Hello. >> Good evening. >> Everybody enjoying the beautiful weather? It is beautiful >> today. It was gorgeous. Too many ticks, though. There's lots of ticks out there. Are there a lot of
ticks by the lake? Is the lake? >> Um, I can't say that they're out here. I I actually haven't gotten any here. I've gotten them other places around this spring, but not at the lake. >> I feel they've been extraordinarily
crazy this year. We have like a little jar we've been keeping them in and we must have like 30 over the course of a week. >> Wow. >> Yeah. Um they come in on the dog. Um I don't keep them in a jar. I I do the thing where you you put them between
in a piece of tape. You just fold the tape over them and then I just put them in the garbage. But the jar is fun. Is that for your kids? Do they like looking at the jar of ticks? >> I think so. Yeah, it's there's water in it, so they they do eventually die. It's
probably cruel of us, but I don't know. Helps you keep track. Yeah. Yeah. It's funny. Like I feel like there was deer ticks and then it moved into the dog tick and I you still see both of
them. It's like all of a sudden though the dog ticks were everywhere. They're so gross. Um, Scott is driving. He was driving and he thought he would get home just a little after 7. So, I knew he was going
to be late, but I don't I don't see Bob. So, let's wait a little bit for Bob just so we have a quorum to start the meeting with. But I do know Scott's coming. He's just going to be a little late. Okay.
Maybe I'll text Bob. Sometimes Bob needs a reminder. That's proof. Oh, there he is. All right. Just about to text you, Bob.
You are free at any time to give me a reminder. It's It's often helpful. >> I'm surprised how uh when when you retire, how the days just kind of run into each other. So, I appreciate appreciate the heads up.
I love that. I can't wait for that. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, it is 7:03. Um Oh, my Just a second. My dog wants to come. >> Sorry. All right. 7:03 on May 28th. that I'm calling this meeting of the
Shootsbury Conservation Commission to order. This meeting is being recorded. All right. So, our agenda, first thing is as usual, comments from the chair. Um, all I have is that and I think you guys probably
saw that the applicant for 36 South Laurel Drive has asked for a continuence to our next meeting. So, they're not coming tonight and we will vote to officially continue it um at 7:15, but
uh just in case anybody from the public, I see a couple people from the public are here. Um if any of you are here for that hearing, um it's being continued. So, we won't be talking about that project tonight. It's being continued to
our next meeting, which is June 11th. Um, and I think they're going to be on the agenda for 7:15. Um, and that's really I didn't have any other real real comments. I've been working a bit with with Kestrel on the
the foot. What's going to be happening with that? Um, they're getting closer to buying it from uh the foots probably in July. Um, but some things have come up. There's
there's this um there's like a a well that's on the property and there's a easement question, too. But, um, anyway, we're we're moving through it. Um, but I didn't have anything else. So,
moving on to our second agenda item is review and vote on minutes for May 14th. Did anybody have any comments or changes or concerns about those minutes? No. All right. So, I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes of May 14th, 2026.
>> So, move. >> I'll second. >> Great. All right. Fox >> I >> Douglas >> or sorry, I >> McDuffy. >> Hi, >> and Wilson. I
All right. Next, we have site visits. Um, mayor, do you have anything? I can't I can never >> No, just just that visit. I don't know if it was a site we count that I don't think we counted that as a site visit.
The one two 101 uh lever road 101 >> op did we go to 101 lever road >> op um oh right wait right wait right
wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right wait right >> is that 101 yeah right um yeah that was a site visit >> okay um okay so Uh we went there to look
at the um the waddles uh for um and to verify where the um how far away the um the wetlands area was. And it was
there were I on my before you got there and um and Scott I looked at the I saw the stakes which they had mapped out as to 100 ft from and then the waddles were
further away than that. So they were outside the 100 foot buffer. Um, and then you and Scott came and we walked the rest of it and didn't and I think they were then given
permission to or clearance for that I guess so they can move on to the next um next aspect of their development of the property. And then um as we talked about uh uh how they need if they wanted to do
some conservation trails they would have to come back to the commission. Um and what date was that? Um I don't know that was recently. Um, >> see, I think it was uh last Thursday
that >> May 21st. Yeah. Um, so uh I did take pictures of that and I can write up uh um you know the site visit for that if you want. Um
>> that'd be great. Yeah. >> Okay. I'll put on my list. Um I had a question about the library. Did are we ever going to talk about that um last
basin that's right near >> Yeah, that's still on me to go to measure it and to pull out the site plan and and see and I did promise I saw Maryanne the other day and um >> told her that I would kind of just write up a little list of the things we talked
about at that site visit that that they need to to do and for them to share with their um land landscape architect. >> So, I got to do that. I'll do that this weekend. >> Okay.
>> Um then the other thing is that 230 Lebert Road that Haley and Brendan were trying to set up a site visit for. Do you remember that, Mayor? And then we missed it. And so, I think that's still kind of trying to be planned. Um
>> yeah, I'm I'm out of commission. I'm leaving on Sunday and then I'm not coming back until >> Oh, yeah. That's right. >> Uh the 8th or the afternoon of the 8th. So, >> yeah. I'm not available. >> All right. Well, I saw the email that
Haley basically said she too was too busy. Um so, I may try to um and Matteo, maybe you can help with ask Brennan for the contact info for that and we can just set up our own concom site visit. It doesn't sound like
Haley necessarily has time to be involved or or wants to come on that site visit. So, it could just be a concom site visit. I I feel like um >> what where was the erosion coming from?
What was the I what was the backstory I guess on the whole thing? No idea. Okay. >> I don't know. It may be that stream that cuts across the school property that then eventually
is getting into this property. I I don't know. It sounds like the owner reached out to Haley Haley's office um about the issue and that's why they kind of moved ahead to try to set up a site visit, >> but then it just hasn't really happened. So
>> um anyway. Okay, >> do you think you could ask Brennan about that? >> Yes, I can definitely reach out to them and set up an appointment for you. >> That would be great. And and they I mean
if Haley or anyone wants to come on that site visit, great. But but it sounded like um something got set up but we didn't really get notified and then nobody was nobody came to the So I felt bad for the homeowner. Um, so I think maybe if we just go ahead
ourselves and do it, that might work out better. >> Um, all right, great. Next, we've got land management update from Scott. Hey everyone. I um well, let me ask you,
Madam Chair, do you um I I don't have much other than um I could give a quick update on um the the bidding process for Southbrook. And I I think those had gone
out. We have a a site visit scheduled, I think, for any potential biders. uh next Thursday where they could meet and go through much like we did before. We could answer questions. Um so we're planning to do
that, but I don't have any other updates on that project. Um >> so the bid went out, right? >> I believe so. >> Yeah. >> Matt could give an update on that better than I, but I I believe it's out and
hopefully we get good bids. Yeah. So, it was it was it was posted to the state combis website and it's in the um the recorder for the two weeks prior to the deadline. Um so, it was in the
27th and it's on for the 3 for advertising and also reached out to previous um uh individuals who had expressed interest in it. So, it's out there. It's live again. The deadline to submit a bid is June 10th at noon to be opened at the
June 11th concom meeting. >> Perfect. Great. All right, we got to get somebody set up. >> Okay, sounds good. I think the only other thing, this is probably more of a
placeholder uh for the feature, but on the West Quabin Woodlands, we did talk about meeting and um and kind of laying out maybe a little better idea of what a
trail could look like on that property. Uh there's a parking lot coming in off the road and um so we had talked about maybe having a trail that would uh go down um kind of on the southerntherly
portion of that property. The northern kind of northnortheast is pretty steep in there. But um anyways um I I do have that on my agenda at some point maybe to to visit with Stu from Castro and uh lay
that out a little bit better. Um anticipating that maybe we can get some additional um funds um and you know if not next year, maybe the year after to start some of that work. But I' I'd like
to get South Brook button down before we move on to that. >> I think that's all I had for land management report. Um, other than I know we want to talk some about the draft rags, too. And so whenever that works
best, but I'll yield back to you, Beth. >> All right. Thank you very much. All sounds great. I I guess one question on that for the site visit next week. I think we're going to try to also visit
um 36 South Laurel Drive right before going to that site visit. Any anybody can come to that site like if the commission any of the commissioners want to come along for the site visit at Southbrook um with the potential biders. It's open
to anyone, right? It's it's kind of open open to the public too, I think. >> Okay. Just letting I guess mostly letting you guys know that because I don't know if everybody knew about that. But I think it's 400 pm next Thursday
is the site visit for biders for Southbrook and everybody's welcome to walk South Brook with with them at that point if you want. >> Miss Matteo, are you planning to be there for that?
>> Uh yes, I am planning to be there. >> Right. I was just thinking last time we did this it would ended up being a virtual meeting which I it wasn't as good as doing it in in person but I thought one of the benefits there were at least
everyone got to hear what the questions and answers were and that way we could answer them you know um consistently. So I'm glad that you can make it there. So that's that's great. Thank you. Yeah, I I'll I'm going to I'm planning
to take notes and uh so if anybody inquires after the fact any other potential biders, I can provide them with the same information that every other bidder has. But yeah, the the visit from the the last time was impossible. I mean, Dave from the highway department indicated that the
road was completely inaccessible. Was under like something like 18 inches of snow. Um yeah. >> Well, good. this time they can all see the site so that'll be helpful.
Great. Um all right, it's 7:17. Um on our agenda, we've got um the continuence for the public hearing. So the public hearing is still open for the notice of intent for 36 South Laurel Drive. Um,
and the applicant reached out and like I said before, they requested to add continuance. Um, so we just need to vote on that. So I'm looking for a motion to continue the public hearing for the notice of intent for 36 South Laurel
Drive to June 11th at 7:15. >> So move, please. >> Second. >> Great. All right. Um, Fox, >> hi >> Khan. >> Hi,
>> Douglas. >> Hi, >> McDuffy. >> Hi, >> and Wilson. I All right, great. And, um, I know Mayor can't come, but I think we kind of Michael could, did you chime in whether
or not you could come to the uh, site visit at 36 South Laurel next? It's next Thursday at 3:30. The applicant actually I don't know if I texted back but the applicant had responded that that was a fine that's fine with them so they'll
their consultant will be there um >> potentially >> are you available >> potentially I have to check childare plans but >> okay just letting you know we're going to go to the site again just to check some more things trees
um all right so now next on our agenda is to discuss the draft regulation for conservation land that Scott's been trying to get us to look at. And I've I've partially reviewed them.
>> Yeah. Well, um I don't think this will be too terribly long, but maybe we could just take a a minute and we can walk through this. here we are time during the the meeting now. So I don't think it's a big deal if folks haven't had a
chance to look at them. Um I it's been a while since I've looked at them. I I had pulled these together. Boy, it was over maybe a year and a half ago. And I had the reason why I think
what had prompted that is that um we were being asked to put up signage and to see if we had any regulations to address some of the the
issues primarily at the town beach and um at the the state boat landing where uh folks were leaving garbage. age. Um people were bringing in their own personal watercraft and leaving them
there. Um and we didn't have any um uh real rags about that. I guess prior to that um there were instances of people driving like pickup trucks and things through
Southbrook um collecting vegetation and things without permit. Um, we brought that up uh to town attorney and crafted some signs that were put up. I think all
those signs have been, you know, since that point in time, they've been pulled up and thrown in the bushes somewhere. So, a lot of that signage isn't there anymore. Um, but it wasn't really, you know, sitting rags here is being handled by signage. and and and I'll just say, you
know, that's certainly an option, too. I I don't know that the the regulations are key. I I think having some how I tried to approach these are, you know, trying to allow more things
than not recognizing we have a lot of people who have been using these lands uh for a whole bunch of different uses for a very long time. Um but trying to draw some brighter lines on things that we wouldn't want, things that cause
resource damage, things that endanger um you know, the the the values that of these lands that were called out and um our our town plan. And um so with that, maybe if you're all good, I think I'd
just share this and we can go through it but part by part. So, >> sounds great. >> I am requesting >> Let's see. Okay. >> All right. Let's see if this works. Share. Okay. Do you see
>> Am I sharing? >> We see the document. Yeah. >> All right. Good. >> Um All right. Well, I'll just say I think the authorities and purposes I I my recollection is I used a lot of other towns
uh modeled after their um uh regulations for conservation lands. And so, um I would ask that Donna review these to make sure that they're appropriate. I'm not sure that we want
to spend a lot of time on the nitty-g gritties in terms of the general laws of chapter 40. Um, but I I I think those are correct. Um, probably more important is in the beginning is just the purpose. You know, what are we trying to do with
these regulations? and they're what I laid out in the beginning trying to protect conservation um and you know our watershed values things that that we're entrusted to manage as uh uh commissioners
to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and biodiversity and compliance with state grant conditions and conservation protections. um providing for passive recreation consistent with this ecological
stewardship. So trying to allow um recreation as long as it's not detrimental to the lands that we're managing promote public safety and support our town master plan. So that's really what we're trying to do.
And I would just say um I can't see hands. So, if you want to stop at any one of these sections and talk more, just I would say yell out and we can I think we should just talk as we go along. The management authorities um >> can I have I have one question?
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um so, passive recreation um isn't so snowmobiles are allowed like through Southbrook, right? >> Correct. and through probably maybe
through some of our other conservation lands. So, I wonder if we want to keep that word passive in there because to me that always means only walking. >> I I think that's a good edit. So, I'll I'll just make some of these as you go along. >> Okay. And I had similar issues further
down with uh the snowmobile stuff because a lot of sites around the lake that are con conservation property um including like behind my property um the snow when there is snow the snowmobiles
go through there. Um, so >> okay, let's talk about >> that when we get down to the snowmobile part. >> I know we we have a section on that. Um, management authorities. I think these are pretty straightforward. um you
know that these are just re reaffirming our authorities to enforce and um and to adopt these regulations to designate trails to issue permits, install signs, yada yada. So that's just I think it's
just reiterating authorities that we already have. I divided this up into permitted uses and prohibited uses. I don't and some of it's clunky, especially when we get to the dog part. So, I'll just say I I think we can talk
about the best way to organize this. And I'm not sure this is the best way, but I was just thinking in terms of signage later that a lot of times things are organized into permitted uses and prohibited uses, but we can talk about
that. um for permitted uses. They're kind of um uh clustered here and and I taking Beth's point, I think we have some that are passive recreation. Um I know we have folks who use these lands
already um you know for these different uses and I think that's pretty straightforward. uh waterbased uses. I know we've had conversations about this in the past. Um especially launching. Um
you know, I I kind of struggled honestly with the whole non-motorized boating part of it. Um I know we have a lot I mean obviously we had the the state boat ramp on some of this property. Um, so I
figured that would probably be something that folks would want to talk about, but um, you know, it I certainly I know we have water-based uses um, traditional uses. I know we have folks currently using these lands for
hunting and fishing in accordance with state law. Um, we have trail uses. Horseback riding I know is taking place on much of these properties as is bicycling.
Uh as is snowmoiling. Um and it's it says it's allowed only on designated and side trails approved by the commission. I know there is a designated trail uh that goes through. I also know there's snowmobile. I think most of it's on that
designated trail on occasion. there are snowmobile use elsewhere, but I think most of it is on the designated the main area that you know with the bridges and such that go through South Brook. But maybe I'll um I'll get and then there's
special uses like education or community events that maybe you know maybe someone wants to get married at Southbrook at the pavilion there. It would give the ability to do that. So, I'm gonna stop there at permitted uses and see if there
are any questions on any of that. Or Mary, you wanted to talk about snowmobiles. So, I don't know if you had additional thoughts or clarifications on what we might add there. Um well there's I guess it's the designated
trails part because um like behind my property at the end of Haskins is what was once a road and that's conservation commission property and it's not designated as anything but I know that
when the when there is snow the snowmobiles come up they'll come up from the boat launch and then come straight up and and then circle come down Haskins. It's basically Evan Jones, his I think his kid. So, but you know, they
you know, there are people that go through and there's other people that go up and down the lake. Uh but um uh then also across from the footage property or or just at the bottom of the footage property between Matteo
and the footage property is I believe there's a trail there. I don't know, maybe it I'm not sure if it's a footage or Matteo's but um uh that crosses Locks Pond um and joins up with that huge hill that
you know and I don't know if that's designated either, but I guess I guess the word designated um uh is I was wondering you know what what the intent was with designated. I think my intent here was uh right now there
aren't any um we don't have a map and we don't have much in the way of blazings or anything else for these and so I I think um this would be our opportunity. Um, some of
this is better, you know, um, uh, not spelled out in the regulation, but then give us the ability through signage or other things to designate where things are allowed or not. And so, >> right now, we're in the process uh, if
we, you know, once we have this bid to do all the trail improvements to to prepare the map to, uh, actually blaze the trails. And so I think at that time we would be able to designate these and show what parts are open for snowmobile
and and what parts are not. >> Right. And the reason why I I'm talking specifically about the snowmobiles is because some years um well like last year for instance without the snowmoers going through those trails were are are
basically impassible in the winter because there would be too much snow. But if they go through every storm and they kind of mat things down, it makes it easier for people to actually walk them. So it kind of facilitates the use of it. And I I I haven't seen anything
where, you know, out here that where the snowmoilers weren't respectable. I know that they've over the state beach, they kind of chewed up, you know, that walkway there, but but they've, you know, largely been on snow, you know.
>> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, I think the the intent Well, let me just clarify the intent there, just in case we're not >> u communicating well on this. I I think f first of all, I think the snowmobile trails predated some of this land and
they they have a designated trail and right to use it and reservations there. Uh I've nested this under the permitted activity. So these are not we're not looking to res at least my thought is we're not looking to restrict it from
where it is now. I think we're looking to codify what is being used right now as a permitted activity. >> Right. I get that. I'm just I'm just saying the designated So without the designation
that's the part does it is it not permitted? I guess that's my question. I'm not sure if I'm tracking with you, but I I think what what we're trying to at least my intent was to to say that snowmobiles are allowed
>> on these sign trails approved by the by the conservation commission. The designation part is where we would that's the process of actually delineating where the trails are. Right now, as you said, I I don't think it's a
bit of a free-for-all. I I don't know that we know all the places that people are taking the snowmobiles there. So, I think it's it's um actually putting them on a map so it's clear where where are those trails so snowmoilers can find
them and find the routes that are accessible for them. Then what could act, >> right? I think that yes, that's that's what I'm looking for is some sort of if it's allowed then we should designate where it's allowed, I guess, is my question is my point. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that's the
next step. Um I I don't know that that I at least I mean we could spell out in the regulation every trail and attach a map and and do that kind of thing. I I think it's probably better not to do that. We just, you know, we just had an
email flurry of new properties wanting to be added. I just think it's better to have it be flexible this way and then you can include them with a map or changes as we as new properties come in
or or you know what have you. I you know I know there are some places where that those trails go through private land and I think it's all working now but if that were to change it may may alter how we have to have the trails go through our
property too. So, at least that's my thinking. But is there a different wording here, Mayor, that you're looking to do or >> No, it was it was only that if it's if it's conservation commission land and
the snowmo snowmoilers are using it, maybe we should just have a sign or have it designated in some way. It was a it was the word designated. So, it you're saying that that's the next step. Fine. That's that's all I was just pointing out. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. I think um I like the idea that these regulations can be more general and aren't going to be specific about particular trails or even particular conservation lands. Once this once this gets finished and established, then we
go conservation land by conservation land and create sort of a map for each conservation land. And we may have some conservation lands where we're like, "Nope, none of the trails there are going to be designated for for snowmobiles, like possibly the West
Quabin Woods. Maybe that one's just not going to be right for snowmobiles." So that particular conservation areas map wouldn't have any, but obviously South Brooks map is going to have some. So these kind of general rags just give us the power to to do to do that for each
of the conservation lands. I think that's a good way to approach it, Scott. I think that works at least for me. >> Is there anything else on prohibited or permitted before we get to prohibited? >> Um the um so do we get do we get into a
little bit more detail with like the um the management? So when we're saying habitat management, I'm thinking do we say anything in here about like invasive treatment? Is there is there more >> I didn't I didn't really get into I'd
have to look at that section you're talking about um oh different land management. >> Yeah. >> Um I didn't get more into that. I just thought that we would allow this where like I think that's a good example.
People want to go and and maybe uh address problems with notweed or something else. gives us a a way to do that but without the details. It was just I'm trying to make it general but >> yeah it's good.
>> Okay, maybe I'll jump into prohibited then and we can keep going. Um so um this would be much the same motorized vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes um off designated routes. And so this
kind of gets to what you're saying there may you know I think we know right now we have um uh snowmobiles there in a designated route and so we would allow that. Um,
this is putting in the category of prohibited. So, if they're off designated routes, uh, including ATVs or dirt bikes, and that would be prohibited. Um, so, um, I I struggled with this one a little bit.
I mean, it's starting there. There's a lot um I know land managers uh deal with with we're really starting to blur the lines with like ebikes and all these other things too that go I mean they're like little mini
dirt bikes that go around but they don't have a a gas motor. Um, so I figure there might be some conversation around this, but again, I think we're just going to have to talk about, as Beth said, specifics maybe on different units
where um, if it's causing a problem, this gives us a way to start to dial in on it. If it's not causing a problem, then, you know, maybe it's not worth worrying about or or spending a lot of time trying to designate regulations about.
Uh uh that's motorized vehicles. Um resource damage. I think this is pretty straightforward. You know, people who are uh in there dumping or vandalizing or removing vegetation without permission that that wouldn't be
allowed. And that I think addresses one of the concerns that we were asked to address before where people were cutting I think it was mountain laurel uh without permission. Um, >> do we do we want to add anything about sort of unauthorized removal of actually
of of animals and also of um like rocks and things? You know, sometimes people go in and and just remove other things besides just vegetation. >> Yeah. Um, what's a better or
um >> of objects. >> Yeah, cuz it sometimes it's like historical kind of things. Unauthorized removal of objects or damage to vegetation or animals >> objects
Um, okay. Well, I think that needs to be cleaned up, but I I'm just kind of get getting the kernel of it. So, removal or damage of objects, vegetation, animals, and I'll find a a more eloquent way of
saying that. >> Okay. Okay. Cuz yeah, I'm thinking sometimes, you know, there's like the historical >> like, you know, a mound of of of rocks, whatever that's called. >> Yeah. Let me get
>> Well, it's a really good point though, Beth, because uh there are um old foundations and other things out there too where people dig around, you know, bottle hunt and >> all that kind of stuff, too. So I I I
think there's something there. It may it may kind of warrant its own thing actually. So I I'm just going to highlight. I think that's something that needs to be addressed. Interquitis.
Well, I knew what I was saying. Uh what did someone else have something on this? Um, Scott, one thing that has come up in in other towns is uh metal detectors. Um,
>> yeah, >> I I and it's funny uh in Andover, we talked it around and around and around. We never came to a conclusion whether they were permitted or not permitted just because it was kind of a hot button issue. >> Yeah.
I I I don't know enough about that use. I don't I I imagine we we probably have folks who are using that but I wonder if the um any of the other committees in town have weighed into that like the historical committee
but I don't know Matteo do you happen to know? So when I was on the historical commission, we um we looked into this specifically because there was a inquiry that was made to the police department about using metal detectors on Town
Common. Um and there are pretty strict state regulations that govern the removal of historic artifacts or using metal detectors on historic properties. I'm not aware of anything in relation to conservation areas, but as far as
historical areas, um, it's pretty strictly regulated. The town actually has very little control over it. It's regulated by the state, even on town property. So is the what's the thinking then to
just uh there's no need to issue regulations on town owned properties because they're already protected by by states at least the historical sites are. >> Yeah. I mean, generally the sense was
that the commission would defer to the state law and maybe publicize it and emphasize it like on the website and stuff, but there was no need to adopt a separate policy for it. But that was specifically for historical resources.
So, I don't I don't know uh in terms of using metal detectors in conservation areas for other reasons. I mean, I don't know what metal people would be digging up in a conservation area that isn't historical. Um uh but yeah,
>> maybe there's a way to, you know, you know, Donna would have to take a look at all this anyways, but just we could reiterate that they're protected in accordance with state law. Um I thought the next one on authorized
development was important. Um, this kind of there were problems at Southbrook and I know several other units where people make their own trails and they start just to kind of put stuff down or lay
things out or before you know it, you you end up with um a bit of a mess. So um construction of structures or trails or improvements wouldn't be allowed. Um, I didn't know if this this was in several other towns and I didn't really
think it was especially applicable to our units. Um, you know, but I I think they had it in there to um, you know, to keep to continue to
focus the the nature of these properties on as conservation lands. And so trying you know to develop them in these ways would not be uh compatible with their
purpose. So I again I don't really know if this is needed for us or or not. But I I just left it in because I I I understood what they were trying to do. I just didn't know if it muddied the
waters or not. I guess I I kind of saw it as it did no harm. I'm sorry, I left it in. >> Yeah, it um so conservation land if if land is under the care and control of the conservation commission, it's
automatically I believe under um article 97 which is the state um which usually because it's article 97, we could never develop it as sports fields or a playground or marina or swimming pool.
we wouldn't be allowed to unless we went to the legislature and tried to get the land out of article 97. Um, so I don't know. I kind of think that we don't need that part in there. >> Are there any objections to deleting it?
>> I maybe I don't know this is maybe unrelated, but like would we say anywhere that there's like a cap on the number of part like a party together? I I just meant some of this like I know this is about us building things maybe, but also just about like do we want like
30 people to show up and play baseball on our conservation land? I know there's probably not too many spaces for it, but we did have this one part where I was thinking like it could be like special events. I can't remember where that was. Um
special uses. So like to limit it. I I didn't I don't know if that's needed or maybe we just address it when we grant permission for it, Michael. I'm not sure. Probably depends on what
they're doing. I know Ammerst um we developed a form for anytime somebody wanted to have any kind of an event or even um sort of like any kind of little educational classes or anything on conservation land. They had to fill out
the form, come to a Hong Kong meeting, have it reviewed and approved. And some of the questions on there were how many people and are you planning on um where are you going to park and you know are you thinking of putting up like a temporary little tent for whatever you
want to do like there's some conservation lands in Ammer that are more appropriate for like a wedding or something like that. Um and so people there was a form that we developed if I don't know she's spraying we may not need to get that fancy but there is
that ability then you can ask those questions because those are really good questions you know how many people are you are you planning and then even if it's like a if it's a school kind of thing if it's a class sometimes you want also the
organization's um liability insurance and stuff like Were Were there any other thoughts? I think Beth, you were suggesting maybe we could delete this incompatible recreation part. Did anyone have any heartburn with
deleting it? Going once, going twice. All right. Uh fires and camping. I I don't think we have any um Well, I should take that back. I think there are fires I've seen. Um
>> I don't know if that's something we we want people doing um or not on any of these lands. And then camping, we don't have camping. I'm guessing we probably don't want to get into the camping business, but um
thoughts on that? there right now shows prohibited >> um public conduct. Uh so Bob, yeah, wanted to address camping. Um uh I guess
I would permit it. I would say would say it's prohibited except for a special permit. Uh there might be a group of scouts that want to use our property and I think that would kind of leave a door open. Okay, >> I'll find a better way. I think that's a
good idea, Bob. Just that there could be reasons to do that. >> Um, and if those scouts want to consume alcohol, no. Okay. >> I don't think so. >> Um I don't know any of these. Like these
were in other towns. I just This is a slippery slope. Anytime you start putting down in black and white all things you can't do, but um I think these are the ones that are common. So
I'll just leave it at that. Um, same for firearms. You know, we don't want target practice or that kind of thing out there, I wouldn't think. >> Now, Scott, is there a prohibit prohibition from dawn from dusk to dawn
for going on? >> I don't think we have that. Um, I don't know if we want that or not. >> Yeah. a uh that's a >> a general access. I mean, I think the
snowmobiles go through at night a lot of times. Um >> but well, let's let's uh let's see if it becomes a problem and uh and take it from there. Leave it off for now.
>> Um town beach and watercraft. Uh, this was trying to address the the problem that we were having with people leaving things. Um, so I'll just, you know, maybe I I don't
know. Um, we could probably I I do think there's something here for leaving personal property anywhere on these units is probably something we wouldn't want. But, um, yeah, Matteo, I see your hand is up. >> I I was just about to say the same
thing. I was going to say that I I think this would probably be advisable in a general sense that personal property should not be left on any conservation area in any sense whether that's a watercraft in the town beach area or anywhere.
>> Yeah. So maybe on this one we can I'll just going to make a a note because I'm I'm terrible at group editing and I can't I can barely type while I'm talking. Um, but I could take a
swing at um adding here. Um, something. Let's see. Add comment. I just saw it. Here we go. So, try to make this more general.
Yeah, I think that's a really good idea. Um, anything else on that? We have signage. Uh, moving on to that. I think these are pretty straightforward that you know public access shall occur, designated entry points that will have signage with permitted and prohibited
uses, trails and designated uses like snowmobile routes um shall be clearly marked. I think that's what what we're getting at with you and I were talking mayor just uh earlier on.
um gates, other barriers to restrict unauorized use. Um and then I was saying that we could also close things temporarily if there was something going on there. So it gives us at least our ability to do
that. So I don't know if there's anything on signage or access. >> Maybe that's if we want if we wanted to say um dusk till dawn. This would be the section, right?
>> Yeah. Um, we could for sure. Is that I I I think there will be my guess is snowmobileers will say we don't like that. Um, cuz they go through I know they go at night through
the area. Um, >> I think sometimes some of these comments are just almost for liability purposes. So saying nobody should be on any of our conservation areas in the middle of the night
almost just gives us a little safety thing, you know, if if people because people do it anyway, you know, it's they're going to in every town people go to conservation lands and things when they're not supposed to and that's sometimes when things happen. And then for us to be able to say, "Well, you
weren't supposed to be there anyway." is kind of a a good thing. Sometimes some of these regulations are just based on liability. >> Well, it's a good point. I don't know what, right? I my
I think some of these uses like snowmobiles, I they may predate our land. So, I I don't know if we'd be able to restrict them that way. Um I but
I'll let's put it in and we'll see what kind of because I'm guessing there will be comments and stuff on this. So, um we can put it in and see how people react and maybe we can do a little digging into what their rights are if we could restrict them anyways even if we wanted
to. I'm not sure. >> Sounds good. um enforcement. I left like we have authorities. Um I think this this whole section I'll just say I took it from other towns and I think we would want
Donna and others to weigh in on this like maybe our chief of police andor um town attorney. But I don't know if folks have any thoughts on any of this. I one I'll just say the one that I think
is I don't know if it's if we can do this or not but I saw others have it uh is this one the restoration of damaged resources is huge um you know people cause damage to these lands that can be
very very expensive um you know to replace boardwalks or things that are damaged or other things. So I I I really thought this is important to have in there. I don't know if we can require it, but I thought it's it's definitely worth
u having in there if we have the authority to do so. >> Yep. Um, >> with the fines, um, we may want to get into once we figure it out like what
those actually would be just to have it in writing. But or maybe that again is something that's different for each conservation area, like is just on the signage for particular conservation areas. I don't know. Maybe this is just
saying we can fine if we want to and then the actual like fine structure is dependent on which conservation area is. I don't know. Yeah, I was thinking we might want to run this by the chief of police and see
how they already like because they I would assume they would be the ones enforcing any of this and um to see if they already have um regulations that they can site or if
we would need to add something in here so that they could site it better. I'm guessing they have site things that they can site already, but it's a question of my mind. Um this is additional remedies dealing with
um damage. So um I again I think this is a Donna question but I saw it elsewhere and I thought that it was good. Um, this section I I other towns had this divided out because this was such a
nightmare I think in their town. Like this was the most controversial part in several towns. Um, and so they had it as a separate thing. They didn't have it in prohibited and general like allowed uses. I I
initially had it in just dogs are allowed under the control of their owner at all times. Um I still think that's better, but I know this gets into a whole liability things too.
Um so the other towns got into this on a leash or on a leash within sight of the handler and under reliable voice control. Um, I'll I'll just say I know there are a lot of folks who walk their dogs off
leash here um on on many of these units. Um, and it's I I'll just say I I think it's working, but I um uh I I don't know how we would want to
handle it. I But so anyways, I'll just stop there. When people went into the whole waste disposal, prohibited contact for dogs. I thought this was a little overkill myself, but I wanted to just I took it from
other towns. Many towns had it this way. So, I'll stop there and see what people think. >> Yeah, I I think uh requiring people to uh clean up their dog waste is a is a really good idea. Um, and uh I could
kind of take it or leave it as far as the uh the on leash or off leash. Um, I I've worked in towns that have both. Um, uh, dogs will always be the thing that people complain about the dog poop and oh, my dog is friendly and then it knocks over the three-year-old. So, it's
uh it's just something that happens. Yeah, I I like how it's written, the the under control part, and I agree. The waste disposal's got to be there. What's What's below that? What's prohibited conduct say dogs shall not
>> what dogs can't do? >> It's we're writing regulations for dogs, their people. I mean, I do think >> I I think that section might be a little overkill, but I like the other two sections. I don't know.
Yeah, Matteo, >> this might be another area where Donna's advice might be really useful because I think there are considerable liability issues if if somebody says their dog is under voice control, but as as you know, Bob just mentioned, they knock over the
three-year-old or if there's an injury resulting from it and and they were permitted under the regulations to allow the dog to be off leash, then there could be liability issues. So, I I imagine Donna might have something to
say about, you know, to say about the language here if you're going to specify this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Agreed. >> That's be good to have her input. Definitely. So are what are your thoughts on it
sounds like what I'm hearing so far are um that maybe having the general rule and the definition of control and the waste disposal are good. Um
and this might be overkill. Um although I do think of dogs who are chasing deer or that kind of thing, you know, it's like, you know, they're or interfering with other visitors like
that does give you a way >> maybe to get at what you're saying, Matteo, too. Um I don't know. >> Yeah, I think it's good. >> Let's leave it and see what says um or others. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Um, this is getting more into the dogs like, you know, I again I think all this stuff is was all those dogs.
Yeah. I think it was really these last two restricted areas for dogs where they have to be leashed or excluded. Um, I could see that in, you know, maybe there are places like at
town beach or things where, you know, they they don't want people to have their dogs off. I just had this as an example, but I don't I don't know. Um, but that gives us the ability to
kind of narrow it down to certain areas if we see the need. At least that was the thinking. Um, and then enforcement I think is a da question, but I'll stop there. Is there
any other comments on dog stuff that we would want to talk about? We're almost through. It's 8:04, so I'm just going to Do you want me to keep plowing? We're almost to the very end of this thing. >> Sure. Yeah. um severability just says
that they'll remain in effect. Um actually that was it and the effective date. So I think that's it for the rags. So maybe I'll I'll stop sharing and see if folks have any other questions. >> Are dogs technically allowed in Lake
Wyola? >> Are they allowed in Lake Wyola? >> Yeah. >> Or are we think so. >> So, yeah, >> they're they're not allowed >> at the state beach. They're not
um they're not allowed at the association beaches. Um I don't remember. I don't know if there's a sign down at um down at the boat launch. Uh,
and I'm don't think there's a sign at the top of the lake either about about dogs and I don't know. So, I don't know that part about whether they're allowed there, >> but that's one of our properties. So,
>> what was that? >> I said that's one of our properties. So, I think it would be up it's in this regulation you were talking, >> right? I don't know. I don't know. I but I don't remember seeing any signs about at either one of those areas already.
So, um >> I don't think we've restricted dogs on any of conservation >> um lands. I mean I really to date I think the only I think most all these uses are occurring. I think the only restrictions that I know that we've
waited into have been dumping and leaving garbage on lands or personal property or driving off trail and or cutting vegetation. I think those and we made signs to say you can't do those
things and those >> were they're either installed or they're laying around out there, >> right? Well, I I I think it's it's great, Scott, that you put this together. Um, and thanks for going through through it
with us. And maybe we can just keep it on the agenda again for next time and everybody maybe again try to take a a good look at it between now and the next meeting and we can discuss it more and >> and then I guess at some point yeah when
we feel like it's at a certain point then maybe we send it to Donna and have her take a look at it. >> I'll I'll try to clean up those sections that we talked about and bring that back. Um, and then I do think it would
be good to get it to Donna and to the chief of police just to >> refine those other areas where we had questions and then it might be in a pretty good draft state. >> Yeah, sounds good. Matteo, you have your hand up.
>> Um, I I I don't know the answer to this question, but do we need to have a public hearing about these regulations in the way that we would for the bylaw regulations? Yeah, we probably should. Yeah, they're town regulations. It's always good to um
allow a chance for the public to feel like, you know, it's sort of an official hearing where whatever they say is being recorded and all that. So, yeah, I think once we get it to a real final stage, we can we can have a public hearing as part
of one of our meetings. >> Okay. Thank you. Sure. Good job. >> Um, good job, Scott. >> Y, >> thank you. >> I find I find myself having to share
this anecdote. My, uh, first day working in land management in Andover, uh, somebody said to me, two two folks you don't want to mess with, hockey moms and dog owners. So, that that uh that stuck with me.
It's not everyone here, but I just had to share it. >> Um, I could add a little anecdote. I I saw the um conservation agent from Ammerst today. We were meeting at a site and she had had a long meeting last night and I said, "Oh, you know, what's
what's the controversy?" And and she said, "Well, we brought up the conservation area regulations again." and she said that it's taken them like four or five years to to get but what's happened they the people on their commission rotate out consistently. I
think you're really only allowed to be on the commission for two years at the most. Um so they've just lost people and then every time they've brought it up people have been like, "Oh yeah, we should look through those instead of approving them." Like each group wanted to just go through them all again. And
so anyway, she's like, "Yeah, then last night people still started having questions about them and I was like, "No, please." So, >> yep. >> I'm hopeful. I mean, these are as draft. We'll see where they go. But I my hope
is drafting something general that will work for all of them. And that doesn't preclude us from waiting into changing any of them for any of the units if we're finding there are problems like >> but you know trying to solve problems
rather than to try to solve problems that don't exist. >> Yep. Good approach. All right. Well, we'll talk more next meeting about that. That's great. Um All right. So, unanticipated business.
Anybody have anything? >> No. All right, then I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So, moved. >> I'd like to thank Scott for his hard work and uh would make that motion.
>> Second. >> I'll second. >> And thank you. >> All right. A Fox Douglas. Hi >> Khan. >> Hi >> Duffy. McDuffy. >> Hi.
>> And Wilson. Hi. All right. Well, we'll see you all for some site visits maybe next week. I know Mary, you're going to be gone, but um yeah, have a good night. >> Have a good night. >> Thanks everyone. >> Good night.