I'm just saying that I would like it
>> I'm just saying that I would like it that if we could globally talk about it, not just Elliot Park, but just globally because you know it why why would we just talk about one aspect of this when when um
>> because it was brought forward by the Elliot Park group. >> Okay. So they maintain that area and they they came forward with this because they're having a problem right there. But I agree that um signage at all conservation areas should be >> we should we should think more about it
and it should be consistent. >> Right. So, I'm just asking, can we put this on the agenda for the next meeting where we talk about globally um you know the uh uh Randall Road area
including Elliot Park and and make a decision. You know, it shouldn't be that. Um, >> with respect, I would request that you address our request tonight. The summer is almost over,
right? So, the request is really for this sign um that does say at this park. Um, >> we could we could remove the words at this park if that works better. >> Yeah. So, storage of personal water pass
or other items prohibited. Yeah, I think that might that might be helpful in just um using the sign in other locations. But yeah, so right now the question
before us is this sign. If it's going to be put up in Elliot Park, where would we like it put? Um, so one of my questions is I I I know when you start walking down that path, there is the sign you have right now and it's got the tick
sign underneath it. And were you thinking of adding this to the same post or is that too many signs on one post? I was thinking possibly closer to the open area of the park. >> Yeah. Could it be put up on the gazebo
or were you definitely thinking of putting like a new post with concrete or anything? >> We would prefer a new post if possible. >> I really don't want to I don't really want to nail things into the gazebo.
I kind of feel like people probably come down with their boat and a kayak or whatever watercraft that they have, do it in the boat launch area and then put it up on the land. I don't I don't feel like they're climbing or they're
carrying it down the path. Um I mean, not that I know who these people are, but like >> it would just make sense that they're just going to easier climb in and climb out right there and then walk leave it there and then walk down the path. I mean, people have been there's canoes that are down there that are further off
in the in the that have been there um for a number of years off in the kind of more in the woods area. >> Where do you think the park the sign could work? somewhere like I guess when you're looking at the gazebo and the gazebo's to the right and the water's to
the left somewhere up against maybe those um like whatever that brush is there so that it's you know it's visible from any kind of angle when you get in and out of the water if you're approaching it from the path that way you're covering as many things as
possible or many ways that people could see it as possible. Mhm. So maybe a little like just a >> backward gazebo from the water. A little to the left of the gazebo there.
>> Exactly. But up against the the brush that's you know kind of >> south. >> Yeah, I see exactly what you mean. Um, would you be using concrete or is this just you're just going to use a post hole digger and put it like a
couple feet down or >> uh Yeah, just really a post hole digger or perhaps even just a sledgehammer. >> Oh, okay. >> You know, we don't want a we don't want a big deal.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, I see someone has their hand up. Um, Frank, >> yeah, I just want I, you know, I agree with Katherine. I I see the stuff. I live across from Randall Road and I see the clutter. I see the things left there, but the only thing I have
an issue or problem with is um if I'm a town resident and I leave stuff on town property and it gets confiscated, where does it go? And how there's nothing on the sign saying, "Hey, if we took your kayak, call the police or whatever." So something should
be addressed to say what happened to unwanted property on the thing. It's like right now it goes where does it go? I know that for a fact that Lake Wyola on their private beaches used to do the exact same thing and then
auction them off and make money and piss off residents who did stuff. So I I think right now we should look at you know what happens to this property. It's if if I'm a resident of of Shootsbury and I put something on my on town
property that I think I have a right, then we should have some recourse to say, "Oh, you weren't supposed to keep there because of the sign, but who do I call to get my property back?" >> And I think it's very important.
>> Since it says per order of the select board, if it were me, I would call the select board >> and then There should be it should be addressed there. It's just per all of their select boards. I I think it should you know there's something should be said um because I know Lake Wyola
association has done this several years in a row where they took prop private personal property that people thought they could leave on a beach and it disappeared. So I know you say call the select board but it should be it there should be something on that sign that's per order of the
Shbury select board. uh call or do something. It just, you know, it doesn't say anything. You know, you're wrong for doing this, but you should be able to have a number there or something that So, someone loses property because they're a town resident, they should have a recourse. That's all I'm saying.
Thank you. >> Right. And of course, we don't know that they are town residents. The park is extensive. They used by out oftowners, too. >> Exactly. So, that the whole thing is is that But we should have a number or something up there saying, "Please call if your property has been removed. so
that someone can say, "Oh, maybe the police takes it and puts it in the back of the town hall, but it shouldn't just disappear and go into an abyss." That's my thought. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Stop sharing. Um, >> how does that work when cars get towed? Is there a phone number on that? Um, I don't know if the signs that say will be towed then have a phone number.
>> I don't I don't think they do. Not that I remember. Cuz sometimes you have to try to figure out where your car got towed. like bigger cities and things, you have to go ask or call call town hall and somewhere the police and say because in
some big enough cities I think they tow them to different places. >> I mean clearly the intent here is to discourage people from treating the park as their own personal backyard. We're not trying to go out and and take
possession of their property and we would certainly give it back with a scolding. Um but uh what we're trying to do is discourage people and we can't really do anything until we've actually told people that this is not permissible
and that's the purpose of the sign. >> Right. Um, yeah. I guess I'm wondering too if there's been like, you know, small little letters on the bottom, something like if if your property
is removed. Um, >> most people start with the police department, you know, because they're the ones who, you know, usually have the sign, you know, they're usually the ones that have the signs. Um, >> right.
>> You know, establish the laws on the street. >> When I my car got towed in Boston because of street cleaning, I called the police department. They said, "Oh, yeah, your car was called because of street cleaning. It's here at this spot. I just don't think it's indiscriminately that they disappear into an abyss and no one
knows where their personal property is." That's all I'm asking is >> Well, and that would be that would be the case. They would call the police and they would >> but all so so per order of the police department or something so that they that the property then the police will
have to be notified when something is removed or the police will have to remove it. >> Right. >> And if the police remove it then they have a record and they have a permanent record of of a police log that they removed it. That's all I'm asking. It shouldn't be per personally removed and
and and into abyss and someone can't find anything. Thank you. >> That won't happen, but that's a very good point. >> All right. So, I think the question before the commission is, so this sign has has been
approved by the select board. It sounds like maybe a little bit of the language on it might change, but the question for the commission is where because it's conservation land and there's resource areas where we're comfortable with them putting the sign. And it sounds like
they want to use a post. Um, and sort of to the left there of the gazebo is where we're thinking. Um, just in terms of resource area, the farthest away from the bank of the of the lake would be preferred by the commission. Um, so
possibly, you know, pretty close to the gazebo, but with a way so that it's facing so that as mayor was saying, people voting to that location see it. And then also people who walk across the beach see it. Um those seem like that
seems to be the best location or what we're kind of recommending. Bob, do you have any comments on it? >> No, I I I think it's a a good idea and um I would support it being uh supported by a poll. Um so I I'm I'd be happy to
make a motion if that's the time. Yes, >> I I'd like to move that the uh commission allow a um a poll with the uh sign as as uh written um with the uh
well, maybe we do an amendment on additional uh information on the bottom, but uh that the commission approved that uh u request. >> Okay. with the location being as
discussed tonight. All right. Second. Okay. All right. Uh roll call. Douglas. >> Hi. >> Fox. >> Hi.
And Wilson. Hi. I hope that gave you the info you need. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thanks, Cat. Good night. >> Have a good night. >> Good night.
>> All right. Um, next is the the bylaw regulations. Um, so I sent you guys the definitions section and the um docs, peers, and floats
section, which is really the last two um sections that we really should look at before pulling it all together. And um tonight too, I thought maybe we would look at dates for the public hearing um and see what people feel about that. Do we want
to do it on a night of a normal meeting or do we want to do it as a its own standalone um meeting? But let's go through the definitions first.
I will share my screen. Did I not did I not do this? All right. Can you guys see it? Yes. All right. I'm gonna make it bigger,
but this thing won't get out of my way. There we go. All right. Definitions. I really didn't have much. I went through the whole definition section. A lot of my things are just sort of
editorial. Um So I may started this last time. This is how she's gray. to jump in if you guys have any changes anywhere, >> any comments or changes.
The first one that I really have is Oh, and I already did the discharge. I guess we did that last time. Good. Size that. I think I was trying to get rid of that
paragraph there. It was just a return that had needed to go. Just formatting. I highlighted this at some point, but um but I'm fine with it. All looks fine to me.
You know, some of these things are in the bylaw, so we can't change them. Like things like the size of a freshwater wetland of at least 500 square f feet in area. So if it's less than 500 square ft, it's not
jurisdictional. Um, if it's over 500, it is, but that's not something we can change here in the regulations because that 500 square feet is in the bylaw. And a a lake um is considered a lake if it's over 10 acres or more.
That too, I believe, is in the bylaw. here. I wanted to change I want to change this to Ken Sh. All right. Yeah, here's got just something to note, but again it's something in the blog. So we're we're good. Is it any a pond the
definition of a pond any open body of fresh water as defined by the well protection act except that the size threshold of 10,000 square ft shall not apply. Guys, when the wetlands protection act for it to be a pond has to be 10,000 square ft, but under our
bylaw, it doesn't necessarily have to have that size restriction. And it has more it has this definition here. Beth, I'm curious what why wouldn't we um
say that the the 10,000 threshold would not apply under a pond? Is it is it that we could be uh more we could we could um have a pond that was 8 8,000 square feet. Is that kind of where we're going? We could be
stricter, >> right? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. We can have a open body of fresh water that's smaller than 10,000 square feet can be considered a pond under the bylaw. >> Okay. Yeah. I I think that's I think
that's valuable. They always say make it make it stricter uh and that way you can hold the jurisdiction. So um I support that. Thank you. I didn't really have any changes other changes. Um,
I think you know much of this like I was just looking at the vernal pool definition. The font is a little weird, but um um you know, I look through this and it it reflects what's in the wetlands
protection act and um and makes sense to me. Confined basin or depression holds water for a minimum of two contuous months during spring and summer. Contains at least 200 cubic feet of water at some time during most years. is
free of adult predatory fish populations. It's all good. Um, yeah. So, I didn't really have any changes to the definitions besides I guess discharge was the only thing that
I wanted to change. Do you guys have any edits or changes? >> All right, great. >> No changes for me. All right. So then let's go down to docks, peers, and floats.
This one Here it is. I just wanted to take a look at this. I think we had a pretty long discussion about it when we went through it before and kind of decided we would come back to it. So, I thought maybe we
should. Did you guys get a chance to read through it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'll just make my comments and then if you guys have other areas that you want changed um we can look at those too. Um so I remember when we moved
these things around and I >> I thought it made more sense >> moving some of these word words around a lot of it still got left in there. It just got moved. Um, where did it go? I'm lost now. Here we go. Um, so one
thing I noted in rereading it now was this 10.15 talking about boating. Um, I don't feel like we regulate boating. you know that this section is more about us regulating when docks are put in or
peers are put in or or floats are put in. Um so this kind of description of the boating may affect resource areas. Um, I just think it it it doesn't need to be in there because we don't regulate boats at all. And yeah, they may have an
effect on um the resource areas in the ways that are talked about here. And somebody who regulates boats, we should do something about that. But we don't we don't have any way of regulating whether somebody brings their boat up to a beach or not, whether
there's a dock there or not, you know, >> and harms. So, my thought is to take that out and I'm I'm just going to do that. But if you guys want it in there. >> No, that was I was in agreement with that. I I didn't understand
that dipping the toe into that section on voting activity, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. I I don't think I've I've seen that in a in in a um bylaw before, so I would be in favor of striking it.
>> Okay. Um, I had a question though with the preamble which was 10 point 10.1.1 where it talks about um, chapter 91 licensing requires an order of conditions or determination by the
commission before a license can issue can be issued. But I I feel like this whole section um most of my questions about this whole section stems from
um what about like where are we where are we going with this? like okay say as is say this goes in to place is
that requiring that um every I'm trying to remember that it says um it says under let me just back up under 10.4.1 4.1. The commission shall review a proposed dock that is not a
seasonal float, buoy, or swimming platform. But how do we know who is or isn't licensed or ready? Like what are we getting into here with with um the you know, are we stepping on the
toes of the mass D with this chapter 91? And then um and then it and it says that we have to um we have to do an order of conditions
or determination before they can um issue a license. Are they already I I didn't get a chance to look at chapter 91, but are they already regulating this um
so that um 10.4.1 4.1 um doesn't apply like or or would be part of this something the state already does I guess. Um, so the way it works is, um,
docs are regulated under chapter 91 and that's a separate application process, >> but they won't approve that license until they see an approved order of conditions from the conservation commission, >> right? I get that. >> So if you're Yeah. So if you're doing a
dock, you really have to be doing both applications. But but my question though is that every like say everybody's doc is everybody's dock already out here grandfathered or do we know who has a license or doesn't have a license and
who should be then coming be like before us that's the part I'm not clear on like um or is it only new or proposed docs? It's new. Well, um,
so any new doc >> would go through if if this gets added to our regulations. Any new doc would go through both, right? Old docs, this wasn't part of our regulations. And I don't think the chapter 91 people were kind of
as on the ball as they are now, you know, like now they they want people to have it and they also want people to have an approved order of conditions. Um, so I think what we wrote in here is
we go there something about, you know, when when a pro when a property submits an application. >> It was 10 point is it 10.4.1 4.1 um probably oh here we go. So 10.43 if the commission receives an application for
any proposed activity in a resource area or the aura on a property with an existing unlicensed dock. So here's a situation where you're you're dealing with a property that already has something's been in you know for however many years. um an unlicensed doc walkway
or other a condition of the order condition shall require that a chapter 91 license be obtained um and unless otherwise exempt there are some exemptions in chapter 91. So that's the catchall right there. It's like somebody comes forward to do an addition
to their house. We go out there they're they're submitting a notice of intent to do an addition to their house. We go out, we see a doc, we say, "Oh, do you have a chapter 91 license for that?" >> Okay. >> They say, "No, I never got one because nobody told me to ever get one."
>> You know, then we say, "Well, sorry. We can't issue your permit to do the addition to your house till you go through the chapter 91 process." >> That's my question. Okay. So that's where I'm wondering is that how how that gets like
>> that's kind of the attempt to try to to try to get people uh license around the lake is is this method here. We're not going to run out and start asking everybody to do it. It's if they come to us with an application, we're able to
say, "Oh, you have an unlicensed dock. you know, you have to go get a license to get this permit to do the other work you want to do. Okay. But it also says though that 10.4.2
is that it's under seasonal floats, buoys, and swimming platforms are administrative approval. Yes. >> Um, >> but up here it says under 10.1.1
is that order of conditions or determination by the commission. So, um, let me see. Yep. go. So that's one of the parts I highlighted was um
is that very question is um you know if docks and peers and walkways were requiring notice of intent. It's a larger structure has more impact. But then we tried to sort of give people a
break with the buoys and the swimming platforms. And I'm not sure if this was something because Jan Jan had a lot of comments on this when we went through it before. >> And I'm wondering if that was where that came from to sort of try to give people a break. But as you just noted, it's
like that's not going to help them get a get a chapter 91 license because >> chapter 91 is requiring the order of conditions, >> right? >> Um and then I don't know exactly also where it states in here that that
um if somebody's doing like a deck or adding to a deck or stairs that that they're going to have to do this first. And like we that we're also looking at their buoy. like how are we putting them on notice if that is in fact the case
um that their their you know their doc or doc or their you know is not um um licensed because I think a I think most people I know that when I lived on the other side of lake
and I that that everybody believes that the person before them obtained the proper permission so that when you're buying that property, everybody thinks that that dock that
they have is is already allowed because it's always spread around the lake. like don't don't change it because you know then you know you could get in trouble because so like but some people
do they then go instead and take it out the wooden dock and they put in a metal one or but most people I've seen it so many times where everybody instructs the other person who or the new owner of the property not to change their dock because
>> they would then risk risk, you know, being subject to, you know, the D doing something about that. But, um, you know, but I I think putting people on if if if people are going to like in
the s the short summer months want to do a deck or stairs or whatever and they've got a dock out and their dock isn't licensed and they find that they have to get that all done, too. before their permit is allowed for
whatever it is else that they want to do. I think there's going to be a huge up about that. But um I'm just wondering if there's a way that people could be put on notice in all of
this. Um, there's certainly the idea of somehow summarizing it in some kind of a flyer that goes to everybody who has docks and things on the lake. We have to
summarize it, make it pretty clear kind of what what's going on. Um, let me just take comments. Um, I think I'm going to do Bob first just because he's a commissioner, but I do see your hand up, Miriam. Um, Bob. >> Yeah. So, um I do believe that chapter
91 does require it to be recorded on your deed. Um and um >> uh mayor is correct that uh you know there would certainly be a predicted
uproar uh docs need a chapter 91 permit um as as well and and and then we decide what they need as far as our local bylaws are concerned. We have that have that in in the bylaw. But um uh yeah,
pond floats need uh chapter 91. And uh um what I I remember one of my neighbors probably about 10 years ago said uh I I registered my dock with the um uh with chapter 91 and they said I was the only
one on the lake that had done so. Um that that that's not >> Yeah. But um >> u mayor, I know that we live in the blissful world of we're grandfathered in or it doesn't count and so on and I say this and probably this should go on the
record that I that I do have a pawn float and uh could consider be considered uh conflicted here. I I did check with town council on a previous occasion and she said that I can talk and opine on it. Um but um uh yeah uh
both uh conservation permits and and chapter 91 permits as unpopular as that that is those those are are are required there is no grandfathering in just just so everybody knows >> I'm not saying to grandfather it in or not I'm just saying that if this is in
fact what the commission wants to do and is proposing I feel like we should be then it should be something that is going to be enforced. Then like if you if this is going to be something that the commission is going to require that
people have, you know, uh order of conditions and get the chapter 91 license, then don't like either we're going to follow through with it or don't put it in. I mean, just like, you know, just if you're going to say it, then
then do it. But like I also just feel like people really should know what we're proposing at the lake that that the lake is a a people are very very attached to, you know, people view that,
you know, what is it 75 ft from the from the shore as their property. You know, they they they're very territorial about that. Um um you know, one of the neighbors like if you kayak in front of
that 75 ft does not like that, you know. Um but you know, I'm just saying that if there's going to be something changed concerning this, then it needs to be it needs to be something that people are aware of.
>> Yeah. I I feel like um it has we have been in enforcing it. Um there's been a number of situations um where somebody's come for uh renovations to their house and it's been observed that they didn't have a chapter
91 and and they were required to get it before they could get their order conditions for there. But I 100% agree that maybe we put something together like a flyer basically that gets sent around that's sort of like is your doc
you know does your doc have chapter 91 licensing? You know, if not, the Conservation Commission has added to their new regulations. You know, something like this, which then would say, >> we advise you to do it. And >> if you don't a future application with
us, you're going to be required to, you know, something like that, >> right? >> Like just Yeah, >> we can help. >> Can I make a comment? >> Get in touch with mayor. I'm I'm like third tier here, so it's
not I'm I don't have a doc. >> Yeah. I have one question and then you can then you can talk. Miriam, um Bob, do you know if buoys are included in the chapter 91 requirements? You mentioned floats. >> Yeah. Yeah, technically buoys are
included. Um uh we I just put in a boom on the uh the Marramac and uh the buoys and booms are are required to have those. Um um so uh it it seems to be an under
um under enforced regulation, but it it is clear and it's a state regulation that applies to every every uh town in the Commonwealth. Okay, Miriam. >> Yeah, thanks. Um, well, I just wanted to
share again some historical context for the commission because, you know, we have changes in membership over time and it's easy to sort of forget what past discussions have been. But when I got onto the commission in 2020, the commission already had a practice of
requiring that people get chapter 91 licenses. That was already in place in 2020. And I remember in the spring of 2021, we put together a handout explaining for lake residents all the
different permitting requirements for different kinds of projects. And we had a meeting with uh representatives. I'm sorry, the getting dark here for some reason. We um we had a meeting with representatives from LWA and ELWAC. I probably, if I thought about it, could
even tell you what meeting it was. um because we wanted LWA to distribute this handout to all of its members and we couldn't get a commitment from Donna West at that meeting to email it to all
of their members. But as far as I'm aware, it's been on the town website um since 2021. And when LWA was having its annual meetings, usually we would have somebody bring a stack of printed copies of it to make available. I think uh in
years gone by, Cat Hilton did that for the commission. But, you know, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. You can try to provide information. I think, you know, putting handouts on the town website and trying to um distribute them in those ways is a
good faith effort to make this information very transparent. And um you can look at that handout. I'm sure it's still on the website. you can update it if you feel like you need to, but a lot of thought went into that and there was um I remember we had a number of sessions discussing it before we
actually finalized that draft. >> Thanks. >> That's great. That's great, Miriam. I I maybe was part of that and I didn't remember it or maybe that was preme. I'm not sure. But that's great to know. And um Bob is our new our new liaison to El
Wack, right Bob? Uh oh. Is he gone? >> No, he's >> I apologize. I just switched off my sound. Uh yes. Yes. Uh I I've been to my first ELWAC meeting and and I am the zone. So maybe you could bring a few of
these flyers, you know, a stack of them and see if people are willing to take them and share them with their neighbors and and and the fact that both of you live down there, you may and Bob, you could also just distribute them to your
neighbors a little bit. Um, >> yeah, I think that's just going to go over swimmingly. >> Yeah. Well, you know, there's a number of people uh who have gone through the process at this point. >> Um and
yeah. All right. So, um I guess my big question is the question of 10.4.2. Is that something we can even really do if chapter 91 is requiring an order of conditions for example a seasonal float
to um get the the license issued then we can't really do an administrative approval for a seasonal float. Um we would have to uh require a notice of intent
for a seasonal float. Um, which also brings up when I was looking at this, this brings up my question, my thought of um, if we're issuing somebody a permit that has a expiration date of three years. Um,
but it's sort of like it's a seasonal thing, you know, usually you've got, so say if it was like a dock installation, say it was a permanent dock and so you somebody submits a notice of intent to put in a new permanent dock. We give them an order of conditions that gives
them three years to put that in and they finish it and we issue a certificate of compliance and we're done and that's all great. But what if we we issue but then somebody comes to us with a seasonal dock.
We issue them the same thing. It's like here's the conditions on how we want you to install your seasonal dock, but that's going to expire, but you're like re kind of like redoing construction every year of of that. I
mean, I guess the way we would have to word it is it would maybe it would be in the certificate of compliance ongoing conditions. You know, that every year when you put in your seasonal float, these are the things you need to follow.
Um but it's an ongoing condition even when the order conditions expires after 3 years. Um that's the best I can think of for seasonal things.
Well, I mean, why um other than Bob, which we get into, but just joking Bob, but nobody else, everybody, most people take their floats out for the season. You know, he knows what I'm talking
about. But, um, you know, people No, people take I I don't know anybody who Well, I don't know, you know, I don't know anybody who doesn't take their float out. I mean their or their dock out for the sum, you know, it's only
seasonal. So >> seasonal. Yeah. >> So that's the part that I didn't Yeah. So like I was saying, I would think the conditions would just need to be um written as this is how it should be
installed every year. Um, and then that would be sort of like an ongoing condition instead of something that expires after 3 years. >> So your float or your dock is only good for three years.
>> Well, a typical permit is good for three years, you know, because usually it's like putting an addition on a house. >> You got three years to do it. If you don't do it in those three years, you better come back to us and ask for an extension. um seasonal things. The actual work
repeats itself every year. You know, every year you go out and do the work that we're allowing you to do. Um, >> I think that's where Jan was getting, you know, like she was hammering that point too, that that, you know, having
everybody having people even apply every year for this when it's just for several months. That would also that would be >> that would be an insane amount of work, you know, if everybody had to. Yeah. So, I'm thinking more of
>> issuing a permit to somebody to install a seasonal float. You know, here's your map showing where you're going to do it every year and here's your process of how you're going to do it every year. And that's an ongoing condition in like the certificate of
compliance kind of thing. So it it's just it's one permit but it's a it has on ongoing conditions that go on forever is the only way I can think of. >> Not just the three years it goes on even Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. Goes on forever. And the only way to do that in the wetlands permitting process is on the certificate of compliance. There's a box you can check for ongoing conditions. Um, and we could put something in there
>> is what I was thinking. >> Okay. >> But so it does sound like we would have to include floats, buoys, platforms with um needing a notice of intent so that
they can get their chapter 91 licensing. >> Tom, you have your hand up. >> Thanks. Yeah. Um, as far as I know, I'm looking at the chapter 91 website, at least for simplified project applications, it can go up to 15 years. So, I just wanted to clarify the chapter
91 um terms are much longer than the three years. And >> um that might help address some of those concerns. >> Uhhuh. >> The three years is the notice of intent from the conservation commission
>> or the order of conditions. Yeah, I guess I thought I understood it as like once that's set and you have your chapter 91 set, then it's a 15-year chapter 91 license. And um I didn't know if I didn't think you had to go back to the concom every three years about the
same thing existing. But I I just wanted to mention it might not only be three years, but I should actually learn more before I speak more about it. >> I guess that would be another observation. Just seems like this is a great opportunity for a lot of
education, I think. >> Yeah. No, good to know. I didn't know chapter 91 was 15 years. That's great to know. >> Yeah. I think in this case, people are getting two separate permits. They're getting their chapter 91, which sounds like 15 years. Awesome. They're also
getting their order conditions for just the impact to the resource area that installation of a dock would be. And unfortunately, that permit for 3 years. Yeah. Unless we put ongoing conditions in the certificate of
compliance. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. I was just thinking about that. >> Sure, Miam. >> Yeah. I think where we're the confusion is is that these are uh seasonal docks,
so they get moved on and land and back in the water every year. But if you think about a permanent dock, then it makes sense. You'd have a permit for the construction and the work that's being permitted is the installation of the dock. That's a one-time installation.
You got three years to do it. With the seasonal docks, I think that, you know, it's kind of like uh the commission's thought process usually in these cases is that even though it's being repeated every year, it's you're doing it one time, right? The impact of putting it in
even though you're moving it back and forth. And um I don't think anybody requires people every 3 years to renew a dock license unless um you know those there are some towns with great ponds that have um harbor masters and they
have regulations where these things have to get licensed every year. Um, so DP does allow towns to take over the chapter 91 process with a harbor master and those towns actually you have to pay every year for a license. So that's like
a whole different thing, but um that's a way to get out of the chapter 91 game, but it means you have to have a harbor master. And I don't think has uh the one with all of that ponds have I mean I think it's there's uh there's one town shoot in Massachusetts
has five great ponds. So you know they have a lot of a lot of action going on. Um but I think that's the thought process is it you know imagining if it was just one time permanent installation. >> Yeah. And I I think we can write up an order conditions
that clarifies that that it's it's seasonal, but the installation process is what we're permitting and that kind of thing. And then have something in the ongoing conditions that allows for it to be done every year.
Is that you Bob with your hand up? >> Yeah. I just wanted to say as far as the notice of intent concerned, they're good for three years. Couldn't we um uh renew it then uh because uh uh
orders of conditions can can be renewed uh under under the approval of the commission. >> Yep. Uh the applicant typically the way it's done is as they apply for an extension. >> Extension. That's what I meant. Yeah. Extension.
>> Yeah. So I mean that would be another way that that puts a burden on people who own docks that every 3 years they you know need to file for an extension. Um, that's another method of doing it instead of
sort of putting an ongoing condition in either the order itself or in the certificate of compliance that just basically allows, you know, they they came in, they got the permit once, they don't need to come back. Like as long as
they follow how that the order conditions tells them they they need to do the installation every year, as long as they follow that they don't ever need to come back is what I was thinking. Um, you know, just condition
it that way with an ongoing condition kind of thing. >> I I think that would be wellreceived. Yeah. Sure. >> Yeah. But so you guys agree that we need to add floats and buoys and platforms to
actually requiring notices of intent. Um let's see proposed dock pier walkway. So seasonal or permits already in there. float buoy
platform or other water dependent structure. Um, and then we get rid of this. And that's just because those I haven't looked that much at chapter 91, but it sounds like
all of those things require chapter 91. Um, so then we get rid of this part. Require chapter 91 licensing. So if they do, then they need conditions. the water dependent structure
and shall review your proposed stock. I don't know why. Okay, let's see if I had any other changes. I was wondering about this part that again we added last time and when I just reread it now
I I don't understand it. uh seasonal shall mean the use of a dock, ramp, float and all supporting materials are not allowed in place in any resource area prior to April 1 and are removed uh prior to November
one. And then we added this based on the actual annual dates set for raising and lowering the lake level. So that's what they're saying is that um sometimes the lake level lake level is
kind of a complicated thing based on the damkeeper and what he's kind of told as to when he he raises and lowers it. Um, but it's kind of like kind of like you're you can't park here because of snow
removal, you know, from these dates, April 1st to So, it's kind of a a coming off as like a double negative, but um it could say something like seasonal use blah blah blah are um are only allowed
um uh from April 1st to November 1st or earlier. dates that are set for lowering and raising the level of the lake. Do you you know what I'm saying? Like because sometimes the lake is lowered
like in October, you know, and um and if it's a really like mild winter, you know, I think people might be putting their docks out before April 1, you know. Yeah. So maybe we we say um or dates
based on the actual raising or or or these dates could be impacted by the actual annual dates set for raising and lowering the lake level. um >> like maybe however
>> I I think it could say are only allowed um from April 1st to November 4th. Um or um unless maybe unless the the lake is you know raising and lower the lake is
you know I guess outside of that time frame are only allowed >> from April in any resource area from April 1st to November 1st
unless the actual raising and lower late dates or I don't know I'm talking myself in a circle here. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Uh are only allowed in place in any resource area
from April 1st of each year to no November 1st of each year. And then what did you say? Um, >> unless >> unless unless the the um raising and
lowering the lake is outside of those time frames like um and I and it's really determined. I don't know. It's kind of like I think they put I think the association puts something out like an email saying the lake is going to be lowered. Get your
docks in. you know, but they never put anything saying when they shut I don't I don't think they ever put anything out saying when they're shutting the the damn off. Do you know what I mean? Like in the spring. I don't remember seeing that.
But >> yeah, but you Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That makes more sense to me. I wasn't I didn't know what we were trying to say. >> Yeah. And then that's just like I said that's
like determined by the damkeeper who is told it by Connecticut River people I think if I remember correctly. Okay. We could say unless the razoring lowering of the lake determined by the
damkeeper. Whoops. Yeah. Is outside this time period. Okay. Right. I think that was it for me for for changes to this to this section. Did Did you guys have any other changes?
Um, I guess the only other thing that I had questions about was that 10.4.5. Um, because now it sounds like we're making that a little bit. Is that redundant now
or should it be combined with one of the earlier paragraphs about like 10 point 4.1? Um, do you see what I'm saying? like it's um yeah, this this part's a little
redundant. The end of it, um the reference to the guide is kind of something new, which I think is good to have in there, >> right? I was thinking maybe that should be in the preamble, like where it starts talking about chapter 91.
Yeah, we can we can put it up. Let's see. I would take this part out. Put it up here. See, you could put it as almost like a second thing here where you're just saying
or we can make it its on something like that. So comply with the applicable design standards we're going to Yeah. And then just get rid of this. Okay. Anything else?
>> Not for me. All right. Anything else, Mayor? >> I think so. All right. >> Call it good. >> Did you Did we eliminate 10.1.6?
Cuz that seems a little redundant, too. Yeah. Like, wait, wait. You're going past it. Um it's um if we already say if we're already saying that as appropriate, but we're saying like
we're saying it up higher. Yeah. So that's for any pre-existing folks. I don't know. It's always good to remind people. I, you know, I don't I don't
mind leaving that in. Um, we've kind in the beginning, >> okay, >> said that that it's required and here we're saying we really encourage you to to get one if you need one.
Um, >> okay. >> Okay. All right. So, stop sharing that. Um, so I think like I had said before, now I
really mean it. I'm gonna pull the document together like yeah, we'll have a redline version and we'll have a clean version and we'll have a public hearing and we'll do all the
uh public noticing of the public hearing and and and we'll we'll have those two documents available on the website. Um so what do you guys think for the public hearing? Let's see.
We have a meeting on the 28th in two weeks. Um, my next two weeks are really kind of crowded. Have to take my daughter back to college and September just looks very
refreshing. There's not as much going on. Could we do it on like towards I'm away um the first week of se I'm away the
first week of September and then um and then I when I come back from vacation like that then we're around the 11th and I just don't want to set myself up for so is it possible to put it on for the 25th?
Oh, sure. Like we we can we can do whatever. There's no deadline at this point. Um Okay. We do want to get it done, you know, but there's no real deadline. And then um so we could we could try to do it on the 25th
as part of one of our regular meetings. Um or we could do it as a separate own meeting. Um, I don't mind sort of thinking right now that the 25th that we'll have it on our
agenda for the 25th. Um, and then as we get maybe closer to the 25th, if all of a sudden we have a bunch of notices of intent and that kind of thing that then we um, we move it. I mean, we would have to
know that we're moving it probably even prior to the meeting on the 11th. Um, but usually by that point, we may know if we've got, you know, other applications that we would have to deal with on the 25th because
a hearing like that could could take a bit of time and could take most of the night. And so then if we've got hearings that we're required to do >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So sure, why don't we tentatively
>> go for the 25th of September? Sounds good to me. And so how in in terms of like um I'm you know new to this I keep saying that I'm new to this process but um what
when these we do have this public hearing then do we and we say we get comments about certain different things then then we go back and we discuss and go through which parts we don't approve
or or do approve or want to change or based on public comment or >> how long how does that process go? >> Yeah, if if that night if we get a lot of public comment, I think we
the best thing to do is always sort of to write it down and have a list of all the public comments. um and then address them specifically and decide whether we want to change the document itself. >> Okay.
>> Um if we have hold a public hearing and we really just don't get much change at all, then we you know at the meeting itself could go into the document and and you know make a couple changes kind of as that's sort of how I've seen it in
the past. is if you get a lot of public comment, you just start just keeping track of all of the comments and address them in a separate sort of document really. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I mean, I think we'll be accepting written comment, too. Um, we'll have to advertise that we're having the hearing and that the documents are available on the web page and that people are um allowed to submit written comments on
the documents. >> Okay. Um and then where say everything at some point gets obviously it will get approved. Where does it go after that? Does it have to
um does it go into effect at a at a certain point or do we determine when it goes into effect? Does it have to get reviewed by the town attorney again or how does that Um, I don't know if it has to get out of
terms. That's a good question. Um, we approve it. It should have an effective date. Um, I don't have the whole thing right now, but I'm but in the one of the sections of it should include effective
date. >> Okay. um doesn't have to go to town council. This is a vote that just the commission votes to approve the final version of it. Do we want town council to
take a look at it? Um I think maybe that is a that is a legit question and that that is maybe something we we do. Maybe we we produce what what the final version that we
want addressing all the public comment and then maybe we have them review it or maybe she should review it before that. >> I was going to say before Yeah, >> it could come to the public hearing. Right. >> Right. Um,
>> let me let me get let me reach out to Donna and and see if if that's what she thinks is a good process. And if it is, then I'll I'll get her the documents and um and let her know about the date that we
chose and Okay. Okay. And is it how do I go about asking about the Randall Road other than just asking whether Randall Road in general could be put on on the agenda for discussion
with the signage >> and then uh whatever you were saying about um you know upkeep of and I wasn't exactly clear what you meant about where you're on on the road upkeep Um, but
yeah, that sign really needs to be fixed. >> The one that that fell down that's next to the road. >> It's It's I've been here I've been here like I think 13 years and I I remember it fell down in one winter cuz I was the
one who propped it back up and then other people do too. And then sometimes it just moves. And but yeah, no, it really needs to be addressed. And and also I kind of like I like I was just saying, you know,
uh about the Elliot Park, you know, people I mean people are just going to, you know, there should be a sign at the other other side of the boat launch as well because that is an issue as well.
But >> yeah, no, we can we'll um put it on the agenda. Matteo's listening and let's put it on >> the August 28th um agenda to talk about it because so what happened was that I
>> Bark Rivers had sent me an email a bit ago about more like he was talking about vegetation removal and and doing something about the boat ramp and then I think he must have reached out to Bob too because Bob was asking me about it. Um, and then some of the questions that
have come up is like, is it conservation land? And if it is, is there already a management plan for it that was written? And um so I was going to look back and because I know we when Miriam was chair, she's not on the call anymore, but um yeah, >> there was a discussion for a little bit
about that area and and I can't remember if a management plan was um was created or was talked about, but >> I don't know. Yeah, >> all that stuff is something we can figure out and and we should because people are bringing up things like
vegetation removal and and stuff. Right. >> I mean, it's just >> that's what I was saying. I was opening up a can of worms. I mean, there's been times I mean, I can hear the traffic and there's been times that, you know, people have been living down there in the winter that has been mild. There's
been like a week or so ago, there was like some big party down there and and I'm sure that, you know, Tom and Frank can see from across the lake as well. But, you know, I just kind of also wonder whether the police would want to
be, you know, part of that because um yeah, like this I don't know this. It was like people in a loud truck and they were the I mean a loud muffler and they took off and I it woke me up. I could
hear them all the way on the other side of the lake down near the association hall and then they must have left people behind and they're coming up the road and they're they weren't like I don't think there was a fight or anything but they were clearly very happy and very loud and then then he came back and
picked him up and then he left again just oh my god but so like there I that's wondering if there's a can of worms here that because like the police might want to be involved in any kind of signage as Well, you know, because of
just issues that um I mean, I remember when Maryanne put the chairs down there, she had to she had to um chain them because people were having fires down there and burning the furniture because there was no wood
down there and that's plastic and they were trying to I mean, and she was very very upset about it because she's like, I spent a lot of money on this, you know, but Um, I'm just saying that there's kind of a bigger issue in terms of
>> Yeah. >> down there. >> Yeah. That just one story and then we do have to go. It's 9:14. But I went down tonight just to look to see because I knew we were going to talk about this tonight. >> Yeah. >> I drove in. I was the only car there. And while I'm over at the park,
>> a blue, if anyone knows this person, whatever, a blue Mazam Mihara comes down, does two donuts in the parking lot, like screeching, doing two donuts. And I'm I was over at the park area, and I'm looking and he did two donuts, and
then he backed up and parked right next to my car. >> And then I I walked out to my car, and I just kind of looked at this guy, and he went he just said, "Hi." And I said, >> "Hi." And I kind of gave him this look of like, "What the hell was that that you just did?" You know, like that was
>> Yeah, there's a lot there's a lot more that goes on there than I think most of this town. And it's a it's a you know, it's a you know, because I think people know that the police aren't on duty and when they're not on duty so that
>> it's a place where people go. So, and I just happen to be close enough to the road to hear them, >> you know. Um, but I mean to each his own, whatever. But like, you know, it's just I'm just saying that the police might want to be also involved in that. And there's there's, you know, there's a
lot that's goes on down there. So, yes. All in favor of agenda. >> We'll put it on the agenda. We'll talk. >> Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. >> Yeah. And so, the last thing was we were going to talk about site visits. We have the two site visits um
to uh the um the power line certificate of compliance and bright water bog and let's see next week I'm straight out um but the
following week the week that we have a meeting um I have a bit more time. In fact, like on Thursday the 28th, which is the day we have our next meeting, if people want to in the afternoon, I could do
that. Yeah, that works perfectly. I don't know whether you've got like 4:35ish somewhere or I don't know how long this will take, but somewhere in the fiveish range, I guess. >> Is that what that's what works for you?
>> Oh, yeah, that works for me. Yeah. >> Can you do earlier than that or no? >> Um, I can do four. Four. I can. Yeah, I can make it back here by 4. >> Okay. So, if we met at um Bright Water
Bog, maybe at 4. I mean, we have to check with uh Chris Valente at Kestrel to see her availability. Um, but if we met met as early as 4 there, we could probably do that one and still get over and do the
uh power line one. The power line one shouldn't take long. >> Okay. >> And I don't really think we even need to meet anybody for that. Um, >> okay. >> But, um, I don't know. Matteo, do you want to
reach out to to both of those applicants and see if that date and time would work? Yep. I'll let them know. >> Great. Bob, would you be available to join us?
>> Did you say four o'clock? >> 4 o'clock. >> And on which day? >> The 28th of August, the next day that we have a meeting. >> Sure. That So, that would be a uh a Tuesday. >> Thursday.
>> A Thursday. I'm sorry. Thursday. Um, uh, it's it's a possibility. I I I would like to come, um, but I can't be sure. >> Okay. All right. Well, yeah, Matteo, if you'd reach out to them and then, you
know, send an email to the commission and see who still can make it depending on what Kestrel says and everything, that would be great. Um, all right.
Any other unanticipated business? >> Nope. Okay. I take a I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Mjurn. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Roll call. Fox. Hi. Douglas.
>> Hi. >> And Wilson. All right, thanks everybody. It's kind of a long night, but >> yeah, good night. >> Great. Thank you, commissioners. Take care.