2026-10-01 - Conservation Commission

00:12with the option to attend either in

00:14person at the Senate office building or

00:17remotely. All the participants

00:20are asked to remain on mute unless

00:23speaking to ensure clear audio for all

00:26the attendees.

00:29Join at https

00:30colonme.com/sterurbage/conom.

00:40Dial in at 1 8722403316.

00:48Access code is 595

00:51536

00:53797.

00:56All right, we'll start at the left here.

00:58Roll call.

01:00Carson

01:01>> Carson Stuba, present.

01:04>> Present.

01:04>> Ed Goodwin, present.

01:05>> Eric Gaspar, present.

01:06>> Gravel, present.

01:07>> Okay, we have full attendance.

01:10Um,

01:12all right. We're going to go to

01:15review and possible action on the

01:17Plimpmpton master plan. review of a

01:19final draft being presented by Jill

01:22Craig of the Conservation Works LLC.

01:26Jill, welcome to it.

01:27>> Thank you.

01:28>> All right, you're on.

01:29>> Okay, thank you. Um,

01:32I appreciate you taking the time

01:34tonight. I see that you all have a full

01:36agenda, so I'll go through the

01:38presentation here, keep it kind of

01:40short, and then we'll [music] have time

01:41for questions as needed. Um so for the

01:45the purpose of the master plan was to

01:48provide a long-term framework for

01:49managing the Plimpmpton community

01:51forest. The goals to protect the

01:53property's ecological and cultural

01:55resources while also supporting

01:57appropriate public use

02:00able to go forward. It's quick.

02:05Um so recommendations are based on

02:08several sources of information including

02:10field inventory and site assessment. GIS

02:14and other existing data, the

02:15conservation restriction, trail

02:18inventory, public survey, input from the

02:21conservation commission, trails

02:22committee, opacum land trust and natural

02:25heritage. And there was a public comment

02:28period as well.

02:32So Plimpmpton is a large and

02:34ecologically significant property that

02:36is also used for recreation. The

02:39combination of uh sensitive resources,

02:42cultural features, and an extensive

02:44existing trail network is really what

02:47has shaped the management

02:48recommendations within the plan.

02:54So, for the purposes of tonight and our

02:57short time period here, I've broken the

02:58plan down into three different

03:00management themes. The first being

03:02protecting ecological resources that

03:04make the property significant. that

03:06includes management around habitat

03:09protection, invasive species management,

03:12and long-term forest management.

03:17The second theme is uh protecting

03:19cultural and historical resources. The

03:22property contains important cultural and

03:24historic landscape features. So, the

03:26plan recommends protecting those

03:28resources and providing opportunities

03:30for visitors to better understand the

03:32history of the property.

03:36And then the third theme is creating is

03:38recreation. And the goal here isn't to

03:41eliminate recreation, but to move toward

03:43a more intentional and sustainable trail

03:44system by retaining useful connections,

03:47improving some routes, closing

03:49inappropriate ones, and evaluating

03:51future opportunities carefully.

03:56>> Alcohol is really [laughter]

03:59that was such a tease.

04:03Sorry, I got into the future.

04:05>> It sounded It was very satisfying sound.

04:08>> Because the trail network is so

04:09extensive on Plimpmpton, the trails

04:11required a more detailed analysis. So we

04:13looked at each route in the context of

04:15the larger system looking and

04:18considering ecological sensitivity,

04:20trail density, sustainability,

04:23connectivity, access to those historic

04:26sites, uh community use, conservation

04:29restriction requirements, and

04:31opportunities to impro improve the

04:33system throughout the property. And

04:34again, the recommendation is not to

04:36eliminate recreation. It's to move from

04:38an accumulated system toward a more

04:41intentional sustainable trail network.

04:46So the master plan is basically a

04:49overall management direction. It doesn't

04:52approve individual projects. So from

04:54here the plan becomes a framework for

04:56the town for opacum land trust and the

04:58trails committee um to work through

05:01specific actions in together. The next

05:05real step is uh for a natural heritage

05:08review of the plan and any proposed

05:10projects through the MISA process and

05:12then from there additional reviews as

05:15necessary.

05:17Um so that's a real quick overview of

05:21the plan. There's much more detail in

05:23the plan um particularly around

05:26individual trails and implementation but

05:29as I said before wanted to leave it open

05:31for questions and discussion as needed.

05:39Well, that's it.

05:40>> That's all. That's all I got for now.

05:42Hopefully, you all had a chance to look

05:44at the plan and

05:46>> review it. And if you've got questions

05:47or anything else you'd like to go over,

05:49>> sorry, Dr. Um, when it comes to the

05:50single track that we're talking about

05:52removing from the I think the northern

05:54side,

05:55>> is anybody taking care of that right

05:56now? I unfortunately have not been able

05:57to get in there and see it, [music] see

06:00the single track itself, but I mean if

06:02there's if I know there's mountain

06:03bikers in the area. Is that something I

06:05guess that comes from the trails

06:06committee too like I don't know if are

06:08you guys in line with

06:09>> to go back to that

06:10>> the plan says

06:11>> is it okay to talk to everybody on this?

06:14>> Sure. Yeah. And what your question is

06:16specifically whether it's we're

06:17>> talking about removing the single trail

06:19which I'm assuming are mountain bike

06:20tracks.

06:21>> So there is Yeah. I'm going to have

06:23Lauren go back to that recreation

06:26map

06:27more specifically. I think it should be

06:29that very next one. Maybe one up. There

06:33you go.

06:34>> Yeah. So, you've got that the dotted

06:37line network up there in the north

06:40eastern section of Plimpmpton. Um Oh,

06:44thanks. [laughter]

06:44>> Oh, you have your own too in front of

06:47you.

06:48>> Yeah. Got you.

06:50>> I'm not even g I don't know how to I'll

06:52I'll spend more time trying to figure

06:54out how to use that then and we'll be

06:56able to talk about it. Um so your

06:58question about the those trails are

07:00>> we're pretty much eliminating I think

07:01there's another overlay or another map

07:03that shows like what you're going to

07:04what the proposal is um and removing

07:07those and I would just kind of wanted to

07:09know what the sentiment from the bikers

07:11in the area if anybody's even taking

07:12care of those trails as it is now. I

07:15know there's a lot of things that come

07:16with those trails but is it

07:18>> are we removing something that the town

07:19likes or people in town like? I guess

07:21that's my question.

07:22>> Yeah. So, um the the survey did indicate

07:27that people are definitely enjoying

07:29those trails and and that definitely was

07:31taken into consideration. The major

07:33concern with having those trails in that

07:36area is that that is directly right

07:38within the heart of that ecologically

07:41sensitive area. Um, so ideally those

07:45trails could be relocated and it's kind

07:47of laid out in the plan too that that

07:49that can be a network that's down in the

07:52southwestern section of the property.

07:53>> I saw it. Yeah.

07:54>> Um, yeah. So

07:57>> I believe the the maintenance on the

08:01trails had been asked to be paused until

08:04the master plan had been. So, I don't

08:06think that there's update up uh current

08:08maintenance that's been done while we've

08:10been doing the

08:11>> the plan.

08:12>> Well, I guess I my question was is there

08:15any opposition to that? Like I see you

08:17guys are here and I didn't know if I

08:18just wanted

08:19>> I think there's plenty of

08:20>> I'm happy to answer questions from the

08:22trip.

08:22>> Sure. And I'm sorry the way I'm doing

08:24>> Yeah. I don't know how I don't know what

08:25the proper

08:27>> name and address for the record if

08:28you're going to be speaking.

08:31>> You want me to stand up and

08:32>> Sure. This is great.

08:36You don't I was just messing around.

08:37>> So, Brandon Goodwin on

08:40>> Yes.

08:40>> Uh chair of the trails committee. So,

08:42yeah, we were interviewed for this uh

08:46for this plan. And I think from a trail

08:48committee perspective, there's not much

08:51in what's being presented that we're

08:53supportive of right now.

08:54>> You're not supportive.

08:55>> Not supportive of the document.

08:57>> Okay.

08:57>> Um

08:58>> of the first draft.

08:59>> I haven't seen it.

09:00>> Just the first draft. The second draft

09:02is all that's been shared. So there's a

09:04second draft.

09:05>> Okay. So I'm looking at the second

09:06draft, right?

09:07>> Correct. Yes. So all the just to kind of

09:09backtrack for the process too, the

09:11public comment was open. We received all

09:13the public comments through email. Um we

09:16took some of the ones that were through

09:17Facebook.

09:18>> Um the formal response from trails and

09:20opacum to take that to do put those

09:23modifications into updating the draft

09:26looking for the areas improvement plus

09:27ones that just Jill and I had discussed

09:28of areas that we thought we could

09:30improve. So then with those comments,

09:33draft two comes before the commission

09:35for review. This is still a work. This

09:37is still a project that's ongoing. But

09:40>> so we're not supportive of draft two.

09:41>> Okay, that's I guess what

09:42>> since we haven't seen it, so we can't

09:44there's no I guess in that regard um we

09:46can't speak to that. I think there is an

09:48aspect of

09:51um there's a a talk track or a story

09:54around this that I'm not sure what's in

09:55this plan version, but the original

09:57trail design that was, you know, from

09:59the emails I shared was approved by um

10:03Opeum and in theory was originally

10:06approved by Concom, but was you know the

10:08minutes haven't been found for that.

10:10>> Sure.

10:11>> Uh but that came from conservation works

10:13as well. And so there's a trail network

10:15that we use today as a approved trail

10:18system from the trail committee.

10:20>> Okay. And then there's unapproved trails

10:22that exist today which is a lot of the

10:23single track.

10:24>> Sure.

10:24>> Which is also heavily used and and if

10:27you walk at a rider, it's it's

10:29maintained by the people that ride that

10:30property for the single track. So while

10:32the committee does the main trails,

10:34>> the the riders do a lot of the single

10:35track. Um, we've been on hold in terms

10:38of NOIs and crossings for the main

10:41trails that we've had because we were

10:43waiting to get to a whole plan for the

10:44whole property. So, in terms of

10:47conversations around staging things out,

10:48future conversations, all of that,

10:51that's a a new concept for this property

10:53because we've been told over the years

10:55that let's get to a big plan for the

10:57entire property where everything's in an

10:59all-encompassing plan

11:00>> for, you know, the existing trails and

11:03unapproved trails and figure out what

11:04makes the most sense. And so that's

11:06that's as far as I can comment in terms

11:08of I've shared a lot of of feedback I

11:11think with with with Jill and Lauren and

11:13and others. And so I think you know

11:16other concerns we have about you know

11:17connecting down to Rod and Gun Club and

11:19so we're not real fans. People like to

11:20wander and and go places that we find on

11:23all of our properties. So we're cautious

11:25about how those are handled as well. So

11:28that's sort of where we're at I think on

11:30this. So we haven't seen anything else

11:32that was in version two at this time.

11:35Okay, thanks a lot. I appreciate that.

11:39>> I guess that's I mean and I'm okay with

11:41comments on basically what's that

11:43>> any do you have comments on any of the

11:45other goals or recommendations?

11:47>> I liked most of I mostly was was hung up

11:49I guess on that when we were discussing

11:50it and I just was more cuz I wasn't sure

11:52and I totally understand ecologically

11:54why why we're discussing it this way. It

11:56was more just I hadn't talked to anybody

11:58in town. I wasn't sure what the

11:59sentiment was from the trails committee.

12:01So not to make this any longer, you

12:03know, if we can. So there you go.

12:07>> So just from your perspective, like

12:11obviously that priority habitat overlays

12:14on all of that single track. So you're

12:16advocating for as part of this master

12:19plan that comes out of this.

12:23Um, which I think we need to make sure

12:27we have a thoughtful conversation about

12:29because ultimately we're adjudicating. I

12:31mean, the thing that bothers me about uh

12:33this conversation is we we need to make

12:36sure we're holding ourselves to the

12:38highest of standards because technically

12:39this is owned by the service

12:41conservation commission. So, we need to

12:43make sure that whatever decisions we

12:45make surrounding this property holds up

12:47to the muster of

12:49>> treating everybody as equals as a

12:51commission. So, we can't, you know, it's

12:54difficult because obviously the trails

12:57didn't plan out that single trail. It

12:58just single track. it just kind of

13:00exists.

13:01>> And there was a woman from Natural

13:03Heritage who came in what last year to

13:05talk about some of the other properties

13:08in town where there was like these

13:09jailbreed trails that are in other uh

13:12other areas as well. What's the proposal

13:15for

13:16>> stopping? I don't know how we stop that.

13:18I mean, that's the concern that I have

13:19is like how how do we address this in a

13:23way that it doesn't look like we're

13:25making a vote that we're serving

13:28ourselves differently than we serve our

13:29constituents?

13:30>> Sure.

13:30>> Number one. And number two, from an

13:33enforcement standpoint, how do we even

13:35stop it from continuing or going on?

13:39Because I mean, quite honestly, it this

13:43wasn't planned out by Brandon and the

13:44comm and the committee to begin with. It

13:47just happened organically.

13:48>> Yeah. Yeah. And that does happen. I

13:50mean, this this is not a situation

13:52that's unique to Plimpmpton, right?

13:54Like,

13:54>> yeah, we know that

13:55>> people make social trails all the time

13:56and we love those trails ourselves,

13:59right? Absolutely. And they end up on

14:00the maps.

14:01>> Um, so again, these are just

14:03recommendations. So, from here, it

14:05really is about the conservation

14:08commission, the trails committee, and

14:09Opacum Land Trust getting together and

14:12looking at these recommendations and

14:13saying, "What are the things that we're

14:15okay with doing? Where do we want to go

14:17from here? And from there, if those

14:19single track trails end up being on the

14:21town's like number one, we must keep

14:24these that has to go through a natural

14:26heritage MISA review checklist process.

14:29And that might end up in resulting in a

14:32take. It might not. It might be

14:34approved. It might not be approved.

14:36That's a whole separate process that's

14:38outside of this master planning process.

14:41If the determination is to close a trail

14:43and restore it, um similarly have to go

14:45through that same kind of MISA process

14:47to say we want to close this. This is

14:49these are the actions we're going to

14:50take to close this this

14:54area.

14:56Um and then in terms of like maintaining

14:59that closure or keeping people from

15:01going back out there, that is one of the

15:03reasons why in the in the plan the

15:05recommendation is to continue with

15:07monitoring. And that goes for not just

15:10the conservation commission but also

15:11Opacum Land Trust who hasn't had the

15:14capacity to be monitoring many of their

15:16own conservation restrictions. So yes,

15:19people are going to say, "Hey, that

15:21looks easier to go that way or I'm going

15:23to cut off this way or that looks like a

15:24fun path over there." With continued

15:27monitoring, you see those issues and

15:29you're able to address those issues

15:30ongoing on a yearly basis. And so, you

15:34know, that's really like your best bet

15:35for for moving forward. in maintaining

15:38that and keeping those closures

15:40>> and that is something that as a

15:42department we are working towards. We

15:45don't have the staff capacity obviously

15:48to be out on these trails as often as we

15:51want. That's also why we rely so heavily

15:53on volunteer services on internships um

15:56grant applications that provide these

15:58types of things. And this is something

16:00that is not this is not just a

16:02Plimpmpton problem. It's not just a

16:03[clears throat] lead mine problem. This

16:04is a townowned land in general problem

16:08is that we own over 2,000 acres of land,

16:11some more used, some more impacted, but

16:13we have no idea what's going on on half

16:16of it. So, these are all things that

16:18we're we are we address that are an

16:21issue. It ultimately comes down to

16:24staffing. And as almost everyone knows,

16:27the town's not really in a financial

16:29position to add positions. So trying to

16:32do best, but trying to structure a more

16:35robust volunteer program that can help

16:37be our eyes on the ground. Working with

16:40our local police department and letting

16:41them know of, you know, certain

16:43allowable activities when we're getting

16:45phone calls from a butter saying there's

16:47a man with a chainsaw in the woods that

16:50I went up and had a conversation with

16:52that we can have someone that can go

16:54follow up on these types of things.

16:55[laughter] These

16:57>> these are Yes.

16:57>> When you're ready for trail, I need to

16:58think I do have someone in there. It's a

17:00constantly growing thing and I think

17:03it's important to remember that the

17:04master plan it's a road map and it's a

17:06road map to a conversation that's been

17:10somewhat had since 2017 but not really

17:14pushed forward because you know all of

17:17these different capacities natural

17:18heritage opacum trails conservation no

17:22one has really had all of the capacity

17:24to get everyone focusing on this where

17:27this master plan gives us direct

17:29direction and says, "Okay, step one,

17:32sustainable trail network that we need

17:34to sit down and have these conversations

17:36and figure out these pro what we're

17:38keeping, what we're not, and go through

17:40the proper processes if we're adopting

17:42or creating new trails." Similar to, you

17:45know, you're talking about being the

17:47example.

17:49It's our land. If we're trying to

17:53accept new trail systems, we have to be

17:55example of going through the proper

17:56processes whether or not we've created

17:59the trail systems which we did not. They

18:01are you know they were not authorized or

18:04I should say they you know but we can

18:06work towards creating them by following

18:08proper steps and having eyes on it. This

18:10also gave us a good study of what's

18:12there what's the density what are all

18:14these trails half of which we don't know

18:17of some of that are going off to private

18:19property. So I think that's an important

18:22aspect to remember of this too.

18:23>> Well, and I think as a Brandon again

18:26from the trails committee. So

18:29for the most part though as a committee

18:31maintaining the trails uh figuring out

18:33how to keep people if we find people

18:35going onto our properties um typically

18:38you know the ones that are more in areas

18:39that we are more control then we can

18:42manage that. We we'll we'll work to put

18:44signs up and so on. something is a

18:46little different from 2017 when we

18:48thought we had an approved plan and then

18:50that the endangered species issue came

18:52forward. That's when we had to basically

18:54say we can't do construction on it. We

18:56can only mow certain times of the year.

18:58And so all of a sudden it becomes from a

19:00priority property to to a lower tier

19:04because you know if you're going to put

19:05your resources in you can put them in

19:06where you can actually build and solve

19:08wetland problems, solve these things.

19:10We're not allowed to go in and put pipes

19:12in or bridges in on on Plumpton because

19:14we haven't come up with a cohesive plan.

19:16And originally when the committee, the

19:19trail committee voted to put single

19:22track on. So that's how a lot of these

19:24discussions started. We wanted uh single

19:26track on Plimpmpton and Opacum denied

19:28that back in 2018.

19:30>> So that's the other aspect to it.

19:32Whether you know right, wrong or

19:33indifferent, that's just sort of how it

19:34evolved. So from an aspect of where we

19:38have property where we're working trails

19:40like on lead mine there's not many there

19:42aren't many new trails that have

19:43appeared on lead mine. If we find them

19:45we block them off try to figure out what

19:46to do with them and so on. And that will

19:48happen with Plumpton once we get to an

19:50approved plan. We're not um we're

19:52concerned every time you come into you

19:55know when you're talking about a whole

19:56plan for a property

19:58we get it and that makes sense because

20:00we have the documentation operating you

20:02know operation and maintenance uh

20:04manuals. We have everything we need in

20:06terms of we have a master plan for how

20:08we build all of our trails, how they're

20:10sustainable. We have a sustainability uh

20:12addendum to that as well. So, those are

20:14the things that we go by and that's what

20:16we build our trails to. And so, evolving

20:19this property once we determine what

20:20trails we're going to keep and what

20:21we're not or what the final footprint

20:23is, um, you know, then we can make all

20:25of that adhere to that and and from our

20:27perspective, keep the additional trails

20:30off, maintain them, keep them

20:32sustainable, so on. But right now, um,

20:35you know, I don't know what's in this

20:36this new version of it. Uh, so I can't

20:38speak to what you're looking at because

20:40we were looking at the previous version,

20:41which I'm not even sure the Kong saw the

20:43previous version. Um, but the point is

20:46is that we're not we were actually as a

20:48committee very disappointed in the first

20:50draft of this. Um, and it to the point

20:53of where the the response from the

20:56people who ride in the community was was

20:58aggressive. It wasn't it wasn't a nice

21:00response and say, "Hey, what's going on

21:01over here?" it was, you know, what the

21:03hell and [clears throat] and that was it

21:05was very direct. So, we have a few

21:06members of them here tonight, but there

21:08are a lot of people that are very angry

21:10about what's evolving on Clinton right

21:11now.

21:12>> Well, so just at it, if you don't mind,

21:14I'm I'm curious cuz what I'm trying to

21:18square in my head is none of that was

21:22supposed to be trails or single track to

21:25begin with. So, we're talking about like

21:27you had already said earlier like we

21:30have a plan and we're we're planning on

21:32bringing bringing forward a plan, but

21:35now on the other [snorts] side of this

21:37is we have a problem with

21:39decommissioning stuff that shouldn't

21:41have been built to begin with, right?

21:43And that you had nothing to do with.

21:44It's just organic.

21:45>> There's actually trails in there they

21:46want to decommission that we built that

21:48we were approved originally as well.

21:52>> Is this the new one we have? Would

21:55Opacum be okay with the trail area that

21:57you're discussing?

21:58>> The what? No. Opacum has not approved

22:01anything. The plan the the plan is

22:03primarily it just is a road map. It's

22:08>> for everybody to look at and Opacum and

22:11trails

22:12>> and natural heritage need and I'm sorry

22:14not natural heritage conservation

22:16commission need to get together and

22:17decide what is going what the property

22:20is going to look at like. So the

22:22recommendations that are in here, it's

22:24clearly kind of written out why some of

22:27them are recommended for for closure.

22:30Why are some some are recommended for to

22:32be retained or improved upon? You know,

22:35I'd also like to say that in in the

22:37survey, what we heard from pe some

22:38people were that they wanted to use

22:40Plimpmpton, but it wasn't accessible or

22:42they wanted it to be accessible or it

22:43would be a really nice place to be able

22:45to take kids or have family outings or

22:47whatever. So, it's not just about having

22:50a place for single track mountain

22:52biking.

22:52>> No, but I think it not to interrupt, but

22:54I think it kind of comes into what you

22:55were saying is I do think being on the

22:57other properties in Sturbridge, if if

22:59the trails committee has a clear path in

23:01front of them, I do think that it will

23:03be accessible just on like he's saying,

23:05we already have a master plan. So, I

23:06agree with that. I guess for me, it's

23:08just what can we what can we do like for

23:10all of us? What's the next step? Like,

23:11do we all have to meet

23:12>> Yep. So, so that next step so Karsten's

23:15had his hand upside. I just so

23:19so who has finally to approve of this

23:21plan the master plan is it a town

23:24meeting or is it already approved

23:26>> conservation commission has care custody

23:29and control

23:29>> so so we just we approve of this master

23:32plan

23:32>> but then pack goes

23:34>> of of the master plan but what needs to

23:37come out of the master plan is a final

23:39trails like a final plan of what what

23:41will happen on the property

23:42>> there is not a final trail proposed as

23:46part of the master plan it is saying

23:50so the question that I have does it have

23:52to have this trail plan already as part

23:55of the master plan or the way I

23:57understand it there's a master plan

23:59which recommends that we uh kind of uh

24:04thin out this density of trails which

24:06seems to be perfectly reasonable so I

24:08actually don't understand what the trail

24:09committee is complaining about uh

24:11because

24:13>> to be fair though no I mean

24:14>> I haven't seen the drafts you're looking

24:16No, I can't even talk about but but but

24:18just look at this one area which seems

24:20to be just trails and if that's an e

24:24ecologically important area that that's

24:27just way too many trails. So my question

24:29is do we have to decide before we drop

24:32the master plan which of these trails

24:34have priority or not?

24:36>> So

24:36>> no you you don't have to decide that

24:38before you adopt the plan as it is right

24:40now. If you want to do future work on

24:43the property because there's natural

24:46heritage priority mapped areas, then

24:48whatever you decide to do with the

24:50property from here forward has to go

24:52through a MISA review checklist and also

24:56should be reviewed by Opacum and also

24:58needs to be cleared by all the other

25:00>> So Brandon, do you want that we decide

25:03already before we adopt the master plan

25:05what trails should be kept and what

25:08shouldn't be kept because that doesn't

25:09seem to make sense because that that

25:11that would take way too long. We would

25:14have to look at the the the the areas.

25:18Some of them are seem to be clearly in

25:19wetlands uh if I'm looking at the map.

25:23Uh which shouldn't be there in the first

25:25place. So uh so that it seems to make

25:29sense to say we have the master plan and

25:31then we can talk about which kind of

25:34because all of the trees

25:37can't remain. That seems to be pretty

25:39clear to me just reading it and I just

25:42looking at it, right? I mean so so you

25:44won't get that through the national the

25:47habitat commission and stuff like that.

25:50U so so so my question to the trails

25:52committee is what do you object

25:55and so far as the ecology of this whole

25:58area is concerned and some trails need

26:00to be closed that seems to be quite

26:02clear. Uh so I I don't have problems

26:06with that. Now we can talk about this or

26:08that trail and but that the density has

26:11to be kind of thinned out just looking

26:14at the map. I mean okay people use that

26:18but if you want to have responsible

26:21ecological ownership of that property

26:24then you you can't just run through the

26:28wetlands the way you like to run through

26:30the wetlands. I mean so so they I mean

26:33okay I mean people like to do that but

26:35that's not possible if if we are

26:38responsible for that property. I'm just

26:40so

26:41>> Okay. So

26:41>> I I think so but I think there's a few

26:43things from a perspective of of where

26:45we're at.

26:46>> Um we have tried to so so on the main

26:50trail map that does not include single

26:52track that is approved. We have tried to

26:54put um to do NOIs or to to discuss those

26:57of where we want to put bridges and

26:59fixed wetland crossings of the cart

27:01roads and all the things that were

27:02originally approved uh for Plankton. I

27:06think you'll find that most of the

27:07single track, while there's a density

27:08concern with the single track, most of

27:10that single track is actually very dry

27:12trail and not in areas that are actually

27:15uh in a well and they made it go near

27:17some some vernal pools and other issues

27:19like that, but and that's a fine

27:22conversation. We we opened the committee

27:24came forward and said, "We're open to

27:26removing trail. We're open to a broader

27:28property. We've we've we've committed

27:30three or four submissions in the past on

27:33what we want to do on Plumpton and

27:35everything was denied. Okay. Which which

27:38so we can't we can't do a wetland

27:40crossing. We can't do anything that

27:41protects the wetlands on the property

27:43for the main trails that this committee

27:45approved

27:46because we can't do anything on the

27:48property. So while we're trying to do

27:50the right things by the property in

27:52terms of the main trails, we still can't

27:53even do that because we've been told we

27:55have to get to a whole property plan.

27:58And so I hear you. We're open to

28:00discussions on um what we want to shut

28:03down and what we don't want to shut down

28:04and what's appropriate, what's not

28:05appropriate. But I'm we are not going to

28:07be in a in a scenario, especially with

28:10Opacum, where we have to go forward

28:12every year and ask for another piece of

28:14trail and say, "Hey, we want to do this

28:16now and so on because it it it's not

28:19productive. We waste a lot of time doing

28:21that." And so from our perspective, we

28:24want uh to come together as a town,

28:28look, review what we want there, and

28:30then move forward on that and work

28:32through the process to get to keep some

28:34of that single track, how much of it, we

28:37figure that out. But I think to that

28:39point, if you're going to go in and

28:40start, you know, taking single track out

28:42that is this wide across the property,

28:45you're going in and doing the same thing

28:46that you're talking about doing the

28:47single track is is an issue. Well,

28:49removing it is just as much of an issue

28:50for for the habitat as as leaving it.

28:52It's very narrow, hard pack trail that

28:55you don't even see if you're not if

28:56you're not walking near it.

28:58>> Just to clarify, the plan is not

29:00approving or authorizing any activity.

29:03So, it's not if the plan were to get

29:05approved today, tomorrow, next month,

29:08we're not shutting down trails. First

29:10step is to sit down and look at all the

29:13trails work process and go through the

29:15proper permitting processes for them. So

29:17just clarification for everyone,

29:19>> right? So so I mean it's it seems to me

29:21that issue would come after we adopt the

29:24plan.

29:24>> Right. But so but we as a as a trail

29:27committee we don't support this plan

29:29because we haven't seen.

29:30>> But you didn't read it.

29:31>> That's right.

29:32>> Okay. So So read it and then you can

29:35come back.

29:36>> Someday if we see it, Carsten, we'll go

29:39there. But we haven't go through it

29:40right now. We almost could.

29:41>> I know.

29:43Understood. But these are, you know,

29:46there's there's three separate

29:48conversations that need to go on. I

29:50mean, unfortunately, this is a this is a

29:53uh this is a marriage that we all have

29:56to deal with. We have to deal with OPM

29:58because they're the CR holder. We have

30:00to deal with ourselves because we're the

30:01ones who have the custody, care, and

30:03control of it. And then you guys need to

30:06weigh in on what is priority for the

30:08trail. I don't know that there's uh

30:10really an argument here that we need to

30:13worry about right now because the simple

30:15fact of the matter is like as I see it

30:17and I could be completely wrong like

30:20unless I'm hearing this wrong, right?

30:22Those aren't

30:24trails sponsored trails. They're just

30:26somebody went off and created that and

30:28that is what it is and some of the

30:29people might be in the room and and it

30:31is what it is but it's not it's not

30:33something that's uh monitored by

30:35maintained by or it was originally put

30:39in by the trails committee. So what

30:42we're talking about doing is approving a

30:44plan that we can then go in and actually

30:46put a thoughtful

30:48>> idea in and but until we do this step

30:53then there the next step is NOIs uh and

30:58all of that stuff we can't even go in

31:00and fix that trail that's been

31:03hardpacked without some sort of NOI if

31:05that's what is determined right if so

31:09>> I don't I really don't know what the

31:11concern is at this point. We can have

31:13some disagreements about what the master

31:15plan is, but before we get to this step,

31:17we can't even start to plan out what you

31:19guys actually would like to see on the

31:21property. Or am I wrong? I I'm I'm

31:22willing to be wrong, Brandon. I just

31:24don't know.

31:24>> No, no, no. So, the challenge with this

31:26is that with so we we don't know what's

31:29in this document right now, right? So,

31:31if so, from a trail committee

31:33perspective, you whatever you decide to

31:35do tonight is is fine, but we haven't

31:38seen it. So from a trail committee

31:39perspective, we are not supportive of

31:41this document because we don't know

31:43what's in it.

31:43>> Sure.

31:44>> And we have tons of documentation on how

31:46we build trails, maintain them, uh, and

31:49what we think are, you know, every every

31:51property in town we try to do something

31:53a little different. This was the one we

31:55had hoped to do single track on and keep

31:57as the single track property in that

31:58manner. We there's roadblocks to that.

32:01So we have to work through those. But

32:02the point is is that from a trail

32:04committee perspective, we don't support.

32:06That's all you know and so I I hear what

32:08you're saying but most of this document

32:09the first version we saw showed map

32:12after map after map and so and that sets

32:14a tone as well. If you put maps in there

32:16and saying we want or don't want this or

32:18this is what it is these aren't

32:20sustainable. The first version said that

32:21we don't maintain our trails. We

32:23maintain our trails better than any

32:24trail committee in the state.

32:26>> I'm going to correct you and say that it

32:28said that those trails were not

32:29maintained specifically those trails

32:32>> which is the factual thing. Correct. Uh,

32:34no.

32:35>> Those trails haven't been maintained.

32:37>> Which which ones? The

32:38>> the single track trails.

32:42The single track trails that aren't

32:44trails committee are maintained by

32:46trails committee.

32:47>> By the trails committed

32:49by trails committee, which is what was

32:50said in the

32:51>> Maybe we should get more from the

32:52commission too because

32:54it is quarter of

32:56>> less like this is an issue of

32:58conservation. Why don't we like

32:59reservation like puts

33:01>> so we've had the public comment but

33:05>> okay

33:06>> thanks um I'll keep it very constructive

33:09uh Nate Lane 22 Old Townway uh speaking

33:12as a resident and a member of the New

33:14England Mountain Bike Association

33:15chapter that's local uh we're going

33:18through a uh nearly mirrored

33:21conversation with Brimfield State Forest

33:23and DCR and the BSC group that they have

33:26contracted to do a similar exercise as

33:28we're looking at here. There are 27

33:31miles of unauthorized single track

33:33trails in Brimfield State Forest. They

33:36have um worked very well with the

33:40community with um you know the multiple

33:43users of the track whether it's

33:44equestrian, snowmobile, mountain, you

33:47know, mountain biking, hiking, camping,

33:49whatever that is. And um a couple things

33:52have come uh from that conversation

33:54that's been very productive that could

33:56address some of the issues here even in

33:58the in the near term which is um we have

34:02put our hands up to be uh formal you

34:05know uh formal partners in the

34:06maintenance of the unauthorized trails

34:08which we've been doing out of good faith

34:10for years. It's been nearly 12 10 12

34:12years in Brimfield State Forest. It's

34:15been years here in Plimpmpton. Um, we're

34:19more than interested in helping with the

34:22Clinton property, let alone other

34:24properties in town, and expanding the

34:26maintenance capacity and whatnot. But I

34:28think one of the best maybe the the

34:32very productive things that we've seen

34:33in the Brimfield State Forest

34:34conversation is that the the plans that

34:37they have put together have yes,

34:40decreased density, but not resulted in a

34:43total elimination. and they've been very

34:44productive and they've been very um in

34:47tune with what the community is looking

34:49for and that's unexpected from the state

34:51to be frank. You know, we thought that

34:53conversation was going to be a total

34:55dead end. Um but in general, I think for

34:58those of you who haven't been on the

34:59Plimpmpton trails, I very much encourage

35:00you to do so because they are not new.

35:04They are hard pack, meticulously

35:06maintained. Not everything in our town

35:09has to be an 8ft wide gravel ADA trail.

35:12And even we think about the elevation in

35:14Plimpmpton, it's not an accessible

35:17property. So even if you go in and make

35:20wider trails in there, good luck. So

35:23Plimpmpton is unique in the fact, and I

35:24know it's a complicated property, and I

35:26know it has to be a much bigger

35:27conversation, but it's not lead mine. It

35:30is not Burgess, it is not some of these

35:32trails that are, you know, really ripe

35:34for accessibility in town. and and I

35:37think the diversification of what the

35:39focus is in the trail trails committee

35:41is always an advocate for this is a

35:43balance of you know different grades of

35:46single track all the way up to the Grand

35:48Trunk Trail. So either way main point is

35:50regardless of where this goes we're

35:52going to continue being partners in the

35:54maintenance because we believe it's

35:56important that any trails in our town

35:57are safe and that is how we as a you

36:00know NEA chapter show up. Um and there's

36:02very few trails in town that aren't

36:04safe. Um, and I think the only ones that

36:06we've ever, you know, thrown a flag up

36:08about are Opaum Woods and we couldn't

36:11get to a, you know, maintenance

36:12agreement with them to help improve

36:14those trails. So either way, it's a

36:17major point of recreation for the town.

36:19Plimpmpton is a phenomenal mountain

36:21biking network in in a town where, you

36:23know, gravel ADA is the priority and uh

36:26we hope we can continue to help.

36:29>> Thank you. Thanks.

36:31>> Anyone else?

36:34Go ahead.

36:36>> Sorry.

36:37>> That's good. Like at one point like the

36:39wind

36:40>> here in Claybrook. I live at 15

36:41Southshore Drive in Sturbridge. Um I

36:44ride these trails almost weekly. They're

36:46right down from my house. I have two

36:48small kids. Can't get out much. Was a

36:49bit a huge difference in my life. Um I

36:52can honestly say, you know, looking at

36:53the map and where the the high-risisk

36:56areas are. Um, I'm not sure what the

36:58protection what species we're

37:01protecting, but wetland I can tell you

37:03it's bone dry. I've almost never seen a

37:05trail go through a wetland area. There

37:07are lowlying areas. Maybe that's the

37:09issue where we're seeing, but as someone

37:11who rides it almost, I say two times a

37:13week. It is about as dry as it comes.

37:16Um, the trails are not loose, they're

37:18not, you know, uh, falling apart. A tree

37:20falls down, it's cleared within a week.

37:22These are highly so one of the things I

37:24caught in the report it said you know

37:25they need constant maintenance and and

37:27maybe that's true but they get it the

37:30maintenance happens it happens through

37:32communication through networking and

37:34just letting people know where the trees

37:35are down where things are falling apart

37:37it would be I you know this has been a

37:38bit of learning experience for me cuz

37:40you know I'm hearing that you know some

37:41of the cuz honestly the trails that are

37:42not maintained are the car paths those

37:45are the ones that are pretty rough

37:46because I think of the restrictions

37:47being put on um those are the areas that

37:49kind of get loose and grally and kind of

37:51more unsafe It's actually the mountain

37:52bike network that actually is quite

37:54wellmaintained. I think there's a real

37:56opportunity like Nate said that, you

37:58know, we can have a lot of stuff. I I

37:59ride lead mine. Um I I ride these areas,

38:02but you know, the area that is really

38:04best designed for mountain biking is

38:05Clinton. It is is perfectly set up for

38:07it. Um it is a pretty steep hilly area.

38:10It's not a place that has gradual, you

38:12know, it has a flat area then it goes

38:14straight up. Um it's not a really, you

38:16know, hiker friendly area. I wouldn't

38:18want to see trails south of of of on of

38:20the property. Um I' I've been a member

38:23of him um of the gun club. You know, I

38:25would not want pellet shells raining

38:27down on me as I ride a bike down there a

38:28walk. Um so, you know, just I you know,

38:32I'm not as familiar with like the

38:33high-risisk areas and and what the the

38:35rationale for that. I'd love to hear

38:36more about that. Um but, you know, that

38:38is the heart of the of the area and what

38:40gets used.

38:42>> Thank you very much.

38:46>> Yep.

38:49>> [laughter]

38:51>> Um, first of all, thank you for uh

38:53writing this. I think it was very

38:54comprehensive and it was a very easy

38:56read. Um, if you can go to page 20 that

39:00shows that that map. Um, I think we are

39:04losing track of what the master plan is.

39:07Uh, it's not about trails. is about how

39:11to manage this property or like the

39:13recommendations of how to manage this

39:16property so that it can support

39:20um

39:21not only wetlands but also the

39:23biodiversity of the system and this

39:26trail system is to

39:31um it has to be thin out this is as it

39:34says in the title is a recommendation so

39:36it doesn't mean that it's going to be

39:39everything closed out. The

39:41recommendation to support the um

39:46wildlife, the wetlands, the ecological

39:49functioning as I interpret this of

39:53uh plum

39:55is that distress need to be closed. That

39:57is the recommendation. If we want like

39:59this like to be an area that supports

40:01biodiversity that we always want

40:03conservation, this has to be closed. Um,

40:07so I think we're losing track of what

40:10the master plan is. Like then if a trail

40:13is closed, if a trail is created, those

40:15highlight to go in my interpretation,

40:17correct me if I'm wrong, has to go

40:19through a permitting process and like to

40:21an analysis of okay, which of these

40:24trails we keep open, if we keep open

40:26anything, and that will go through a

40:28different process of permission and all

40:30that. [music] I wanted to mention that

40:32because I think we were losing track of

40:34what the uh master plan is is about. Um

40:38in my perspective as a landscape

40:40ecologist,

40:41this is crazy. They do have [laughter]

40:43this this network, but that's kind of

40:46like my personal perspective. Uh is

40:49super hilly. You mentioned that. Uh and

40:54that causes erosion and even if it's

40:57like a very narrow fmented landscape.

40:59What

41:00>> have you walked the property? Uh I

41:01haven't walked the property. No.

41:04>> Just a point of order if you

41:06>> uh but I'm able to interpret like what

41:10I'm seeing.

41:11>> Okay. So um I could walk you tomorrow if

41:14you want. This is a a very dense network

41:18for the ecology of the species that live

41:19in the in the area. Even a small

41:23fragmentation it has an effect. Okay.

41:26like because we are not always talking

41:28about like big large animals where like

41:30yes this network may not affect the

41:32movement of of foxes but may be

41:34affecting the movement of other spaces.

41:36Again this is a recommendation. Uh so so

41:40I think we're losing a little bit of

41:41track of um of what this recommendation

41:44means.

41:47The other thing that I wanted to say is

41:48that I uh and I I'm going to get the

41:52hate of many people here. Um but in the

41:56in the recommendations uh one of the

41:59things that uh if I could add something

42:02in the recommendations is uh permit use

42:05of the trails as well because

42:09like some of these trails that are in

42:11very steep areas in areas that may be

42:14crossing

42:16um habitat of nature species um

42:20different uses

42:22may be required. Um,

42:25for an area that has

42:28this a habitat for endangered species,

42:31foot traffic will be much less impactful

42:35than bike traffic. I know that

42:39you want to see me outside [laughter]

42:42um from what I what I said, but that is

42:44my my my perspective. That said again

42:47this is a master plan and the master

42:50plan is for how we should as a

42:53conservation commission manage or like

42:56what are the recommendations for the

42:58conservation commission to take into

43:00account to manage this land to support

43:03what the conservation commission does

43:06habitat or diversity. So then taking

43:10this into account when uh someone wants

43:12to put a trail we can like consider that

43:14or like close the trail we can consider

43:16that but that's I think that is a very

43:18ster thing. So I appreciate uh like the

43:21comments uh for getting all here and

43:24giving these comments but at the same

43:25time it's not about uh opening and

43:28closing trails. It's about the full

43:29master just wanted to say

43:39>> I am not a service president. I'm an

43:41Eastport field. I'm also the vice

43:42president of the New England Mountain

43:44Chapteration

43:46Association chapter. For the record,

43:48just your name and address.

43:49>> Christine Mris, 188 Red Gable Road.

43:52>> Thank you.

43:53>> Um, I find it hard to believe that

43:56you're going to vote on a master plan

43:57without actually even viewing the

43:59property and being able to um draw

44:03inferences from a flat piece of paper

44:05with regularly lines versus walking the

44:07property and actually seeing the impact

44:09of the trails or not. um because that

44:13does not tell me or show me anything

44:16about the trail system other than a

44:18bunch of lines. I know that you have

44:20elevation plans and I know that you can

44:22read it because you're educated and all

44:23of that and it gives you

44:26estimations, but until you go out and

44:28actually see how well the trail builder

44:31built the trails and how effective

44:36they are with the property and how it

44:38works with the the scape and the hill

44:40and the percentages of grades and so to

44:43the point where it would not be um an

44:45erosion situation or it would not impact

44:48at the travel of endangered species or

44:52other animals in the property and how it

44:54would not be able to be an accessible

44:56property that it's very it's a gem in

45:00your area for mountain bikers. You don't

45:03realize what you'd be doing as far as

45:06removal of trails because it's a very

45:08contiguous network where it's it it

45:12pushes the mountain biker to be a little

45:15bit more. It's very punchy yet

45:19physical. I don't know how to explain it

45:21without you walking it to understand

45:23what it means to a mountain bike or or

45:26to anybody who enjoys that type of a

45:29trail system. Um, I particularly can

45:31ride to it from my home and I would find

45:33that very heartbreaking because we don't

45:37have a lot of this type of really

45:39excellent well-built trail system in

45:42[clears throat]

45:43the stage area. Excuse me.

45:46>> Again, like it's not about like the

45:49master's plan is is not about like we

45:51are going to close all these streets. is

45:52like this is the recommendation and like

45:54it would be like irresponsible from us

45:57to say like

45:59>> um we approve a master plans with all

46:01those trails there because

46:03>> it's irresponsible that you're trying to

46:05approve a plan without actually walking

46:06the property.

46:10>> Well,

46:11you're saying that these trails are not

46:13affecting the movement of species. What

46:15evidence do you have from that?

46:17>> What evidence do you have that it does?

46:19>> I'm an ecologist that work with

46:20landscape ecologist. that doesn't

46:23>> and and I know how uh even a smaller

46:27density of trace like this can affect

46:29the movement of salamanders across the

46:31land the movement of like smaller

46:34species have been there since 2017

46:37>> if not longer

46:38>> but the idea is to improve the area

46:41>> and you have evidence that it's not

46:43working for the animals or the ecology

46:46>> it's it's an it's an area of um habitat

46:49for endangered species Right. And so do

46:52you have evidence to back up your

46:54statement that it's it's not going to be

46:56an environment that would be conducive

46:59to

46:59>> there is evidence of how fragmentation

47:01of uh forest areas affect um the

47:04movement and the biodiversity of the

47:06system.

47:07>> So I'm going to try and argue this with

47:09you right now but I just want to

47:10understand that you have all the facts

47:12and you can show me where this is

47:14happening.

47:14>> Okay. I'll show you I'm going to show

47:16you papers about this kind of

47:17>> but as well said we don't make a

47:20decision about that. My understanding I

47:23mean I'm actually looking at this and

47:26and seing out the trails and deciding

47:29which trails to stay open would be a lot

47:31of work. I rather almost would keep them

47:35all open. It's easier but on the other

47:37hand the master plan doesn't commit us

47:40either way. Right. I just feel that

47:42necessary for you to see the land.

47:44>> But [snorts]

47:46but even if I walk the plan, I don't

47:48actually, as you said, I don't know

47:51either way. Does it affect the species

47:53or does it not affect the species? And

47:55so you will have to get some experts in

47:58and they will have to decide. And I I

48:01believe you this is a great place to

48:03mountain bike. Uh and and and and we

48:06take that into consideration. But maybe

48:09maybe one mountain bike path is about 10

48:12ft away from a vulner pool or something

48:14like that. I mean that's supposed to be

48:17seen unless you're there looking at

48:19>> Right. Exactly. But I can't I mean even

48:21if I have a site visit I can't walk all

48:23of these uh trails in any case. So uh so

48:27somebody will have to survey it and and

48:29the master plan just says we need to

48:32survey them uh because they will stay

48:35open till we do that. Right. man,

48:38>> but nothing will be we we don't close

48:41them. I I assume we don't necessarily

48:44close them by adopting this master plan.

48:47No,

48:47>> that's correct.

48:48>> That's correct.

48:49>> Right. So So the master plan is just a

48:53way forward to start having the

48:55conversations because we can't even have

48:57the conversation. My understanding is

48:58before we have a master plan. It would

49:00be it would be ideal if we all had the

49:03opportunity to see what you're seeing

49:05and then have the

49:06>> right. But but I know that you don't

49:07want to close the trails and

49:09>> that's not why I was that's not why I'm

49:11standing here. I'm standing here saying

49:12that you haven't even looked at the

49:14property in person and you're making a

49:16decision on a piece of property that

49:18actually

49:21Okay. Thank you.

49:22>> Um may I ask like you a question? Uh so

49:25the I'm looking at the at the um uh the

49:31special thanks uh in the creation of the

49:34of the master front

49:36>> is there um and uh it was created by

49:39conservation works. So um what was the

49:42input of um

49:46ecologists and and conservation

49:48biologist in in determining like the the

49:52um the guidance of closing trails or

49:57what was the racial

49:59>> Yeah. So I had um meetings with Nick Guo

50:02and I'm not actually not sure I'm saying

50:04his name correctly um and Melanie

50:06Cheeseman from natural heritage and

50:08endangered species program. So, we had

50:10ongoing conversations throughout the

50:12entire planning process about the

50:13property, about the species that were

50:16identified within the property, um, and

50:18what would be appropriate and what would

50:20not be appropriate.

50:22>> Of the density of trails and

50:24>> yeah, the density the density really

50:26comes from opac.

50:29That's the metric they use to determine

50:31whether or not they are feel comfortable

50:34approving more trails or not. Um, and

50:37that density comes from DCR. Natural

50:41Heritage uses something similar to

50:44determine whether or not there's going

50:45to be like what the impact is on the

50:48property.

50:49>> Yeah.

50:49>> What is the language in the CR with

50:51regard to trails?

50:53>> With regards to trails,

50:54>> yes.

50:55>> That they have to go through a proper

50:57approval process for starters, but

50:59>> there's no density language. It doesn't

51:01have to be in the conservation

51:02restriction in order for like it's based

51:04on what opacum land trust uses in their

51:08determination

51:09for what is going to be acceptable or

51:11not.

51:13>> That's y um did you look at any of the

51:16land budding like Wells State Park?

51:20>> Yeah.

51:21>> I mean don't they have the same

51:24problem

51:26>> in terms of

51:27>> in terms of the endangered species? Yes,

51:30they do.

51:32>> But that's DCR land. That's not town

51:35land. I that wasn't

51:36>> No, I know. I I wasn't from that point

51:38of view.

51:39>> I'm not sure I understand your question.

51:41>> You go up there and and look at trails

51:43and you see endangered species hanging

51:47from the trees.

51:49I mean, literally.

51:52>> I don't understand your question.

51:54>> Well, the question is they they've moved

51:56right along. We're putting in a trail

51:58now. Carson almost got killed down

52:00there.

52:03>> I think the the difference is Ed right

52:05as I see it and this is what we need to

52:08figure out about going forward is like

52:11ultimately we're the ones who have the

52:12custody and control of this. We opacum

52:16does have some say obviously since

52:17they're the CR holder but we need we

52:20just need to make sure that there's a

52:23when we are evaluating these things

52:25we're not judging ourselves differently

52:27than we would on other things and I you

52:29know one of the things that isn't in the

52:30master plan that I don't have a full

52:32breadth of understanding of is there's

52:35some natural heritage stuff in there

52:36that's not mine to decide right there's

52:39the wetlands in there that's mine to

52:40decide and and probably if I get out

52:42there and I walk into that into those

52:44trails. We could probably if we're just

52:46looking at the wetlands because that's

52:47really all of our purview,

52:49>> right? Because the other stuff is

52:50natural heritage,

52:52>> um is we're just responsible for 200 ft

52:55around where wherever those wetlands are

52:57determined to be,

52:58>> which given the size and scope of the

53:00property probably doesn't impact the

53:02trail system all that much, right? So,

53:05we're talking about a a a problem that

53:08may be easily addressable. I don't know.

53:10And we only have

53:13control over at most 500 ft depending on

53:16the

53:17>> care custody. That's right.

53:19>> I understand that.

53:21>> I understand that. But when it comes to

53:23it's easier for us to make a decision on

53:25something that is not like we have

53:28control of the entire site, but we are

53:31absolutely responsible to the to the

53:33watershed within 200 ft and in some

53:36cases 500 ft. I this this may be this

53:41may be a popular opinion there and an

53:43unpopular opinion other places like if

53:46we were 250 ft away and we were outside

53:50of all the uh the wetland uh borders go

53:54for it just make sure that natural

53:56heritage is okay with it in my opinion

53:58right um so but there's a lot of stuff

54:01that is unknown in this um but the

54:05ultimate responsibility as I see it is

54:08it's our property. So, we have to hold

54:10ourselves up to the highest of standards

54:12when we're making these decisions here

54:14around the wetlands. That's all I'm

54:15saying.

54:17>> So, in the interest of time and

54:18productivity, because it is 7:00, part

54:21of the purpose of presenting this plan

54:23to the commission today is to get your

54:27feedback. What do you want to see added?

54:29What do you want to see changed? We we

54:31the first draft went out where we got

54:33the public comments and the comments

54:35from trails and from opacum. We went

54:38back we looked at all of those comments

54:40and made appropriate edits. A lot of

54:42that was just improving language and

54:45trying to provide more clarity and more

54:47explanation and outlining more

54:48processes. Nothing major and

54:51substantial. So then version go two goes

54:53to you. But to make this productive, we

54:56need to know comments and feedback from

54:58the commission. What do you what are

55:00some specific things you would or would

55:03not want to see changed in this plan

55:06before presenting a final draft that we

55:10could act on?

55:11>> I would like to see a public meeting

55:14that included trails,

55:16opacum, conservation,

55:19and one other. What's the other one?

55:21>> The New England uh

55:22>> natural heritage.

55:24>> National heritage. national heritage,

55:25but also the

55:26>> with the objective of

55:27>> all the parties in a room and um

55:32go through the plan. I mean, I'd like to

55:35do that. I feel like if we're going to

55:36finally do it, and I'm fine with

55:38whatever happens with trails, I really

55:39didn't even understand that everybody

55:40was here. Just want to make sure. I just

55:42brought that up because that was

55:43something I was like, if people are

55:45maintaining those trails, it's going to

55:46be a big deal if we're taking them away

55:47from them. That's what I was thinking.

55:49>> Well, you know, so we're being very

55:51cavalier. The objective of that meeting

55:53is it to review this plan or to review

55:55the trails because if we're reviewing

55:57the trails, that's step one of

55:58implementing the plan,

56:00>> the plan and the trails. I'm concerned

56:03about uh transferring control

56:06in any direction that might be by us

56:09approving this period. So, I'd like to

56:12um see where we're going. What's it

56:14going to cost to close a trail?

56:18>> Nobody can close a trail. I mean, nobody

56:20can do anything at the moment, right?

56:23>> But if we're going to do it,

56:25I'm not going to do it. Who's going to

56:27do it?

56:28>> No. So,

56:29>> did I read it wrong? Are we proposing

56:31closing the trails and reestablishing

56:33anything? Are we just saying

56:34>> step one is planning? That is sitting

56:38down, looking at the density, looking at

56:40all of the surveys that were collected

56:43and figuring out if we're accepting

56:45things, closing things, and then going

56:47through the actual process, whether

56:49that's NOI, RDA, we have to go through

56:52natural heritage, but we before we can

56:54bring any application saying this is

56:56what we want to move, add, remove, this

57:00is what we have to do. So, as far as

57:04getting a meeting, I I'm just trying to

57:06figure out what the objective of the

57:07meeting is. If we have everyone's

57:10collective comments on a draft for this

57:12specific for the content, what are some

57:15things that you would need to see, want

57:17to see, you know, adjusted in the plan?

57:19What are some things you did and did not

57:21like about what was presented to you?

57:23So, we can take that, go back, make more

57:25edits before posting another draft. So

57:30I'd like to hear what each of them has

57:32to say directly.

57:36So got some information here.

57:39I

57:39>> I don't think that's a terrible idea

57:42from this perspective. Like we all will

57:44need to weigh in this se weigh in on

57:47this separately, but coming together as

57:49constituents to have a conversation

57:51about what everybody else's concerns are

57:53is probably worthwhile to to to discuss

57:56before we weigh in on it. I don't I

57:58don't have an issue with that. I don't

57:59know that it it it it changes anything

58:01because I think ultimately we're

58:03probably putting the cart way in front

58:05of the horse to to to Ford's point. What

58:09we're what we're essentially voting on

58:11is agreeing to is is agreeing to move

58:14forward with something, right? Um and

58:18anything in this master plan, I mean,

58:20how many master plans have there been

58:22just in the time I've been at Sturbridge

58:24that just sit on somebody's desk?

58:27somewhere collecting dust, right? So, it

58:29doesn't commit us to do anything, but it

58:31is an indication of setting some inertia

58:36uh to and energy to to move the ball or

58:39move the rock down the hill. So,

58:42>> it's a little different when you have a

58:44group of 50 75

58:49>> people working with their labor on

58:53project. I don't disagree, Ed. But we

58:55have no you can't do it.

58:57>> We have a respon like if this was

58:59somebody's private property, we would

59:01have a different conversation. That's

59:03all I'm saying. We have to hold

59:05ourselves accountable and to the same

59:07standard that we would hold somebody

59:08else's private property. And that's what

59:10we're not getting.

59:11>> I think we are. I feel like we're going

59:13to be in.

59:14>> Could Eli speak?

59:16>> Carsten had a comment, too.

59:17>> Can Can I just I mean he had his hand

59:20up.

59:21>> Yeah. Me, too. [laughter]

59:24Uh

59:26I mean I think it's good to get bring

59:28the community get together and figure

59:30out that everybody is on the same

59:34level of understanding the master plan

59:36because I think that that is uh not

59:39really clear the question that I

59:40actually had just talking about it. So

59:42we have these trails that everybody uses

59:44uh and it sounds to me and that's my

59:48question that there are two ways of

59:50looking through the trail map. One is to

59:53say, oh, in some sense all of the trails

59:56are closed till till the trails are

1:00:00basically approved, right? So each trail

1:00:02has to be approved and so we have to go

1:00:05through each and every trail in order to

1:00:07>> approve it and otherwise all of the

1:00:09trails are closed and a maybe more

1:00:12efficient way would be to say okay

1:00:15there's this

1:00:17trail map everybody will use this

1:00:20regardless. Maybe it might be uh better

1:00:23to have some people who understand the

1:00:26ecology tell us which which trail they

1:00:30actually would like to close, right? So

1:00:32because rather than I mean it seems to

1:00:34be way too much work to go through all

1:00:37of the trails map all of the trails

1:00:39maybe look at partic I mean from our

1:00:43wetland perspective maybe look at the

1:00:45trails that are really really close to

1:00:47the wetlands and see whether they can be

1:00:49kept or not and and so move forward keep

1:00:54the trails but if there are any

1:00:56objection to any particular trail have a

1:00:59discussion about that I mean that seems

1:01:00to be a bit more effective than closing

1:01:04all the trails and then reopening them

1:01:06only with an NOI which is kind of

1:01:08>> but that's not like the master plan is

1:01:10not closing anything.

1:01:11>> Yeah.

1:01:12>> Also Jill's services are limited to the

1:01:15master plan just as a for the scope of

1:01:17this project. So

1:01:18>> well and and I will I will just say and

1:01:20>> wait.

1:01:22Sure.

1:01:22>> Eli 45 Fiskill Road member of the trails

1:01:26committee. Um, I've heard a bunch of

1:01:29people say the master plan doesn't talk

1:01:32about which trails should be open, which

1:01:33should be closed, but there was a whole

1:01:36bunch of detailed maps in there showing

1:01:40p new trails that should be built and

1:01:44trails that should be eliminated. And I

1:01:46think that's where a bunch of the

1:01:47frustration comes from is that the

1:01:50proposed new trails in the plan that I

1:01:52saw. I haven't seen the latest version,

1:01:54but

1:01:55the the people that use that property

1:01:57don't care about those proposed trails.

1:02:00They care about the existing trails that

1:02:02are awesome and people love. So I think

1:02:07it's really important to understand

1:02:08that's a big part of the frustration

1:02:10here is that the plan very detailed

1:02:15map shows new trails that

1:02:20none of the people I know that love the

1:02:22property care about. So Eric did it.

1:02:26>> I believe that

1:02:28sorry Eric Eric and I are friends too.

1:02:30So, but I think that's that's important

1:02:33to understand where some of the

1:02:34frustration comes from because I hear

1:02:36the plan doesn't say what we're going to

1:02:38do, but the plan proposes what we should

1:02:42do.

1:02:42>> Yeah.

1:02:43>> And if you read the plan from someone

1:02:45who's not familiar with reading plans

1:02:47like this, it sounds like this is what

1:02:50we're going to do if it's approved. And

1:02:53so that's I think where a lot of the

1:02:54frustration comes from. So I just I just

1:02:56wanted to confence.

1:02:59So was there a problem? I'm sorry.

1:03:02>> It's not like

1:03:05>> the what it says it's a re

1:03:07recommendation of closing those trails

1:03:12if the objective is to

1:03:15maintain the ecology the habitat for. So

1:03:18he says if we if if we if you have this

1:03:22property and you want to manage this

1:03:24property for conservation to support the

1:03:27habitat support the wetlands you should

1:03:30be closing this because or like

1:03:32fermenting the habitat and blah blah

1:03:33blah. It's not saying you you have like

1:03:36to close this and it's not saying

1:03:38anything about how it is being used

1:03:41because that is the second like the

1:03:43second step like the the master plan is

1:03:46this is a property that is managed by

1:03:48conservation it's a property that

1:03:52has to be managed to support that

1:03:54conservation. So the plan is if you are

1:03:57to manage this to support that

1:03:59conservation

1:04:01where you should be taking care of

1:04:04trails

1:04:05and where you could add trails that will

1:04:08not affect that. At least is how I'm

1:04:11>> That's right. And and to to your point

1:04:13earlier Karsten, if you wanted if if the

1:04:16conservation commission and the trails

1:04:18committee and opum decided that they

1:04:20want to keep that single track stuff up

1:04:23in the the that upper section.

1:04:27You can do that. Then you need to go

1:04:30through the proper MISA review checklist

1:04:32and you're what natural heritage that

1:04:35that would be the process that you go

1:04:36through right after having the master

1:04:38plan looking at it. You all come

1:04:40together and you say there's so much

1:04:42support for these trails that we

1:04:43absolutely have to keep them. Go ahead

1:04:46and keep them. You have to go through

1:04:47that process with natural heritage to

1:04:50say this is this is the impact that's

1:04:52here. they have their process to do

1:04:54that. So they come in and they do that

1:04:56entire process and they're going to say

1:04:58whatever they have to say for that. It

1:05:00might end up, you know, there's a whole

1:05:03list of things that they could say for

1:05:04that with or without the M.

1:05:07>> So So here

1:05:08>> you could do that anytime you want to.

1:05:09>> And I just just reading rereading that

1:05:12in light of uh the comments. Now it

1:05:14sounds as if this trailer analysis was

1:05:17already done.

1:05:18>> Yes.

1:05:18>> Is is that true?

1:05:20>> Yes. I've inventoried the entire

1:05:22property.

1:05:22>> Okay. So

1:05:23>> that's correct.

1:05:24>> And but but it didn't really do any deep

1:05:26ecological analysis

1:05:29>> in terms of

1:05:30>> what sort

1:05:30>> in terms of I mean you just looked at

1:05:33the density recommendation and

1:05:36>> I inventoried all the trails. We did an

1:05:39analysis of what the vegetation

1:05:41community was. We looked at all of the

1:05:44data that was available from natural

1:05:45heritage. So, so the idea is that

1:05:50it probably will need to be thinned out,

1:05:53but how exactly is part of the So, if

1:05:58>> how you're going to proceed with that is

1:06:00part of the

1:06:02decision that comes after saying, great,

1:06:04we've got the master plan. Now let's all

1:06:07sit down and talk about

1:06:08>> so so it's very unlikely in the master

1:06:11plan

1:06:12>> that all of these trails will

1:06:15>> stay

1:06:17but will be approval process

1:06:19>> all the the ones that that will stay

1:06:21will have to have an NOI

1:06:26>> yes

1:06:26>> right

1:06:27>> and Mesa review and the Mesa

1:06:28[clears throat] review

1:06:29>> so we can't we can't we have to go

1:06:31through positively every trail and

1:06:34decide does it stay open does not stay

1:06:36open rather than say okay which are the

1:06:38most uh problematic trails and forget

1:06:42about the rest.

1:06:43>> So yeah go ahead.

1:06:44>> I think one a simplified way to kind of

1:06:47put this in a perspective for the

1:06:49commission is think of it as almost that

1:06:52we're doing enforcement on ourselves

1:06:54because we're the property owner and

1:06:56just like any other property it goes

1:06:58with the property owner. So we're taking

1:07:00a look you can't touch anything without

1:07:02approvals. You can't restore it and you

1:07:05can't add new trails without the

1:07:07approvals. As far as

1:07:10>> But what about the existing trails?

1:07:12>> That's something that we with the

1:07:14resources that were provided through the

1:07:16master plan process, all of the surveys

1:07:18and in and trail inventories. We have

1:07:21something that we can actually look at

1:07:22and then prioritize and say, "All right,

1:07:24these are some areas I want to keep.

1:07:26Let's try and" and then we plan this is

1:07:28all part of the process. We could phase

1:07:30this out and say let's just focus on

1:07:33this lower section here. Let's you know

1:07:35figure out piece by piece. This is part

1:07:38of that planning process of how we want

1:07:40to approach that of you know if we want

1:07:42to specifically look at this area try if

1:07:44we need to do more detailed surveys

1:07:47trying to this is applying for grants or

1:07:49funding or you know CPC budget requests

1:07:52things like that to have more specific

1:07:55surveys that are going to have the

1:07:57grading and topography and all of those

1:07:59finer details part of what we might need

1:08:02for an actual NOI filing. So this is

1:08:07this is the basic that we're going to

1:08:09get for a road map. Anything more in

1:08:11depth is actually going to be part of

1:08:13planning and that's going to have to be

1:08:15a separate process that's not part of

1:08:17one the funding that I have available

1:08:19for this current project or within the

1:08:22scope of this contract um with

1:08:25conservation works that expires next

1:08:27month. So that's why I'm trying to

1:08:29really focus on how we can kind of get

1:08:31this into what we want to see and what

1:08:34we can do and what's realistic to get a

1:08:37master plan moving forward.

1:08:39We've been working on this for 11 months

1:08:42and we have one month left on the

1:08:43contract and we're out of funding on

1:08:47this as well. So if we have to go beyond

1:08:49this and expand Jill scope

1:08:51>> what happen if we don't have a if we

1:08:53don't adopt a master within that month

1:08:57>> we spent money that

1:08:59>> we have to have a master plan

1:09:01>> yes it is it it is I mean it was voted

1:09:04on was uh FY24

1:09:07meeting so this was something that was

1:09:10originally requested and presented to

1:09:13CPC by the previous agent and by trails

1:09:16it went to Town Meeting. Town Meeting

1:09:19voted to give the funding for a master

1:09:22plan and now we're in that process of

1:09:26it. It uh lost touch obviously a little

1:09:28bit with the turnover. So then we picked

1:09:30this back up, got it going and have

1:09:33encumbered those funds for subsequent

1:09:36years to try and move forward. But this

1:09:37is the master plan itself was all that

1:09:40was part of this scope. So next steps

1:09:42ARE

1:09:44a new scope of if we're doing an actual

1:09:49trail design.

1:09:52Um

1:09:54so say we want to get more detailed

1:09:57actual on the ground licensed surveyor

1:10:01plans then I we need to know that and we

1:10:04can put that in this you know put this

1:10:06in that draft now for the master plan so

1:10:08I can start pursuing funding of okay

1:10:11step B now I have to get money so we can

1:10:13do this the Mesa filing the NOIs the

1:10:17trail design this is all going to cost

1:10:20money so we have to figure out how we're

1:10:22going to get the money for these things,

1:10:23whether that's, you know, working with

1:10:25our stakeholders, applying for grants,

1:10:27applying for CPC funds. But we kind of

1:10:31need I it will be helpful for Jill and I

1:10:34to figure out where we're going now and

1:10:36what we can do now to within the scope

1:10:39of what was contracted for this project,

1:10:42what was voted on by the town, and how,

1:10:45you know, where we need to go forward.

1:10:46If it's a joint meeting, you know, from

1:10:49everything in my opinion that we're

1:10:50reading, that's that next that's that

1:10:52step one that's proposed within the

1:10:54plan. The likeliness of trying to get

1:10:56Opacum, Trails, Conservation, and

1:11:00Natural Heritage all in the same room

1:11:02within a month, I mean, it's what, one

1:11:05month in between communications with

1:11:06natural heritage as it is, and trying to

1:11:09just align with everyone's schedules in

1:11:11the next month is going to be a complete

1:11:13nightmare. So, I'm just requesting you

1:11:15help us figure out what we need to do

1:11:17and what's our direction. If we need to

1:11:19go back and look at the contract and I

1:11:20need to find additional funding to try

1:11:22and extend it and expand that scope, I

1:11:24need to know because I'm that's that's

1:11:27kind of where we need to go from here.

1:11:30And it's it's that's kind of a really

1:11:32important aspect of it right now. So

1:11:34opaccom basically tells us the trails

1:11:37are too dense and you have to do

1:11:39something about and we have to listen

1:11:41>> more or less this

1:11:42>> we have to listen to a payum because

1:11:44they hold

1:11:45>> we have

1:11:48>> we have to it is in the best interest to

1:11:51try and find some middle ground that

1:11:54everyone can agree upon. That's going to

1:11:56be a challenge. We understand because

1:11:59there are so many voices and so many

1:12:01stakeholders and so many opinions. While

1:12:03we heard so many in the public comment,

1:12:06while we had so many strong opinions

1:12:08from, you know, the mountain bike

1:12:10community, we also had strong opinions

1:12:12from people that just said, "This

1:12:14property is great. It's quiet. It's

1:12:16natural. Leave it alone." So, we can't

1:12:19make everyone happy. It's the same as

1:12:21every other project. But one of those

1:12:23first steps is going to be sitting down

1:12:25now that we have all those inventories

1:12:28and saying, "Okay, what are we actually

1:12:30doing?" Um, so

1:12:35you know, it's getting close to 7:30 and

1:12:38I think

1:12:40>> to make a decision here.

1:12:41>> I mean, if we got to keep the I think

1:12:43there's a contention with the trails.

1:12:44That's the only thing. I mean, I mean,

1:12:46if we have to keep that in, I think we

1:12:48are at a out of a tough spot. It sounds

1:12:50like

1:12:51>> I think we should try to have that

1:12:52meeting that's so hard to have because

1:12:54if we can't have it,

1:12:56>> can I have some perspective that

1:12:58everyone's available

1:12:58>> execute the plan?

1:13:00>> Can I can I have some perspective dates

1:13:02that everyone might be available for a

1:13:03special meeting in October then?

1:13:05>> Because that means we need to get emails

1:13:08out tomorrow to try and to try and make

1:13:10this happen if it's possible.

1:13:14>> What's our notice requirement?

1:13:16>> It's not a public hearing. So, we don't

1:13:18we just need 48 hours, but

1:13:21>> we're we're we're picking the date. The

1:13:23concern people want to sway us on our

1:13:26vote, we pick the date and they show up.

1:13:28>> I think the only only people we really

1:13:31need to deal with is OPAC right now,

1:13:33right? And see where they feel about

1:13:34this cuz the National

1:13:36>> Natural Heritage we have not received an

1:13:38>> National Heritage can say to us, "No, we

1:13:41don't want

1:13:42>> Well, they can say us ahead of time."

1:13:46No, natural heritage is just going to

1:13:47tell you to go through the project

1:13:49review checklist. That's going to be

1:13:51their answer over and over and over

1:13:53again. I just need to

1:13:57pull up the system with Let's just try

1:13:59to do that, Lauren, if that's I mean, do

1:14:01we have to put a motion?

1:14:02>> I don't want that trail system to be

1:14:05shut down. I just want to have I just

1:14:07want to make sure since it's our

1:14:09property that now that we know, we have

1:14:12to go through the proper channels. Let's

1:14:13just get it on a plan. Let's, you know,

1:14:16I don't think anybody maybe floor has a

1:14:19little stronger opinion of maybe cutting

1:14:22that back considerably and and but my my

1:14:25issue is not with the with a single

1:14:27track. it in general. My issue is with

1:14:30the fact that

1:14:32>> we now know that we have a problem on a

1:14:34property that we are responsible for and

1:14:37we have to hold ourselves accountable to

1:14:38the same standards that we would a

1:14:40private resident and a private business

1:14:42>> and and we and like otherwise then what

1:14:45are we doing here because all we're just

1:14:47doing is being hypocrites.

1:14:48>> So what do we need to do for a motion or

1:14:51something? I I think actually the most

1:14:53important

1:14:54>> conversation would be with trails

1:14:56committee after they read this

1:15:00>> report. So so that we are at least on

1:15:02the same page about what this master

1:15:04plan actually means. Uh because there

1:15:08seems to be different of opinions about

1:15:12what direction the master plan tells us

1:15:15to go.

1:15:17So but I Yeah.

1:15:20Like any day like except for the 8th any

1:15:22other Thursday?

1:15:25>> What? Give me a day.

1:15:26>> Uh except for Thursday 8 that is next

1:15:29Thursday.

1:15:30>> Yeah.

1:15:30>> Um any like

1:15:33>> no next Thursday I wouldn't like you

1:15:36saying just Thursday

1:15:36>> 18 the 26 if you want to keep it.

1:15:38>> I mean in the evening it should be okay.

1:15:41Most

1:15:41>> can't do the 12th. It's a holiday.

1:15:43>> Oh that's right.

1:15:46the the week from the 12th onwards would

1:15:49be good

1:15:49>> as well.

1:15:51>> I as of right now looks like I'm okay on

1:15:53the 13th.

1:15:54>> 13th.

1:15:54>> 13 is a Friday.

1:15:56>> No. No. Tuesday. October 13th.

1:15:58>> I'm not available on the 13th.

1:16:00>> Uh 13. Tuesday 13. I'm also available.

1:16:04But you're not

1:16:05>> I'm not available 13th.

1:16:07>> So yes, I was in Okay. I can do I can do

1:16:10the 14th, but it would have to be 7

1:16:12o'clock or after.

1:16:14>> I can do the 14th or 15th.

1:16:16>> I'd probably be the same thing on after

1:16:19we have a holiday, right?

1:16:20>> Just on because I have my daughter's

1:16:22practice up until 7:00. So, I could get

1:16:23here for 7.

1:16:24>> The week of the 12th would be actually

1:16:26the best week.

1:16:28>> It's good.

1:16:31>> Anybody?

1:16:35>> I thought we just said Lauren can't do

1:16:37the 13th. So, we can't do we can't do

1:16:39the

1:16:39>> 14th. But with the 14th, 15th, 16, I can

1:16:42>> I can do the 14th. It sounds like 7 7:00

1:16:45would be the earliest we could do it. Or

1:16:48Thursday the 15th.

1:16:50>> I could do the 15th.

1:16:52>> That's either way.

1:16:54>> After five.

1:16:55>> After five on the 15th.

1:16:57>> All right.

1:16:58>> I don't think people want to come at 7.

1:17:03And then if you want like to organize

1:17:05like a a visit or like we do it on our

1:17:08own.

1:17:08>> But they could actually also zoom in,

1:17:11right? Or

1:17:12>> Yeah,

1:17:14that should be

1:17:17>> we get 5:00 on the 15th.

1:17:19>> 5:00 on the 15th.

1:17:21>> Do we think we can get meeting space?

1:17:24>> Sorry.

1:17:26>> Is that a Thursday?

1:17:27>> Can you guys see that?

1:17:28>> It's a Thursday. Yeah.

1:17:30I would like to say that I can just

1:17:32check the town website, but

1:17:34>> I can't do that.

1:17:35>> But it updated the other day and we lost

1:17:3750% of everything that's on the website.

1:17:38So, um I will confirm tomorrow.

1:17:41>> Well, babe, I suggest we meet in the

1:17:43public house where this can be real.

1:17:46>> I'm just going to I think that for the

1:17:48the purpose if if the if town hall is

1:17:52available, I'll probably just try and do

1:17:53town hall.

1:17:54>> Okay.

1:17:55>> Um but I'll confirm and make sure that's

1:17:57on the 15th. So are we are we

1:17:59advertising this as a joint meeting?

1:18:02>> Yes.

1:18:03>> And and with Opacum as well.

1:18:05>> Well, if they can come

1:18:07>> they can come.

1:18:12>> And I'm assuming the public is

1:18:14>> allowed

1:18:15>> the public meeting.

1:18:17>> Oh no. I'm not doing that. All right.

1:18:20>> Thank you. If you can keep favor just so

1:18:22we

1:18:23>> Yeah. Uh, Mick R in favor. Okay.

1:18:25>> Gaspar in favor in favor.

1:18:28>> What was the motion? 15th.

1:18:30>> 15th at 5:00.

1:18:31>> All right.

1:18:32>> Location TBD.

1:18:38>> Why? Why do we do this to us?

1:18:42>> Well, we didn't do this to us. Whoever

1:18:44asked for the master plan on Plimpmpton

1:18:46and brought it to and brought it to town

1:18:48meeting, they did that to us. So you did

1:18:50it to yourself because

1:18:51>> I think actually the trails committee to

1:18:52the trust and

1:18:53>> that's what I was talking about when I

1:18:54started talking everybody else.

1:18:58>> I thank you all. We we will we do

1:19:00appreciate the time.

1:19:02>> Thank you.

1:19:03>> All right. We are now at 6:30.

1:19:06[laughter]

1:19:06>> Sure we are.

1:19:09>> Good evening.

1:19:11We are we are

1:19:12>> No, no, you all have to stay now

1:19:14>> because we have to stay.

1:19:17[laughter]

1:19:18>> Next week you're not on break the whole

1:19:20time.

1:19:21>> Yeah.

1:19:21>> All right. We're at open the public

1:19:23hearing for request for determination of

1:19:25applicability for Warren Road,

1:19:28>> Pine Middle Lane, and Brookfield. Before

1:19:31we do this, I'll give you the opening

1:19:34statement. Yes, sir.

1:19:35>> Uh, in the interest of saving time, the

1:19:37Service Conservation Commission will

1:19:38hold all public hearings tonight for

1:19:40work within a wetland, water body, or

1:19:41resource area and/or within the 200t

1:19:44buffer zone to a wetland, water body, or

1:19:46resource area in accordance with the

1:19:47Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act,

1:19:49MGL, Chapter 131, Section 40, and

1:19:52Associated Regulations, and the Town of

1:19:53Servers Wetland bylaws and Associated

1:19:55Regulations. We will not be reading the

1:19:57newspaper ad. Prior to the opening of

1:19:59the first hearing for each project, the

1:20:00applicant is to submit proof of

1:20:02notification to a Butters within 200

1:20:04feet of the subject property line and

1:20:05proof of the legal newspaper

1:20:07advertisement. If these items are not

1:20:08submitted, the public hearing will not

1:20:10open. Additionally, prior to the start

1:20:11of each public hearing, we will announce

1:20:13the location of the project, the

1:20:14applicant, and the applicant's

1:20:15representative. If any of the visitors

1:20:17have not legibly signed in yet, please

1:20:19do. Also, if any visitors are recording

1:20:21this meeting, please let us know. Thank

1:20:22you.

1:20:23>> All right.

1:20:24>> Thank you. Thank you.

1:20:26>> All right.

1:20:27We are

1:20:28>> who's here for Daniel White here.

1:20:32>> Oh, okay.

1:20:34>> This is

1:20:37>> Go ahead.

1:20:41>> Okay. There's a little bit of feedback,

1:20:42but

1:20:43>> yeah.

1:20:43>> Um,

1:20:45>> hi, I'm Caitlyn Spend with Epsilon

1:20:48Associates um environmental consultants.

1:20:50Um, supported by Matt Kelly, also here

1:20:54remote. Um we're presenting on behalf of

1:20:57um the Massachusetts electric company

1:21:00Nico who's um associated with Dan White.

1:21:04Not sure if he could be here today, but

1:21:08um I guess first of all um Lauren or um

1:21:13I can't see the screen unfortunately,

1:21:15but could the the er map potentially be

1:21:18brought up where I can share my screen,

1:21:20whichever easier.

1:21:22>> Kaitlyn, obviously we are having some

1:21:24internet issues, so I'm trying to get

1:21:26things up on the other computer. But if

1:21:29>> um while we're working that out, I can

1:21:31make you a presenter so you can share

1:21:33your screen.

1:21:35>> Um sure. Just give me one second.

1:21:39>> We'll let you lo from here that way

1:21:44and then you can share your screen.

1:21:47>> Okay.

1:21:52>> Oh, it's just the

1:21:55Is that coming through? Okay. just do

1:21:57this one.

1:21:59>> That's true.

1:22:00>> Yes,

1:22:02>> you say I'm right.

1:22:03>> Um, also just want to say sounds like

1:22:06there's a lot of passionate people here

1:22:08tonight and just wanted to say thanks

1:22:10for having us and we'll keep it pretty

1:22:12brief given the time. Um, but okay, I'm

1:22:16going to get started. So,

1:22:20>> so what is this project? We we submitted

1:22:23a request for determination in RDA for

1:22:26scheduled electric distribution

1:22:28maintenance work along the 408 L2

1:22:32electric distribution feeder which runs

1:22:34along um Warren Road and Pine Meadow

1:22:38Lane Stir Ridge. Think you can see here.

1:22:44Hopefully it's not too zoomed out. Um,

1:22:49>> let me scroll down. Running from

1:22:53>> here up along Warren Road up up here up

1:22:58to Pine Meta Road here. Um,

1:23:02>> zoom in.

1:23:04So for this maintenance project, Mo

1:23:07plans to reconductor and replace the

1:23:09overhead lines from um where I just

1:23:12pointed to on Brookfield Road up along

1:23:14Warren Road and then all the way up to

1:23:16Pine Metal Lane this fall of 2026.

1:23:20Um tree removals are not anticipated as

1:23:23part of this project

1:23:26and uh just wanted to note that this

1:23:29maintenance work is considered exempt

1:23:31under the wetlands protection act. Um

1:23:34although this is this is exempt the town

1:23:37of Sterbridge wetland uh bylaw doesn't

1:23:41fully or explicitly recognize this

1:23:43exemption and so that's why we're we've

1:23:45applied for the RDA.

1:23:47So going to the scope of the work, um

1:23:51we're talking about a relatively small

1:23:53amount of poles total. Um which includes

1:23:57replacements and midspan pole

1:23:59installations inside and outside of

1:24:02jurisdictional areas. Um and this work

1:24:05is needed to maintain the electric

1:24:07utilities to ensure energy reliability

1:24:10to serbridge um residents.

1:24:13So specific to the work within the

1:24:16wetlands um bylaw and regulations

1:24:19jurisdictional areas.

1:24:21Um so as you can see there is this

1:24:25perennial stream um it's a tributary

1:24:28which connects further down south to

1:24:30long pond and there's an associated

1:24:33um wetland system which passes beneath

1:24:36Warren Road here. So the work actually

1:24:40within the jurisdictional areas includes

1:24:43um six pole replacements and four

1:24:45midspan pole installations.

1:24:48Um and these jurisdictional areas

1:24:51include bordering land subject to

1:24:53flooding um BLSF here in blue, the

1:24:57100red-year

1:24:58um FEMA mapped flood plane, the 200 foot

1:25:02riverfront area um which is extending

1:25:06like I just said from this tributary

1:25:08going off going down to Long Pond um and

1:25:14as well as within state and town buffer

1:25:17zones to

1:25:18to BVW

1:25:21um and inland bank and this is a north

1:25:25of foreign road here it's a deep marsh

1:25:27system and then south is primarily

1:25:29wooded swamp

1:25:31um and also to note there as you can see

1:25:36with this hashing there's the natural

1:25:38heritage priority estimated habitat for

1:25:41rare species here which follows along

1:25:43the tributarian wetland system Um but

1:25:47the work is going to be within the

1:25:49roadway layout and meets the utility

1:25:51exemption under MISA

1:25:54um which is detailed in in the RDA

1:25:56application. Um

1:25:59and we wanted to note that there's no

1:26:02work proposed directly within wetland

1:26:04inland bank um or land underwater bodies

1:26:08or waterways. It's also located without

1:26:10other um [clears throat] resources like

1:26:13areas of critical environmental concern

1:26:16as standing resource waters um no ver

1:26:19pools in the in the area. Um so although

1:26:23this work is proposed within wetland

1:26:25resource areas um it's like I said it's

1:26:28going to occur within previously

1:26:30disturbed roadway shoulder and within

1:26:32the roadway easement um and

1:26:37vegetation management activities um

1:26:41including tree trimming or pruning may

1:26:43be required to provide safe and reliable

1:26:46plans to the existing electric

1:26:48distribution heater but like I said

1:26:50before there's tree removals um that

1:26:52will be part of this project. Um and

1:26:56yeah, best best management practices

1:26:59will will be adhered to um as required

1:27:02to protect the wetland resource areas um

1:27:06prior to any ground disturbing

1:27:08activities. Erosion and sediment

1:27:09controls including straw water will be

1:27:12installed as necessary to define the

1:27:14limits of work and protect the the

1:27:17sensitive resources. Um they'll be in

1:27:21installed and maintained in accordance

1:27:23with the uh Miko's best management

1:27:26practices and um following the

1:27:28completion of the work all disturbed

1:27:30areas will be restored and stabilized

1:27:33um with an appropriate seed mix and

1:27:36mulch is necessary. Um,

1:27:39so in conclusion, based on the location

1:27:42and the minimal scope of work, Epsilon

1:27:45believes that the project will not

1:27:48significantly alter subject to

1:27:50protection under the town of Sturbridge

1:27:53wetland bylaw. Um,

1:27:56as all activities will be confined to

1:27:58the previously disturbed roadway

1:28:00easement in adjacent areas. Um,

1:28:03appropriate environmental controls will

1:28:05be implemented as necessary. Um and so

1:28:09accordingly we're requesting that the

1:28:11commission uh issue a negative

1:28:14determination of applicability under the

1:28:17category two. I'm sure you know how that

1:28:20works, but um confirming that while the

1:28:23project is located within the area

1:28:25subject to um jurisdiction under the

1:28:28bylaw that the proposed work will not

1:28:31significantly alter any protected

1:28:33resource areas.

1:28:36So, that was all I had. I um thank you

1:28:38for listening. Happy to answer any

1:28:41questions. Matt, was there anything else

1:28:44um wanted to add?

1:28:47Can zoom in on the map if you want? Um

1:28:52thank you.

1:28:53>> So, none anybody in the audience like to

1:28:55speak to this?

1:28:59>> Anybody on the board like?

1:29:01>> Lauren, do you have any concerns with

1:29:03it?

1:29:03>> What? Um overall the project's fairly

1:29:06straightforward as she mentioned within

1:29:08the existing disturbed area and roadway.

1:29:11This is within natural heritage priority

1:29:14habitat. So recommending condition that

1:29:16no work would start until that um

1:29:19determination was issued and we received

1:29:22a copy of it um and that all re all

1:29:25required conditions if any implemented

1:29:28by natural heritage was also be

1:29:29implemented by the commission. um

1:29:32comments from our DPW director obviously

1:29:35calling dig safe which you would do

1:29:37prior to any of that work anyway but

1:29:39just ensuring that all poles are a

1:29:41minimum of 5 ft from any drainage

1:29:43structures so just confirming that that

1:29:45amount um other than that I have no

1:29:47concerns with the project as it was

1:29:49proposed

1:29:52>> we have no one in the audience have a

1:29:53motion

1:29:54>> like to make a motion to close the

1:29:56public hearing

1:29:57>> second any discussion seeing none all in

1:30:00favor Nick Raone in favor,

1:30:02>> Eric Aspar in favor in

1:30:03>> favor

1:30:05in favor.

1:30:07>> With regards to the project at Warren

1:30:10Road, Pine Metal Lane, Brookfield Road,

1:30:12SEC file number 27-21,

1:30:15I'd like to make a motion to approve a

1:30:17waiver for disturbance within the 25- ft

1:30:20buffer and a waiver for structures uh

1:30:23within the 50ft buffer.

1:30:28>> Any discussion? All in favor? RA in

1:30:30favor. Eric Aspar in favor.

1:30:31>> Good in favor.

1:30:33>> In favor in favor.

1:30:35>> With regards to the project at uh Warren

1:30:38Road, Pine Metal Lane, and Brookfield

1:30:40Road, SEC file number 27-21.

1:30:43Like to make a motion to issue a

1:30:45negative determination for the project

1:30:48uh pursuant to the Wetlands Protection

1:30:50Act and the Sturbridge Wetland bylaw

1:30:52with the conditions as noted in the uh

1:30:55order of conditions. Second

1:30:58question. None. All in favor. Nick in

1:31:01favor.

1:31:02>> Eric Aspar in favor.

1:31:03>> Good in favor.

1:31:05>> Cuba in favor.

1:31:07>> Caitlyn, bring us more like this. That

1:31:09was easy. Thank you. Thank you.

1:31:13>> All right.

1:31:14>> We're now at 640.

1:31:16>> Request for determination of

1:31:17applicability for 88 Paradise Lane.

1:31:26right here. You guys can come right up

1:31:28to this table here.

1:31:47And

1:31:53Okay.

1:31:55So, if you would just state name and

1:31:57address for the record and just explain

1:31:59to the commission what you're proposing

1:32:01to do and then I'll chime in with

1:32:03comments.

1:32:04>> Hey, Susan Hansen and it's 88 Paradise

1:32:07Lane, decommissioning of a well and

1:32:10installation of a well with an RDA

1:32:14process.

1:32:17Tom Hansen. Uh, same address.

1:32:21Um,

1:32:23same you're

1:32:24>> commissioning and decommissioning.

1:32:26[laughter]

1:32:29>> So, the commission obviously most of you

1:32:31were on the site visit. The uh, new

1:32:34artisian well will go in the same

1:32:36location as the existing shallow well.

1:32:39Approximate distance is about 96 ft from

1:32:42the lake opposite side of the house. um

1:32:46minimal impact

1:32:48um straw waddles would be recommended

1:32:50for erosion control since there's no

1:32:52major slope. There was a recommendation

1:32:55from the board of health agent that was

1:32:57concerned about an impaired red maple

1:32:59that is within close proximity. Um so my

1:33:02recommendation is to include that within

1:33:04the proposal with um possible mitigation

1:33:07and your approval is good for 3 years if

1:33:10the commission does vote in that favor.

1:33:12So you would have some time. Um his

1:33:15concern was the health of the tree and

1:33:18the root systems with the well. Um

1:33:22beyond that

1:33:25the site itself was fairly

1:33:27self-explanatory and we'd rather have a

1:33:29functional well. And with all the

1:33:33impacts that are going on on Paradise

1:33:34Lane, I think this is one of the most

1:33:37simple projects that we've seen in quite

1:33:39some time. And my recommendation would

1:33:41be

1:33:42>> a norainer.

1:33:44>> Yeah.

1:33:45>> How deep how deep you going?

1:33:48>> Let's have

1:33:48>> How deep is the new well going to be?

1:33:50>> I have no idea. [laughter]

1:33:52Approximate estimate is probably

1:33:54somewhere around 120 ft, but they're not

1:33:56sure yet.

1:33:57>> Oh jeez.

1:33:58>> Yeah, probably like 200 300.

1:34:01>> I thought the minimum had to be 250.

1:34:02[clears throat]

1:34:04>> Your engineers know?

1:34:06>> Uh

1:34:08the world's roller. Yeah.

1:34:12Okay.

1:34:14All right. Um are are you folks if you

1:34:18do decide to take down that tree um are

1:34:21u are you okay with doing a replacement

1:34:24for a a similar type shade tree to be

1:34:26put?

1:34:27>> Yeah.

1:34:27>> Do you have a recommend can you uh work

1:34:30with Lauren if you do take it down to

1:34:33work with her to recommend a placement

1:34:35for that replacement tree? I would say a

1:34:38native shade tree would I I don't really

1:34:41care. Do you care?

1:34:42>> It's a red maple.

1:34:44>> Replace it with a red maple. How's that?

1:34:46Okay. Red maple. Perfect.

1:34:48>> All right. That was my only That was my

1:34:49only question. I don't think we need a 2

1:34:51to1 replacement here. I think one to one

1:34:53is fine.

1:34:53>> Have a motion.

1:34:54>> Motion to close the public hearing.

1:34:57>> Discussion. See? None. All in favor.

1:34:59>> Nick Gravel in favor.

1:35:01>> Eric Gaspar in favor.

1:35:02>> Good in favor.

1:35:03>> In favor in favor. With regards to the

1:35:06project at 88 Paradise Lane SEC file

1:35:09number 27-25, I'd like to make a motion

1:35:12to issue a negative determination

1:35:15uh for the project pursuant to the

1:35:16wetlands protection act and service

1:35:18wetland bylaw with the conditions as

1:35:21noted in the order of conditions.

1:35:23>> Second.

1:35:24>> Any discussion?

1:35:26>> See none. All in favor in favor.

1:35:28>> Eric Caspar in favor in favor. in favor.

1:35:34>> Tell your neighbors to bring us easy

1:35:35ones like this, too. Thank you.

1:35:37>> Thank you.

1:35:37>> And we'll let you know when that

1:35:38permit's ready.

1:35:39>> Okay. Thank you.

1:35:41>> Thank you.

1:35:41>> All right. Now, we're at

1:35:42>> Yeah. Thank you.

1:35:44>> getting there fast. Getting there fast.

1:35:46We're speeding it. I feel it.

1:35:49>> All right. Head over request for notice

1:35:51of intent. 554 Hayne Street, lot 9.

1:36:03I like your presentation. Nice.

1:36:05>> Do you where do you where would you like

1:36:07it set up? Uh

1:36:09>> we're going to pull up one for their

1:36:10view, but if it's I mean we'd say really

1:36:13facing the commission so they like right

1:36:15in the front here. Then they can all

1:36:17>> All right. I'll do that. You

1:36:20>> hear the extra set of

1:36:21>> Oh, perfect. Thank you so much.

1:36:31And just as a as a note while he's

1:36:33setting up here, um I do have a

1:36:35recommendation since the since 5

1:36:40what am I looking at here? My pages

1:36:42since 556

1:36:44is the budding property but it's in the

1:36:47outer 100 200 foot buffer that's under

1:36:51additional wetland decisions. So my

1:36:53recommendation would be that we can kind

1:36:54of talk about them at the same time

1:36:56since the conditions are going to

1:36:59essentially be similar. There's a little

1:37:00bit different features, but if that is

1:37:02helpful for you, it might be easiest to

1:37:04kind of look at them together and also

1:37:07consider that cumulative impact as well.

1:37:15>> I don't know, Brian. It's a little old

1:37:17school, isn't it?

1:37:18>> That's me. I'm old.

1:37:22Uh Brian Water from WDA Design Group uh

1:37:25here on behalf of the Walter J. Co

1:37:27revocable living trust for a notice of

1:37:30intent for um 554 Hane Street. And as

1:37:34Lauren pointed out, um a letter permit

1:37:38for 556 Hayne Street.

1:37:42As you know, we walked the property a

1:37:45week or two ago now. I can't even

1:37:47remember but um

1:37:50[cough and clears throat] 556 uh 554

1:37:52Hannes has work within the

1:37:56100 foot buffer and 200 ft buffer zone.

1:38:00There's a wetland off to the uh north

1:38:03the existing of the property.

1:38:06Uh what you see here in gray is the

1:38:09driveway for 550. That's the existing

1:38:12historic house

1:38:15on the property.

1:38:17Uh so there's proposed

1:38:20four bedroomedroom home uh septic system

1:38:23in the front closed pool and patio in

1:38:25the back a drilled well back here.

1:38:30The four yellow lines you see here, this

1:38:32is 25 foot set back 50, the 100 and the

1:38:37200

1:38:40closest limit of work here erosion

1:38:42control barrier is 55

1:38:47heavy dash line here is the erosion

1:38:49control barrier which extends onto uh

1:38:52556 because as point out they are kind

1:38:55of

1:38:58here. Um we have two driveways accessing

1:39:02one to 556. The other turns to 5.

1:39:06Um we did receive DP comments uh

1:39:10Tuesday.

1:39:11Their only comment was

1:39:14due to the driveways

1:39:16discharging down towards Hannes.

1:39:19They asked for extra erosion control

1:39:21barriers. Um so the erosion control

1:39:24barriers have been extended around each

1:39:27of the basins

1:39:30along the edge of the road.

1:39:33Um

1:39:36this is 556.

1:39:38So that's been uh extended there. These

1:39:42all drain into these stone rep basins

1:39:46cross culvers down into the existing

1:39:49vegetative soil. DP had asked for uh

1:39:53edge basin

1:39:55controls. There are no

1:40:02but we did add the extra erosion control

1:40:04bears as they also asked for showing

1:40:08track pads reconstruction track pad

1:40:11entrance at each driveway. So those have

1:40:14been added to the set of plans.

1:40:17Other than that, there have been no plan

1:40:19changes from what we submitted in WA.

1:40:24Fortunately, with the weather last week,

1:40:26um the erosion control area at the back

1:40:29of uh 554 was not baked until today.

1:40:35So, I don't think you probably had a

1:40:37chance to go and look at it.

1:40:40I know we walked in back into the field

1:40:42and kind of estimated based on the other

1:40:44house. So, I don't know if you're

1:40:46comfortable with that enough, but uh

1:40:48that was st today if you do need.

1:40:55So, that is 554

1:40:57as Lauren pointed out. 556 is subject to

1:41:01a weather permit. Um

1:41:05so, this is the one you just saw at 554.

1:41:08It's 556.

1:41:10558 have already been constructed. That

1:41:12was the house we saw adjacent.

1:41:14Um, this yellow buffer is the 200 foot

1:41:18buffer. So, there's a corner of the

1:41:19house, a little bit of the driveway, the

1:41:22outer

1:41:24grading goes away. These are the two

1:41:27driveways that you just saw with

1:41:31septic system.

1:41:36Those are the two projects that they

1:41:38kind of fall hand in hand. One,

1:41:39obviously, this one has more work offer

1:41:42zone. Um they did add a second secondary

1:41:46rose control around the well

1:41:48not be on the floor or anything else

1:41:50just to give an additional

1:41:53the well is outside the 100 foot buffer

1:41:55zone.

1:41:57Turn it over to you if you have any

1:41:59questions.

1:42:00>> Okay. Um starting off with 554 which is

1:42:04the one that has the pool and the patio.

1:42:06As far as possible adverse impact to the

1:42:09resource area, I'm not as concerned

1:42:12about erosion and whatnot going in that

1:42:13way. As we all saw, there's a burm that

1:42:15kind of goes over. Um, I would like to

1:42:18just kind of confirm that number of

1:42:20trees. I know we looked at that

1:42:21evergreen cluster that was coming out

1:42:24and as well as a tree that was on the

1:42:27property line closer to the abandoned

1:42:28house. So having those trees properly

1:42:30marked um because of the prior activity

1:42:34that had been done and clearing out that

1:42:37this has allowed an opportunity for a

1:42:39lot of invasives to come in. We've seen

1:42:41that with you know one of the previous

1:42:43projects further down the road that we

1:42:44worked at. We observed a lot on site. I

1:42:47think that all with the clearing that's

1:42:48being involved this is an opportunity

1:42:50especially because with 554 of that area

1:42:52that had been previously disturbed, it's

1:42:54all going to be redisturbed. This is an

1:42:57opportunity to do some of that invasive

1:42:58species removal and propose that as a

1:43:01special condition. Um, I would also

1:43:04recommend a condition that's confirming

1:43:06the limit of clearing and grading and

1:43:08that that should match the plan be

1:43:09surveyed before the work is actually

1:43:11implemented. Uh, the erosion controls

1:43:14were one of my initial comments that D

1:43:16had also put as a comment as well. um

1:43:23with the pool in the backyard if with

1:43:28everything going forward. I think we

1:43:29just a little more detail and I know

1:43:31that this might be something that could

1:43:34potentially change down the road

1:43:35depending on who ends up occupying the

1:43:37house. But some more details on the type

1:43:40of patio going around the pool, the type

1:43:42of fence that would be going around the

1:43:44pool. Um, generally with a anything in

1:43:47that, you know, within that 100 foot

1:43:48buffer, I would recommend a special

1:43:50condition that's going to say that at no

1:43:52under no circumstance and adding a

1:43:54perpetual condition that under no

1:43:56circumstance that the pool be drained on

1:43:58site into any resource areas or into any

1:44:03uh storm water discharge areas that if

1:44:05for whatever reason the pool is being

1:44:06emptied that the water is being removed

1:44:08from site. Um, I think there's also some

1:44:12opportunity of doing some simple

1:44:14restoration along the back property line

1:44:17just by segmenting of what's coming on.

1:44:19And by maintaining a proper segmented

1:44:22area between the disturbance for the

1:44:24house and what's creeping in from that

1:44:26back area, that will help maintain that.

1:44:29Similar to what we saw when we were

1:44:31working, what was that 558 further down

1:44:33the way? That everything's just slowly

1:44:35been creeping in more and more as he's

1:44:36been taking care of.

1:44:37>> I don't think it's been slowly. I think

1:44:38it's been fast

1:44:39>> aggress. Yeah. So, one simple method

1:44:42that is easier easy for a homeowner to

1:44:44maintain is just trying to kind of

1:44:46keeping that separate separated and

1:44:48having a divide and just constantly

1:44:50maintaining that back area to prevent

1:44:52that spread. Um, and then also I would

1:44:55like to see a simple operation and

1:44:58maintenance plan for the drainage that's

1:45:01going down the driveway. um something

1:45:05that's just also stating that ongoing

1:45:08maintenance and um

1:45:12any repairs or anything are the

1:45:14responsibility of the homeowner and that

1:45:16they are responsible for keeping that

1:45:19although that's in the opposite

1:45:20direction of the wetland resource area

1:45:21that's still an impact that's within our

1:45:24purview and can be addressed by that.

1:45:26>> Could we give him a list of invasives

1:45:29like Russian olive? I mean there's three

1:45:31or four of them.

1:45:33>> All together.

1:45:36>> Absolutely. Um and then applicable to

1:45:40both plans just I would like to address

1:45:42the roof runoff from the house and uh

1:45:48also ask if there's going to be

1:45:49perimeter drains

1:45:51around the structures

1:45:54and if there are adding perimeter drains

1:45:56from that. And then

1:45:59um obviously we're getting some storm

1:46:00water improvement that's being directed

1:46:02with the driveway, but if there's an

1:46:03opportunity for something simple um drip

1:46:06strips, gutters, uh anything small

1:46:09infiltration pits for any gutters is a

1:46:12simple impact way that won't take up too

1:46:14much space as well.

1:46:16>> Um and then yes, I'd like to go back out

1:46:18and just look at that staking one more

1:46:20time.

1:46:20>> I walked out without any ticks the last

1:46:22time, so

1:46:23>> I know. I was surprised when I got home.

1:46:25>> Yeah. or that at least should I say none

1:46:26that I saw,

1:46:27>> right? Yeah.

1:46:28>> But

1:46:28>> um I would like to go back out one more

1:46:30time now that mistakes there just let me

1:46:32know whatever it be clear now they

1:46:34finish that today.

1:46:37>> So I think at that my recommendation at

1:46:39point would just be recommendation for

1:46:41continuation for some minor cleanup

1:46:43things and getting that on a plan.

1:46:45>> You want to continue it or it's

1:46:47>> up to you.

1:46:47>> Okay.

1:46:49>> I mean this can be implemented as part

1:46:50of special conditions and having these

1:46:52go forward. They didn't sound anything

1:46:55that was like major. So, do you agree to

1:46:59what?

1:47:00>> Yes.

1:47:01>> So, we can condition those requests and

1:47:04just be done with the project.

1:47:06>> Perfect.

1:47:06>> Yeah.

1:47:06>> Um, if you want to do these simultaneous

1:47:09or consecutively, page three has the

1:47:13>> audience like to speak to this. That's

1:47:16>> page three going into page um, Yep. Just

1:47:18page three has the motions for 554 and

1:47:21page seven has the motions for 556.

1:47:27>> Say again. Page

1:47:28>> page three.

1:47:30>> Yeah. Oh yeah. Okay. I thought you said

1:47:31page four. I'm like I'm on page

1:47:32>> I was seeing if it went into page four

1:47:34but it didn't. Yeah. Bottom page three

1:47:36and then top of page seven for the

1:47:37second.

1:47:38>> Perfect. Thank you for that cuz I would

1:47:39have been lucky. Uh I'd like to make a

1:47:40motion to close the public hearing.

1:47:43>> Any discussion? Seeing none. All in

1:47:45favor? Make in favor?

1:47:48Eric Aspar in favor in favor.

1:47:53>> You're making it easy on me. With

1:47:54regards to the project at 554 Hayne

1:47:56Street, lot number 9 DP file number

1:47:58300-1266.

1:48:00I'd like to make a motion to approve the

1:48:02project uh uh pursuant to the wetland

1:48:05protection act and the service wetland

1:48:06bylaw with the conditions as noted in

1:48:08the draft order conditions and the

1:48:10additional conditions discussed by the

1:48:12agent this evening.

1:48:14>> Discussion. Seeing none, all in favor in

1:48:17favor,

1:48:17>> Eric Gaspar in favor in

1:48:19>> favor in favor.

1:48:24>> All right. And uh do I need to close 556

1:48:29as well?

1:48:30>> Not a public hearing.

1:48:30>> Not a public hearing. Okay.

1:48:32>> Sorry. So that was a

1:48:33>> No, that's fine. I I was reading it. I'm

1:48:35like, All right. So, with regards to the

1:48:38project uh at uh 556 Hane Street, lot 8

1:48:42SEC file number 27-28.

1:48:45Oh, I like that. Um I'd like to make a

1:48:48motion to approve the project pursuant

1:48:50to the stage wetland bylaw with the

1:48:52conditions as noted in the draft order

1:48:55of conditions and any additional

1:48:57conditions that uh Lauren needs uh for

1:49:01her letter permit.

1:49:02>> Thank you.

1:49:04>> See none. All in favor in favor. Eric

1:49:07Asper in favor in

1:49:08>> favor

1:49:10stew.

1:49:12>> Thank you. We'll be in touch with you on

1:49:14getting those other items, too.

1:49:16>> Absolutely.

1:49:16>> All right. Thank you. Thank you.

1:49:18>> Thanks.

1:49:19>> You You can make breeds out of that

1:49:20bittersweet, you know.

1:49:22>> I know.

1:49:24I'll send some.

1:49:25>> Yeah. No, [laughter] don't. Nice.

1:49:29>> Good night.

1:49:31>> All right. We are now at notice of

1:49:34intent 320.

1:49:35>> Question of notice of intent 320 won the

1:49:38trail. 320 the trail. It's bizarre,

1:49:40isn't it?

1:49:41>> How like in depth it looks like it's

1:49:42going to be

1:49:43>> hand on the same thing or is this just

1:49:49>> go to

1:49:52you have a file number

1:49:54>> yourself up?

1:49:54>> Oh yeah. Uh 1267

1:49:57>> see the bottom of your screen

1:50:02>> and then

1:50:06we need more clicks 320 application.

1:50:12Yep. Share and then scroll down to the

1:50:14plan.

1:50:18>> You want this one up, Mark? Look good.

1:50:20>> Yeah, that's good.

1:50:21>> All right, cool.

1:50:22>> All set. Uh Mark Lavine, the uh

1:50:26representative for Kim Doors at 320 the

1:50:29trail. We're proposing to take out the

1:50:32existing PA walkway and replace it with

1:50:36another PA walkway. The front step is

1:50:39wood and it's rotted and collapsing.

1:50:41We're proposing to put a granite solid

1:50:43granite landing in where that front step

1:50:45is now. Uh pretty minor planting

1:50:49addition between the walk and the garage

1:50:52>> in here.

1:50:54Got it backwards.

1:50:55>> Yeah.

1:50:56>> Yeah.

1:50:57>> Okay. Go ahead.

1:50:58>> Um there's approximately 10 ft of it

1:51:01falls within the 100 foot buffer, but

1:51:04that is the the house is between the the

1:51:06lake and the where we're 10t in the

1:51:09buffer zone.

1:51:11um

1:51:13is a well line that has to be dug for a

1:51:15well that's in place.

1:51:18That was a little bit of an issue, but I

1:51:20mean that wasn't something that we were

1:51:21involved with.

1:51:24Um and there's a little bit of low

1:51:25voltage nightlighting involved next to

1:51:27the walkway.

1:51:29That's pretty much the project in a

1:51:31nutshell.

1:51:36>> Everything goes in the same

1:51:38>> location.

1:51:39>> Everything. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the

1:51:40walkway is a little bit wider at the

1:51:41front entrance, but it's basically in

1:51:43the same spot.

1:51:44>> And nothing extends into the lake.

1:51:47>> Excuse me.

1:51:47>> Doesn't extend into the lake.

1:51:49>> No, it's it's

1:51:51>> I think it's 90 ft is the closest that

1:51:53our work is.

1:51:55>> Oh, okay.

1:51:55>> To the lake. And and the house is

1:51:57between,

1:51:58>> you know, the rest of the house is like

1:52:00a dam to the project.

1:52:02>> Okay.

1:52:07Um, so this NOI was required in in uh

1:52:10response to an enforcement order for the

1:52:13well that was decommissioned and the new

1:52:16well that was installed without prior

1:52:18approval. This was discovered when the

1:52:21snow started to melt and it was realized

1:52:23that the sewer line had broken. Um while

1:52:27working through the enforcement order

1:52:29with the property owner, she had brought

1:52:31up that she wanted to do some um other

1:52:33improvements to her property. So I

1:52:35recommended while you're doing an NOI,

1:52:37just get all this on here. So this is

1:52:39for after the fact well installation of

1:52:42the old well that was in the garage and

1:52:44the new well that was installed where we

1:52:45saw the line itself still has to be

1:52:48done. these for this portion of it for

1:52:51the landscaping improvements. From my

1:52:54observations, the biggest problem in

1:52:56this area is this is where all of the

1:52:59runoff is going from the road from the

1:53:01driveway. We saw where the front stoop

1:53:04is ro is rotting. We saw where the

1:53:06existing paper walkway is kind of

1:53:08indenting. Um so when looking at these

1:53:12at the plan of what's being proposed and

1:53:14looking at the landscaping um one thing

1:53:17Mark if you can confirm uh the client

1:53:20wasn't too certain on the shrubs of what

1:53:23was there now what was proposed to stay

1:53:25versus what was proposed to come out. So

1:53:28um one question on that and then the

1:53:31other um aspect of it when looking at

1:53:33the plantings the hosta and the iris

1:53:36that are being proposed while those

1:53:38aren't necessarily considered native for

1:53:40this purpose they will serve a great

1:53:42purpose because they are high absorbency

1:53:44plants that are going to help with the

1:53:46problem that's already there. Um, for

1:53:48the other two, I did uh make a

1:53:50recommendation that if those seem are a

1:53:52bit more ornamental, if there's

1:53:53something that we can kind of agree on

1:53:55that might be more pollinator friendly

1:53:57or um provide a little bit more valuable

1:54:00of a resource while also still providing

1:54:02that. Um,

1:54:03>> all the all the existing plants are

1:54:05staying except for if you look in the

1:54:07upper left corner, there's three that

1:54:10are noted. There's a mountain laurel

1:54:12that's coming out because the well line

1:54:13is going into the house where the

1:54:16mountain l is. We're going to try and

1:54:17move it, but if we can't, it'll it'll

1:54:19come out.

1:54:21We're just add So, where you see the

1:54:23planting on the upper side of that

1:54:26walkway is now currently grass. We're

1:54:28just going to change it to planting.

1:54:33>> That answers my concession, my concerns.

1:54:36Um, I do believe with the granite step,

1:54:38obviously, uh, that'll be potentially

1:54:41hopefully more long-term than the wood

1:54:43that's rotting,

1:54:44>> of having to do this again. And I would

1:54:46think so.

1:54:47>> Couple years cuz I mean really until

1:54:49she's able to get that driveway altered,

1:54:51>> this is going to be an improvement.

1:54:53She's still going to have some problems

1:54:54in some areas, but this is a a good

1:54:56step. And obviously as far as looking at

1:54:58the impact of the lake, um trying to

1:55:00prevent her yard from washing into the

1:55:03lake is a benefit.

1:55:04>> Okay. Anything? Oh, anything?

1:55:06>> Nope.

1:55:07>> Anything? Anything?

1:55:09>> No. Just uh

1:55:12>> no you want to send

1:55:14>> no

1:55:15motion

1:55:16>> public anybody in the public

1:55:19>> I think I know everybody in the public

1:55:21>> well we're just being thorough uh

1:55:23hearing none I'd like to make a motion

1:55:24to close the public hearing

1:55:28>> discussion seeing none all in favor in

1:55:30favor

1:55:31>> Eric Aspar in favor

1:55:32>> good in favor

1:55:35in favor

1:55:35>> with regards to the project at 320 the

1:55:37trail D file number 300-1267.

1:55:41I'd like to make a motion to approve the

1:55:42project pursuant to the wetland

1:55:44protection act and service wetland bylaw

1:55:46with the condition as noted in the draft

1:55:48order of conditions.

1:55:52Any discussion? Seeing none in favor in

1:55:56favor in

1:55:57>> favor in favor in favor.

1:56:01>> Thank you. Thank you very much.

1:56:02>> Thanks Mark. We'll know when that's

1:56:03ready.

1:56:10Yeah.

1:56:12>> Open a public hearing and request for

1:56:14notice of intent for 16 Hawthorne Road.

1:56:20>> We've got one in person, one virtual.

1:56:26>> Two virtual. Two in person.

1:56:34>> Excuse [cough and clears throat] me.

1:56:42All right, give your names.

1:56:43>> I'm Robert Judson.

1:56:45>> I'm Eric Peter.

1:56:49>> Yep.

1:56:53>> Go ahead. Present your What do we got?

1:56:56>> Am I doing it or is Chuck doing it?

1:57:01>> Was there anything that wasn't on the

1:57:02site? Basically, we've we filed a uh the

1:57:05notice of intent um under the bylaw for

1:57:08a uh a single family house at 16

1:57:10Hawthorne Road. Um the

1:57:14uh wetlands on the site are to the uh

1:57:17the northeast of the lot and all of the

1:57:20work is proposed outside of the the

1:57:23state 100 foot buffer zone. Uh but then

1:57:27uh beginning about 110 115 feet from the

1:57:30wetland proposing the uh clearing and

1:57:33lawn um and the u single family house um

1:57:38out towards the edge of the local 200 ft

1:57:41buffer zone. Uh the site is the we

1:57:46talked to the neighbor during this uh

1:57:50the sitewalk when I was out there and uh

1:57:53I guess this used to be garden fairly

1:57:55recently. Um and it's all looks, you

1:57:58know, mostly vegetated with uh

1:58:01non-native species, some of which I've

1:58:03never seen growing around here before.

1:58:05Uh the topography actually slopes

1:58:10uh away from the wetland and between the

1:58:14proposed work in the wetland there is uh

1:58:17a stone wall with you know decades if

1:58:21not centuries of accumulated uh leaf

1:58:23littered humus uh that would act as a

1:58:26sediment barrier. Um but like I said I

1:58:29don't think anything is going to

1:58:30actually run uh towards the wetland at

1:58:33all. Uh

1:58:36then I think you know we're proposing a

1:58:40uh basically construction fence along

1:58:44the proposed limit of work so we don't

1:58:46get any closer to the property lines or

1:58:48or to that wetland. Uh but it doesn't

1:58:51appear that any erosion controls are

1:58:53really warranted given the um again the

1:58:57topography that we don't have any runoff

1:58:59going towards the wetland plus the added

1:59:01protection of that wall.

1:59:06Um

1:59:08I think that summarizes it.

1:59:11>> Okay.

1:59:14>> Site is previously undeveloped. Um, and

1:59:16if you had walked in the back, you'd see

1:59:18that it's mostly contained in, as you

1:59:20mentioned, by the stone wall. Uh,

1:59:22there's some disturbance in the center,

1:59:24but it does kind of have a natural

1:59:26walkound path that has that tree line

1:59:29that's kind of being proposed here. Um,

1:59:32my question on the plan, the PVC pipe

1:59:36that's identified on the plan, is that

1:59:38for the perimeter drain or is that for

1:59:40gutters?

1:59:42>> Perimeter drain.

1:59:44>> Perimeter drain. Okay. Um it's a tough

1:59:47site. I know we just in your planning

1:59:49process, we tried to look at some

1:59:51different options to see if we could get

1:59:53something more complex in for um storm

1:59:56water runoff, but it's it's very very

1:59:57limited and it wouldn't be able to meet

1:59:59those capacities. The only concern that

2:00:02I have for the site, which is outside of

2:00:05any activity that's being proposed, is

2:00:07that the neighbors are dumping their

2:00:08lawn clippings onto the site. So, um I

2:00:12would make a recommendation of uh

2:00:15posting putting some posted signs along

2:00:18the side for now and in that process

2:00:20kind of the construction process trying

2:00:22to get that all cleaned out. Um I would

2:00:24hope that once a house is occupying it

2:00:26then neighbors are not dumping clippings

2:00:28onto a neighboring property anymore. Um

2:00:32but that was really the only red flag

2:00:35that I saw while on site.

2:00:39Nothing Nope, I don't have it.

2:00:42>> Just clarification because

2:00:45uh this is the 25 sorry the um resource

2:00:502551

2:00:58because I

2:01:00[laughter]

2:01:02>> think the wetland's a little uphill too,

2:01:03isn't it?

2:01:04>> It is. It's sloping away from it.

2:01:08>> Anybody in the audience? No hearing.

2:01:10None. I'd like to make a motion to close

2:01:11the public hearing. Nice job, Ed. There

2:01:13you go.

2:01:15>> Very

2:01:17second. You second that.

2:01:18>> I didn't second, but I can second it.

2:01:20Second.

2:01:20>> Perfect. All right. Any discussion?

2:01:22Seeing none, all in favor in favor?

2:01:25>> Eric Aspar in favor in favor.

2:01:27>> In favor in favor. With regards to the

2:01:30project at 16 Hawthorne Road, SEC file

2:01:32number 27-26.

2:01:35I'd like to make a motion to approve the

2:01:38project uh pursuant to the Sturbridge

2:01:41wetland bylaw and the conditions uh and

2:01:44yes uh and the with the conditions noted

2:01:46in the draft order conditions. Sorry.

2:01:50>> Um any discussion?

2:01:52Hearing none. All in favor in favor.

2:01:54>> Eric Aspar in favor in favor in favor in

2:01:58favor.

2:02:01>> All right.

2:02:02>> Thank you. Thank you.

2:02:03>> Thank you guys.

2:02:05Is this your house? That's your

2:02:06building?

2:02:07>> No.

2:02:07>> Oh,

2:02:10>> I was going to say welcome to Survage,

2:02:11but I guess I won't welcome you.

2:02:14[laughter]

2:02:16>> All right. Now, we have on notice of

2:02:18intent and storm water perimeter for 152

2:02:22main

2:02:25realy,

2:02:27right?

2:02:31Guys been hiding out there. You've been

2:02:32playing poker or something? Yeah, I

2:02:35wish.

2:02:40>> Checking checking your fancy football

2:02:41lineups. Make sure you don't have George

2:02:43Pickkins in your flex spot. [laughter]

2:02:47>> Good evening.

2:02:48>> Good evening.

2:02:52>> Do you have a preference which one I

2:02:54pull up first?

2:02:55>> Um, I guess if you could um display

2:02:58sheet C104, please.

2:03:07actually work. Thank you.

2:03:11Good evening. Thank you very much. Um,

2:03:13as noted previously, um, the owners

2:03:16would like to construct two uh, multif

2:03:19family buildings. Uh, it's currently

2:03:21developed with two buildings uh, two

2:03:23multif family buildings uh, with a paved

2:03:26parking [clears throat] area and an

2:03:27informal gravel parking area. uh with

2:03:30the project. Uh they'd also like to

2:03:32reconfigure the parking um by uh doing

2:03:36away with the existing parking area,

2:03:39reconstructing it and constructing a new

2:03:42parking area behind the existing

2:03:43buildings and in between the new um in

2:03:45between the new and exist uh and

2:03:47existing buildings. [snorts] Um in doing

2:03:50so, they'd also like to do some storm

2:03:52water uh management improvements in that

2:03:54there's currently no drainage

2:03:56structures. Um and by doing so we'd like

2:03:58to install catch basins um drain

2:04:01manholes and bio retention area. Um in

2:04:04the last meeting I was asked if we could

2:04:06look into uh moving some of the parking

2:04:09spaces or out of the 50oot zone. Um and

2:04:13we were able to do that and relocating

2:04:16um there were about three spaces over

2:04:18here in this area uh that were within

2:04:21the 50ft buffer zone. Uh we I guess

2:04:24shifted it some of them to this area

2:04:26over here and then another farther down

2:04:28the page. Um I should note that this

2:04:31area over here would still be paved. Um

2:04:35and it would be within the the 50ft

2:04:37buffer zone. Um this is because there is

2:04:42the existing main entrance to the

2:04:44building at the center of the building.

2:04:46So in keeping with I guess what the

2:04:49existing uh circulation is of

2:04:51pedestrians of the tenants I mean and

2:04:54the logistics of it um we opted to keep

2:04:57that. So at this point it would be about

2:05:00300 square ft of pave surfaces within

2:05:03the 50ft buffer zone. Other than that um

2:05:07uh there would be there should be no

2:05:10other paved surfaces within the foot

2:05:1250ft buffer zone. Not uh not in this

2:05:15area below. And as noted previously, uh

2:05:18there would still be none in this area.

2:05:20In doing so, uh we're able to push up

2:05:23the uh snow storage area uh from what

2:05:26was produced in this area uh closer I

2:05:30guess or far out of the 25 ft buffer

2:05:33zone and but still within the 50ft

2:05:34buffer zone. Um it is still graded so

2:05:38that uh the area should drain towards

2:05:42the

2:05:44uh parking lot uh where we have catch

2:05:46basins and then those catch basins again

2:05:49um as noted on sheet C 105 is that

2:05:52they're connected at this point this

2:05:53point and then they go down to here

2:05:55where we have a water uh another c drain

2:05:58manhole and uh where we have a water

2:06:00quality unit that shoot directed out to

2:06:02the bio retention area. Um, I guess

2:06:05those apparently Mitch been the

2:06:07revisions that we have made to the

2:06:09joints. Um, a couple minor items uh that

2:06:12we have made, but not really based on

2:06:15the commission, but more so as we're

2:06:16still working with Kinder Morgan. Um,

2:06:19they have a an easement, excuse me, uh,

2:06:22on the I guess page right of the

2:06:25property uh, for their gas piping. Uh

2:06:28we're still working some details out

2:06:29with them uh as to how

2:06:33uh the slope of the drive would be and

2:06:35then some of the stuff as to where we

2:06:37like they would like to see snow storage

2:06:39and access. Um but other than that I

2:06:42believe those would be the uh revisions

2:06:45that have been made. some revisions that

2:06:47will still be pending is that um we are

2:06:51uh open to placing plantings um on sheet

2:06:56C107 I believe it is where we have the

2:06:58landscaping plans um it was asked if we

2:07:00could place some plantings um I guess

2:07:06uh one more I believe

2:07:10thank you um yes so in this area over

2:07:13here it was asked if we could um make

2:07:15some revision to the plantings. Um, for

2:07:17the time being at the time of

2:07:19commission, I simply included 11 plant

2:07:2111 shrub plantings. I uh with the idea

2:07:24that as a placeholder, I indicated

2:07:27mountain loss. Um, I have received

2:07:29feedback or um suggestions from um the

2:07:33off um conservation office to um change

2:07:37it. Um, so I was not able to change the

2:07:40plantings in time for today's meeting,

2:07:42but those changes or revisions are in

2:07:44the works to something that's more

2:07:46suitable instead of just mountain

2:07:47levels. What I've consider or what we

2:07:50are considering, I mean, are like high

2:07:52bush blueberries and um I forget what

2:07:55else I have, but something like that.

2:07:57And then change some of these plantings

2:07:59instead of um shrubs, uh do it to some

2:08:02sort of wildflower mix as it would be an

2:08:05area that's prone to snow storage.

2:08:08Um, I believe those would be it in terms

2:08:11of uh revisions that I recall. Um, if

2:08:15there are any questions, uh, feel free

2:08:17to let us know.

2:08:21>> Um, first off, thank you, Ron. When you

2:08:23provided your plan update, you provided

2:08:24a very detailed

2:08:26outline and detailed narratives

2:08:28explaining what the updates on the plans

2:08:30were, which were very helpful. that

2:08:32information was copied and put onto the

2:08:34detail agenda as written for the

2:08:37commission. So, thank you for outlining

2:08:38that. Um, as far as the site plan

2:08:42itself, looking for any improvements for

2:08:45trying to take any existing that's

2:08:48already there within the 50. So, the

2:08:50that's the consideration of removing out

2:08:52the parking spaces in this area um and

2:08:56looking any areas that can be tightened.

2:08:58Obviously, it is a restricted site

2:08:59because of the buffer zones. Um,

2:09:04I will uh

2:09:07I will turn it over to Lori in a moment

2:09:09to go over some of the recommendations

2:09:11for landscaping. Um I had made some

2:09:13initial ones with the trees and then as

2:09:15we're working for further trying to see

2:09:17some areas where there currently is

2:09:20either impervious surface or currently

2:09:23um just open space that we can add some

2:09:25areas to kind of put some improvement

2:09:27and some benefits to the site with the

2:09:29consideration of the use and salt

2:09:31tolerance with parking and snow storage

2:09:33and whatnot. Um, I would request that if

2:09:37there's any major concerns with the plan

2:09:40itself, with the design, with the

2:09:42concept, that the commission um,

2:09:46expresses what they might be concerned

2:09:48about. And my recommendation at this

2:09:52point would be to have the applicant

2:09:54pursue the next steps in filing with

2:09:57planning just at the off chance that as

2:10:01part of that review that board decides

2:10:04they want to change something major in

2:10:06the land in the layout that would

2:10:08require an amendment. I don't want to

2:10:10have to issue an order of conditions

2:10:12that's get that gets approved and then

2:10:15say planning wants to change where the

2:10:17parking is or a sidewalk or some or they

2:10:19don't like how we ask to remove those. I

2:10:22don't want them to have to come back for

2:10:23an amendment. So if the commission feels

2:10:25we're at a point where we're somewhat

2:10:27confident with the design that we would

2:10:28request a continuence while that goes

2:10:30on. Um, and at this point I will turn to

2:10:35Lori for where her communications are

2:10:37going with Ron as far as the

2:10:39recommendations for more landscaping.

2:10:41>> On that note, would you pass me the

2:10:43pointer?

2:10:44>> Absolutely.

2:10:44>> Is that for you guys?

2:10:47>> That's it.

2:10:48>> That's all I get to do today. [laughter]

2:10:51>> All right. So starting from the top from

2:10:53the last plan, um this

2:10:59glasses, this uh reinforced turf area is

2:11:03new and this impervious service is new.

2:11:05It sounded like Ron said that this right

2:11:06here is for extra snow storage. Is that

2:11:10correct?

2:11:11>> Uh just snow storage in general. It's

2:11:13just that we're working through the

2:11:15logistics and that um Ken Morgan uh

2:11:19would like to have snow

2:11:22pretty much not at that location, but I

2:11:24guess just trying to explain to them

2:11:27just how I don't know this is what we

2:11:29have

2:11:29>> if we get winters like last year.

2:11:31>> I guess that's really the the reality

2:11:35behind it. I want to say

2:11:37>> I just want to explain that cuz you know

2:11:39that was a change.

2:11:40>> Yes. Um and then the reinforced turf

2:11:43area um that is a change as well. What

2:11:47was that in regards to? That was in

2:11:49regards also then that kind of Martin um

2:11:52they noted that um if indeed they would

2:11:55have to do act um work within their

2:11:58easement where their easement I guess is

2:12:00hard to see but it's an 80 foot wide

2:12:02easement is more or less in this general

2:12:04area and probably ends somewhere around

2:12:08here but their thought is that if they

2:12:10ever have to do work within the pipeline

2:12:12how do the people access down here? Um,

2:12:16and I guess because of the nature of the

2:12:19site, uh, I guess the only way that we

2:12:22can actually provide anything is some

2:12:24sort of a reinforced turf area that from

2:12:27here to there, which is not ideal, but

2:12:30it's the only way we can actually offer

2:12:32um to get down to here if they need it

2:12:34as a in addition to what is stair access

2:12:38over here. So it's not something we

2:12:39envision using on a constant basis. Just

2:12:41something that

2:12:45>> So is grass possible for the function of

2:12:47that spot?

2:12:48>> Yes.

2:12:49>> Okay. Um All right. And then

2:12:53the next thing that I noticed, so I did

2:12:55a sitewalk a couple days ago and I did

2:12:57see these existing trees, but there's

2:12:59also two existing trees right here. Um,

2:13:02so that would be have to be added and

2:13:04addressed if they're, you know, proposed

2:13:06to be removed or if you want to keep

2:13:08them in that space.

2:13:09>> Yes.

2:13:10>> Um, and then also, let me move the plan

2:13:13over.

2:13:16Um, because it's very common in the

2:13:18landscaping world for mulch volcanoes.

2:13:21And

2:13:24here the the mulch right here. I just

2:13:26want to make sure that the mulch isn't

2:13:29going to be around the the root area cuz

2:13:32I don't want to cause any girdling. Um,

2:13:43and then I think you already addressed

2:13:45um adding the salt tolerant uh wildfired

2:13:48seed mix

2:13:50is great.

2:13:52Um,

2:13:55and then the pollinator garden on the

2:13:58bottom of the plan, we would want to

2:13:59like review what you end up deciding to

2:14:02pick. So, uh, commissioners, it would be

2:14:05in this section right here near the the

2:14:07lowest mountain boral.

2:14:09>> Okay.

2:14:10>> Um,

2:14:12and then besides high bush blueberries,

2:14:14I would recommend picking at least two

2:14:16other species for diversity sake for

2:14:18pollinators.

2:14:19>> Yes.

2:14:20>> Um, okay. I have something that I

2:14:23realize that I printed out, but I never

2:14:26sent it over. So, I can send it over

2:14:28tomorrow or whenever. So we can but yes

2:14:31I can definitely do that for

2:14:33>> all right

2:14:34>> for review.

2:14:38>> Thank you.

2:14:39>> I'm good. You're good.

2:14:41>> I'm thank you for listening to our

2:14:43comments about the parking area. I

2:14:45appreciate that.

2:14:47>> My only concerns are um still the buffer

2:14:51zone and the um

2:14:54invasives

2:14:56down off the hill. I mean that the it's

2:14:59a hummicked area and um

2:15:04I have lived here with the flooding

2:15:08where that that area goes down goes

2:15:12across the road.

2:15:15So I am concerned that there are any

2:15:18changes really have to make sure that

2:15:20the

2:15:22we stay hard with the you know the site

2:15:26because

2:15:28there's a lot of fill in the back there

2:15:30that wasn't there and I don't mean that

2:15:32as a you know it just is you know and

2:15:34there's some invasives in there.

2:15:42Okay.

2:15:46>> All right.

2:15:47>> Thanks for that.

2:15:49>> Can I talk about it?

2:15:51>> Was my my left.

2:15:55>> Anybody in the audience?

2:15:57>> I had one question [cough]

2:15:59of after the last.

2:16:02>> Oh, Tiffany Leo 121 Park Road. With the

2:16:06last project, there was going to have to

2:16:07be a lot of blasting that was done

2:16:09because of that ledge on the side. So my

2:16:12understanding with this one, will that

2:16:15be avoided because everything's being

2:16:17built like it's already existence and

2:16:21then just behind it or is it going to

2:16:23the side and you guys are going to have

2:16:25to do blasting? Just because I'm asking

2:16:29for those of us that lived near there

2:16:32when it was happening the last time, we

2:16:34were all concerned with the structural

2:16:36integrity of our foundations and we were

2:16:38kind of told

2:16:41it like we couldn't be considered that a

2:16:44concern because of the type of project

2:16:46it was. So I just want to know if

2:16:48blasting has to be done with this one or

2:16:50not.

2:16:53>> There will be no blasting.

2:16:54>> Okay. So like that ledge doesn't have to

2:16:56be taken out.

2:16:57>> Okay. [clears throat] Perfect.

2:16:58>> All right. And thank you guys again for

2:17:00moving this stuff. That's very

2:17:02considerate and the people appreciate

2:17:04you guys listening to us and actually

2:17:07making changes.

2:17:09>> Sure. unlike,

2:17:12[clears throat]

2:17:12>> but that doesn't help. Um,

2:17:16>> I know that's a problem.

2:17:19>> I would like to make a mo I I I would

2:17:21like to make a motion to continue the

2:17:23public hearing, but I I uh cuz I agree

2:17:26with your approach, but I just want to

2:17:28make sure the applicant's okay with that

2:17:30approach as well. Would you?

2:17:32>> Sure, that's fine. If planning comes

2:17:34back with a bunch of changes, you don't

2:17:35want us to come back with a bunch of

2:17:37like to have to go through this again.

2:17:38>> Free advertisement, notification of a

2:17:40butters can. Um,

2:17:42>> okay. So,

2:17:42>> do you have a feel for how long that

2:17:44process is going to take

2:17:46>> with planning?

2:17:47>> Yeah.

2:17:50>> I mean, I think one or two meetings.

2:17:53>> Yeah. After the first meeting with

2:17:55planning, I think that you'll that we

2:17:57will all have an understanding of if

2:17:59there's going to be major changes. Um, I

2:18:03mean, I think at this point if you're

2:18:04applying, you'd most likely be on a

2:18:07November agenda. So, I think it might be

2:18:09appropriate to continue to December

2:18:1217th.

2:18:14And

2:18:16at that point, we can kind of see if if

2:18:18planning doesn't have anything major

2:18:20that's going to be changing that affects

2:18:22this site plan, it might affect more

2:18:24like interior use or things like that.

2:18:26But if there's nothing, then we'd be

2:18:28able to move forward from there.

2:18:29>> Is it worth planning now?

2:18:32No, not yet. Not yet. We wanted to kind

2:18:34of

2:18:34>> I was going to say December might be too

2:18:35far out, but if it's not with them now,

2:18:37that's

2:18:38>> sometimes they're simultaneous.

2:18:39Sometimes conservation goes first,

2:18:41sometimes planning goes first. It all

2:18:42kind of just

2:18:43>> All right. So, does that does that work

2:18:45for you you guys? December 17th.

2:18:47>> November 9th.

2:18:48>> Planning is November 9th. So, is there

2:18:50anything that we could do in the same

2:18:52month with conservation?

2:18:53>> Our only meeting is November 12th. I

2:18:57will either not be here or I will be

2:18:59remote to be determined. But um if

2:19:03you're comfortable with November 12th, I

2:19:05can have draft order of conditions made

2:19:08or if you

2:19:10not ready, we can just continue.

2:19:13>> So that's that's fine for now. Continue

2:19:15to November 12th. Yes, please.

2:19:17>> So I'd like to make a motion to continue

2:19:18the public hearing until November. Did

2:19:21you have something to say?

2:19:22>> November 12th.

2:19:24>> Any discussion? Seeing none. All in

2:19:26favor in favor. Eric Asar in favor.

2:19:32>> Thank you.

2:19:34>> Thank you. Appreciate that.

2:19:38>> Thank you guys.

2:19:39>> Thank you. Appreciate that.

2:19:42>> Have a nice

2:19:45[laughter]

2:19:45>> Would you like you want Kit Kat?

2:19:48>> We need like one.

2:19:50I'm snagging something. I think after

2:19:53eight we need three.

2:19:55[laughter]

2:19:56>> Yes.

2:19:58>> All right. We are now I'm I'm an

2:20:0080-year-old man requesting.

2:20:03>> I love Worthers.

2:20:04>> 32 Mount Dan Road.

2:20:07>> Um I'm going to defer to Lori.

2:20:10All right. So really simple. I'm meeting

2:20:13with the arborist tomorrow, Colleen

2:20:15Furs, and then I'll go over the site and

2:20:17her recommendations with her. So request

2:20:20to continue to October 22nd.

2:20:23>> So moved.

2:20:25>> Uh why

2:20:25>> second?

2:20:26>> Uh why am I meeting with

2:20:28>> Why are we just going How long are we

2:20:30going to do this? No, she's going to

2:20:31meet the other.

2:20:32>> She's meeting them tomorrow.

2:20:33>> Original request was October 22nd and

2:20:35then there was uh some pretty dramatic

2:20:38family situations and so we're just it's

2:20:40basically confirming to the 22nd, but I

2:20:42am meeting with arborist tomorrow. So

2:20:44there is movement basically.

2:20:46>> Yeah. because that means that they're

2:20:48not going to be able to plant till next

2:20:49spring.

2:20:50>> Yeah. I mean, at this point, we wouldn't

2:20:52probably wouldn't recommend planting

2:20:53anyway, but

2:20:54>> Yeah.

2:20:55>> All right. I'll reaffirm my motion.

2:20:58>> Second.

2:21:01>> McRav in favor.

2:21:02>> Eric Asar in favor.

2:21:07>> Stuba in favor.

2:21:09>> Got not in favor.

2:21:10>> Okay. Fair enough. Okay.

2:21:13What's that?

2:21:16>> Lake Road.

2:21:17>> Lake Road.

2:21:20I get

2:21:21>> requesting um the commission endorse an

2:21:26emergency order to do a repair on Lake

2:21:29Road. This is on the town portion of the

2:21:32road, not the public portion. Um we

2:21:37recently discovered a sinkhole. The

2:21:39sinkhole goes to a failed culvert that

2:21:41we um uncovered. And this this is

2:21:46somewhat of a narrow road, too. So, we

2:21:48do need to get this replaced. The

2:21:49culvert will be replaced with a 12-in

2:21:51culvert um in and out in two days. Works

2:21:54being done and recommended by the town.

2:21:59>> Anybody have any question on or problem?

2:22:01No.

2:22:03like to make a motion. Uh with regards

2:22:05to Lake Road, I'd like to make a motion

2:22:06to issue an emergency order to repair a

2:22:09sinkhole. Do

2:22:11>> we have to make a motion?

2:22:14>> Okay.

2:22:14>> Second.

2:22:15>> Second. Discussion.

2:22:18>> Favor. Grab in favor.

2:22:19>> Eric Aspar in favor. Ed Goodwin in

2:22:21favor.

2:22:22>> Cuba in favor.

2:22:24>> Okay. [clears throat] 595 Main Street

2:22:28request for a 2-year extension DB bottom

2:22:31at 300-117.

2:22:35>> So, this is for a drainage improvement

2:22:37project. This is

2:22:40close to the intersection of 148 Route

2:22:4320 Holland Road. Um, that drainage

2:22:46structure that's right next to the Field

2:22:48of Dream sign. While the work itself has

2:22:50been done, um, plantings and the

2:22:53mitigation plantings still need to be

2:22:54done. So the request is to allow for an

2:22:58extension to be able to go in and get

2:23:00that portion of the work done. We do

2:23:01have a representative on the line if

2:23:03there's any questions, but it's fairly

2:23:05straightforward.

2:23:06>> It's a DOT project under the WPA only,

2:23:09not the bylaw.

2:23:10>> So just my only question is if the

2:23:12work's already done, do we need two

2:23:15years to get plantings in

2:23:16>> with the mitigation survival?

2:23:20Well, but we [clears throat] can get the

2:23:21plings in and then we have a two a one

2:23:24or a twoyear survival condition we build

2:23:28in, right? So,

2:23:29>> it it's already in the existing order

2:23:32and that's what was in there previously.

2:23:35So,

2:23:37with the order conditions, sometimes

2:23:38there sometimes it's a two-year

2:23:40monitoring period, sometimes it's a two

2:23:43growing season monitoring period, but at

2:23:45this point it's not going in until the

2:23:46plantings aren't going in until next

2:23:48year.

2:23:49>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:23:49>> Um, so in allowing for time they go in,

2:23:52you're monitoring for spring, fall,

2:23:55following spring.

2:23:58>> Okay. Sure. All right. I trust you. Uh,

2:24:02I'd like to make a motion to issue a

2:24:052-year happy [laughter]

2:24:06>> a 2-year extension for D file number

2:24:09300-1175.

2:24:12>> Oh, let them.

2:24:14>> Any discussion? All in favor? Nick. All

2:24:16in favor?

2:24:17>> Eric Aspar in favor. a good one in

2:24:18favor.

2:24:20>> Got some shoe in it.

2:24:22>> You know, Ed, I almost fell into a hole

2:24:24on that property. So, [laughter]

2:24:26>> I'm not a big fan of that that property.

2:24:28>> The other one you fell in.

2:24:29>> I was a lot worse.

2:24:31>> That was worse. That That was a

2:24:33quicksand.

2:24:34>> Oh, [snorts] boy.

2:24:34>> I didn't know this was happening.

2:24:35[laughter]

2:24:36>> 68 Sheepard

2:24:37>> up to here.

2:24:38>> Road. Nope.

2:24:38>> 328 the trail request for a certificate

2:24:41of compliance. No,

2:24:42>> backtrack.

2:24:43>> 328.

2:24:44>> Backtrack.

2:24:44>> Number 11.

2:24:45>> 11. Oh, I missed it. Huh?

2:24:48Oh, in a hurry.

2:24:51Okay. Request for minor change. DB file

2:24:54number 300 11 82.

2:24:58>> I will defer to Lori. We went on a

2:25:01sitewalk, but we will

2:25:04Yeah. So, uh, Mark Lavine stops by. Um,

2:25:07Broco was interesting interested in

2:25:10changing the number of trees requested

2:25:12and we haven't received like an updated

2:25:14final site plan of the trees being

2:25:16removed with mitigation. So, we

2:25:19requested uh Roco, Sam and Mark get

2:25:22together, decide on the species, the

2:25:25exact number of trees, um, and to bring

2:25:29it to us at least a week before the next

2:25:32hearing and then we can go over it with

2:25:34them. really like to continue to October

2:25:3722nd.

2:25:38>> Okay.

2:25:41All right.

2:25:42>> In terms of in terms of mitigation, if

2:25:46>> if the commission was inclined to

2:25:49approve the minor change and the trees

2:25:51to come down, um is there kind of a

2:25:54general idea of what you would look to

2:25:56expect for proposed mitigation?

2:25:59>> Well, I'd like to talk about this. I'd

2:26:01like to talk about this arburish report.

2:26:04This was the most nonreporting of a of a

2:26:10report that seemed completely and

2:26:13utterly unprofessional from any type of

2:26:15level of standards ever.

2:26:21It just didn't say anything. It was a

2:26:24bunch of word salad that took

2:26:2725 pages. And I know there was pictures

2:26:30on there, but I don't know that I don't

2:26:32know that I'm ready to vote on anything

2:26:34until this arburous report get gives me

2:26:36something concrete to action other than

2:26:39you know would a could a ha I don't know

2:26:42I you know but you should you should do

2:26:44this like it like it am I wrong where

2:26:48>> I will speak to Robinson about this has

2:26:50happened before

2:26:51>> is this the same cuz there's one you saw

2:26:53that there was two different addresses

2:26:54on that right

2:26:57>> we talking

2:26:59for this report.

2:27:00>> The report

2:27:01>> there was two addresses on it like they

2:27:03copied and pasted.

2:27:04>> You know what else? I I just I read this

2:27:06thing like

2:27:07>> talk about

2:27:07>> 328.

2:27:09>> Isn't this 328 the beginning of it?

2:27:11>> Just tell me if this was one that came

2:27:12up. I don't think it matters. And it's

2:27:14not even like you need to tell me on

2:27:15328.

2:27:16>> Mhm.

2:27:17>> I just

2:27:17>> Oh, it says 98 Allen Road. That's right.

2:27:19>> So, did this did the same person do one

2:27:21for 98 Allen Road? Would you guys have a

2:27:24>> a thing of it?

2:27:25>> 98 Allen Road. Unfortunately,

2:27:27[clears throat] I have detail problems.

2:27:28So, like I went in this the company

2:27:31where we'll look into it

2:27:32>> H1.

2:27:33>> Yeah, we'll look into it.

2:27:34>> And then he had a resistorraph. I was

2:27:36literally in a thing today using one of

2:27:37those and like I'd love to see if he has

2:27:39the

2:27:41if you guys understand what resistorraph

2:27:43is, it's a you guys ever heard of one or

2:27:45whatever. basically arborists use and he

2:27:47cited it on this. So it's it doesn't

2:27:49necessarily have to bring it out but um

2:27:51what it does is it's a small drill that

2:27:52goes into a tree and it and it measures

2:27:54the resistance as it's going through the

2:27:56tree for decaying wood.

2:27:58>> So there's a readout that would come

2:27:59with it. You know what I'm saying? Like

2:28:00as you go across it. So he brought that

2:28:02up.

2:28:03>> But then unfortunately when he's

2:28:06>> whoever was doing this speaking through

2:28:08it, there was never which tree are we

2:28:10talking about right now? So that was the

2:28:11big thing I had with it. I don't want to

2:28:13call anybody else out on their work. I

2:28:14mean, I'm sorry. I already did.

2:28:16>> Yeah. Because maybe because I'm You know

2:28:18what I'm saying? Because of of where I'm

2:28:19at it, but it's it's like literally just

2:28:21>> You are calling him out on there.

2:28:22>> No, I'm not. I'm just talking.

2:28:23>> Yes, you are.

2:28:25>> Anyway, I should just not talk at all

2:28:27tonight. That would

2:28:28>> Yeah. So, we'll we'll have them all We

2:28:30just wanted to make sure that the that

2:28:32Robinson, that Mark, that the homeowner

2:28:35are all on the same page before

2:28:37presenting a landscaping plan. And then

2:28:40>> they'll all come next week to defend the

2:28:43arborist report and make their claim.

2:28:45But to in the meantime, Lori is working

2:28:48with them. They're going to come with a

2:28:49proposed mitigation plan that we're

2:28:51going to try and help work with them.

2:28:52>> Further, they want to go with the with

2:28:54the dog.

2:28:56>> The dog's done.

2:28:57>> The dog's done.

2:28:57>> The dog's done these trees.

2:28:59>> We already Yeah, that's already been

2:29:01approved. But we want to find out. So to

2:29:04help Lori help them when they're coming

2:29:06to us with a mitigation plan and asking

2:29:08all right here's what we're proposing

2:29:10and here's where we're proposing things

2:29:12to help guide Lori to best help them are

2:29:15you know is there something specific

2:29:16that you're looking for with the

2:29:17mitigation

2:29:19>> I don't like the grass

2:29:21the grass is poisoning the lake

2:29:24take a look at it there is not a broad

2:29:26leaf in it

2:29:28green and it's about this tall and every

2:29:31time it rains

2:29:33They poison the lake.

2:29:35Simple as that.

2:29:36>> So, you want to you want to have them

2:29:38put like a

2:29:38>> I want them to tell us what garden or

2:29:40something. Is that what you're trying to

2:29:41get in the middle of the

2:29:42>> No, I'm not going that. This is a wrong

2:29:44one to do it to. But, uh where else are

2:29:46they going to plant anything? like the

2:29:47mitigation number if you want to do like

2:29:49one to one trees plus shrubs or cuz I

2:29:52mean like six trees that's you know that

2:29:54could be between six and 12 trees but

2:29:56the the properties trees

2:29:59there's no space for anything trying to

2:30:01make big a reflecting pool if everybody

2:30:03on the lake was exactly like 328 but

2:30:07>> that's what we'd have

2:30:08>> yeah but let's for for we we need help

2:30:11here so we can help guide them 328's not

2:30:14the perfect example of the of the

2:30:17clearing because

2:30:19well 1967

2:30:22that was completely cleared. There's

2:30:24actually more vegetation on that site

2:30:26now than there was in 1967 when it was

2:30:30completely cleared. It wasn't on your

2:30:32map. was on that other

2:30:35but

2:30:38yes grass fertilizer I hear you on that

2:30:42but as far as what activity they did

2:30:44that led to that that's been done that

2:30:46was done in the late60s I need help

2:30:49guiding

2:30:50>> No that's all fresh

2:30:51>> no it was

2:30:52>> no she's talking about she gets your

2:30:53point that they solded it but we must

2:30:55have we must have agreed to

2:30:57>> they had a bigger lawn in 1967 than what

2:31:00is there now and the house was still

2:31:02just was still very large. So

2:31:04>> we we were going back in 50 years of

2:31:06aerials just to put a seed. So yes, I

2:31:09hear you on the grass, the fertilizer,

2:31:11but Lori is going to be helping them

2:31:13with the mitigation landscaping for the

2:31:15where they're going to be proposing

2:31:17things and to help guide them so that

2:31:20way we can help them come to come to you

2:31:22with something that you might like for

2:31:24mitigation. We need some a general idea

2:31:29hypothetically. You say you all agree

2:31:31that six trees, eight trees, whatever

2:31:33needs to come out. Would you be looking

2:31:34for a 1:1 ratio on

2:31:37>> the six? What are you open to a mixture

2:31:40of shrubs and trees?

2:31:42>> What is their plan? Their plan is to

2:31:44remove trees.

2:31:46>> Yes.

2:31:46>> And they're going to do little itty

2:31:47bitty mitigations for you.

2:31:49>> That's what we're asking. What do you

2:31:50want so we can help them? They did a lot

2:31:53of mitigations for them over there.

2:31:55>> So there's more context. So Rocco is

2:31:59interested in removing trees between the

2:32:02garage and the house

2:32:04and that might you know obviously change

2:32:07the scope of the project. So then there

2:32:10then there's just like well mic you know

2:32:13the one one 2:1

2:32:16um

2:32:16>> they want to kind of started

2:32:18>> take more trees out or the ones

2:32:19>> yeah they're interested in taking out

2:32:21more trees but the final number from

2:32:24them first. Oh,

2:32:25>> but it would just be nice to hear

2:32:27numbers from you while I'm helping Sam.

2:32:30>> Well, the tough part is like reading

2:32:33this ar and you're the professional. I

2:32:35don't know what I don't know. But when I

2:32:37read that, there's nothing in this

2:32:39report that tells me that those are

2:32:40absolutely failing trees. In fact, it

2:32:42tells me the opposite

2:32:44>> because it is absolutely empty and

2:32:47devoid of all appropriate context. This

2:32:50was written like somebody who wanted to

2:32:53say, "Do not allow these trees to come

2:32:55down, but I was hired to do a job, so

2:32:57I'm going to say that these trees you

2:33:00could consider taking."

2:33:01>> That's what I got. And and so at that

2:33:04point, it's like I don't know what to

2:33:06recommend in this case because I don't

2:33:08know if if I'm looking at this from what

2:33:10is written here that we should consider

2:33:13having them take down these trees at

2:33:14all.

2:33:15>> And that's what they need to know. So,

2:33:16thank Well, if you break it down,

2:33:18there's certain parts that he does talk

2:33:19about like um the oak that's next to the

2:33:21house where he discusses there's a

2:33:23failing limbo before um above the house

2:33:25like at the end of the driveway to the

2:33:27left and he discusses a little bit about

2:33:29the pines. It's just he gets really

2:33:30ambiguous when it's coming down to when

2:33:34he discusses he all of a sudden's

2:33:35discussing them all in one big bunch.

2:33:37But he does discuss like and I get his

2:33:38point. There was a failed oak limb that

2:33:41like if you get up next to the house

2:33:42it's a it's quite large tree. I mean

2:33:44it's a there's a lot of overstory over

2:33:45there. Eric, maybe understand that one.

2:33:47You know, I and I can understand them

2:33:48all for what it is, I guess. But we'd

2:33:50have to all agree on it. But, um, so I'm

2:33:53not super bothered by the way he did it

2:33:55cuz I think you're right, Eric. I think

2:33:56it's just somebody that's like, I'm

2:33:58doing my job. It's like Edit even kind

2:34:00of said before, it's it's pretty

2:34:01difficult to get an ar who as an

2:34:04arborist.

2:34:06And even so, to be honest, even just

2:34:07doing what I did today of talking about

2:34:08decay in trees and stuff, like it's on

2:34:10you. You know what I'm saying? like as

2:34:12an arborist if you come in and you miss

2:34:14something. That was almost why I was

2:34:15like when he discussed I don't need to

2:34:17see the resistor graph but the point is

2:34:18is if he's doing all those things it's

2:34:21putting it a little bit on him like in

2:34:23New York state it would actually be a

2:34:24legal thing. Do you know what I'm

2:34:25saying? I'm not sure as much in

2:34:26Massachusetts but um [clears throat]

2:34:29so my point is but then at the same time

2:34:30where are the mitigations going to go on

2:34:32this property? That's the problem I'm

2:34:33having here. And to just throw a bunch

2:34:35of trees on that I mean I I'm I would be

2:34:37amazed if they really made it unless you

2:34:39took more of the canopy out to give more

2:34:41space. Do you know what I'm trying to

2:34:42say? For the trees to grow.

2:34:44>> Yeah.

2:34:44>> I mean it's one of those ones it's got

2:34:46so many trees. But then he even

2:34:47discusses in that taking some of the

2:34:49trees out if I read it right would

2:34:50actually be not the best thing for the

2:34:52trees that are there. So I'm not really

2:34:55sure if I was you know

2:34:57I'm trying to talk like the arburous

2:34:58talk. So you don't really know what I'm

2:34:59trying to say.

2:35:00>> Well I'm I'm I want to get one of those.

2:35:02What do you call it? The Visigraph.

2:35:04>> Yeah.

2:35:04>> Oh, they're awesome.

2:35:05>> There's a whole book on it. I was Oh, I

2:35:07can't even tell you.

2:35:08>> It's awesome. Was up

2:35:10>> doing it for the Yeah. the New England

2:35:11chapter of the

2:35:12>> How much do they cost?

2:35:13>> 10 grand.

2:35:14>> 10 grand.

2:35:15>> Yeah.

2:35:15>> How much can you charge each time you

2:35:16drill a trailer?

2:35:17>> Actually, it's funny cuz I'm talking.

2:35:18The reason I'm getting into Well, we

2:35:19don't need to get into all this.

2:35:20>> Do we have a motion to continue to

2:35:23October 22nd?

2:35:25>> Um, I don't. This isn't a open hearing,

2:35:28is it?

2:35:29>> Oh, you're right. Never mind.

2:35:30>> So, no. Yes. I mean,

2:35:33>> all right.

2:35:34>> I think I think I I wish I could give

2:35:36you guidance that would satisfy me, but

2:35:39I

2:35:41>> I'm really big about the shrubs.

2:35:43Anything we can There's a chance to get

2:35:45more pollinators in that area. I mean, I

2:35:47think we got a

2:35:49I like shade.

2:35:50>> Shane's awesome. That's a shaded spot

2:35:52where even those pines I don't think are

2:35:54going to I mean I guess I didn't stare

2:35:55them too much but

2:35:58>> go on 68 sher

2:36:03request for a certificate of compliance.

2:36:06>> So this project is uh for a septic

2:36:08replacement that was issued in se um ear

2:36:12that's a earlier this year um in

2:36:16February the septic was replaced and

2:36:19done according to plan. There were

2:36:21mitigation plantings and a growing

2:36:23period that was required as the order of

2:36:24conditions. Mitigation plantings were

2:36:27not done. Um when Mccclure first

2:36:31inquired about applying for a

2:36:32certificate of compliance, I did let

2:36:34them know that my recommendation would

2:36:35be to deny it because the mitigation

2:36:37plantings haven't been done. Um they

2:36:40filed it at the request of their client

2:36:42who wanted to get it done. I don't know

2:36:44if it if their reason for pushing for a

2:36:47certificate of compliance has something

2:36:48to do with, you know, a bank or

2:36:50something like that. Um, but I in I

2:36:54cannot justify issuing a certificate of

2:36:57compliance without those mitigation

2:36:58plantings. If he needs some type of

2:37:01letter saying that the septic was done,

2:37:03you know, in compliance, that would be

2:37:05something. This the one on the left hand

2:37:06side as you go down the hill.

2:37:07>> The one where they

2:37:09>> No, no. This is the one where they were

2:37:12going to take down a tree that was also

2:37:14in the swamp area in the back. His

2:37:16neighbor already had the raised area,

2:37:19>> the one with the shed that's getting all

2:37:21impacted. Okay. Yeah.

2:37:22>> So, um you know,

2:37:24>> if there's some type something that

2:37:27they're being held up on, I can help

2:37:28them work through that and point them in

2:37:30the right direction, but I cannot

2:37:31recommend a certificate of compliance at

2:37:33this time. So, I actually recommending a

2:37:35denial.

2:37:37>> Okay. Okay. Motion.

2:37:40>> Yeah. Uh, with regards to the project at

2:37:4268 Shepard Road, DP file number

2:37:44300-1252,

2:37:46I'd like to make a motion to deny the

2:37:48request for certificate of compliance.

2:37:52>> I have a second.

2:37:53>> Second.

2:37:54>> Any discussion? Seeing none, all in

2:37:56favor in favor. Eric Casper in favor.

2:37:58Good in favor.

2:38:02Cuba in favor. Okay.

2:38:06Seven Evergreen Lane,

2:38:08part of the sanctuary

2:38:11request for a certificate um request for

2:38:14a partial certificate of compliance

2:38:16300-470.

2:38:19>> This is a subdivision that was done or

2:38:22approved 20 years ago. And um

2:38:26>> no, it wasn't that long ago. I'm just

2:38:29kidding. [laughter]

2:38:31Um the

2:38:33town has taken ownership of the road. So

2:38:36we'll make some steps to actually close

2:38:37out the whole subdivision as a whole so

2:38:39we don't have to receive all these

2:38:40partials. Um but with the this

2:38:44particular project property itself I do

2:38:46not have any concerns. So recommendation

2:38:48is to issue a partial certificate of

2:38:51compliance releasing sever seven

2:38:53Evergreen Lane from the order of

2:38:55conditions.

2:38:58With regards to the project at 7

2:39:00Evergreen Lane DP file number 300-470,

2:39:03I'd like to make a motion to approve

2:39:06certificate of compliance. No perpetual

2:39:08condition.

2:39:09>> Correct.

2:39:10>> Okay.

2:39:12Any discussion? All in favor? Nick Gra.

2:39:15All in favor in favor. Good favor.

2:39:19>> Any perpetual conditions were related

2:39:20specifically to storm water. So that

2:39:22that's ours.

2:39:24>> Gotcha. close overall.

2:39:26>> We're down to all business for 87 Main

2:39:29Street, Fields Pizza Discussion and

2:39:32possible action on unauthorized tree

2:39:36removal and additional site activity.

2:39:39>> Um, so this is an ongoing investigation.

2:39:43Um, with the

2:39:45change of the business ownership, there

2:39:47have been some improvements. um for

2:39:49anyone that's driven by with the new

2:39:51lining that has triggered some other

2:39:53review some from other departments. Um

2:39:57and so we kind of want to see what might

2:40:00need to come out of everything as far as

2:40:02the activity in the back. Um I spoke

2:40:05with Tom Chamberlain about what might

2:40:08have been done for the borings and

2:40:09whatnot. So, he did go out earlier this

2:40:11week and was able to confirm that one of

2:40:14the trees closest to the power lines was

2:40:17removed as part of the soil borings

2:40:18because we needed the equipment to get

2:40:20in there. Um, the other three trees that

2:40:23were removed without approval. Um, he

2:40:26was able to confirm that they were all

2:40:28ash trees. They were all compromised, so

2:40:31they should have gone through a proper

2:40:32process to have them approved for

2:40:35removal. Um, but we were able to at

2:40:38least kind of get his professional

2:40:40opinion on their state of condition

2:40:41prior to the removal. Um, with the

2:40:44expansion in the back area, we were able

2:40:47to confirm that that area has been

2:40:48expanded for over 25 years. We got in

2:40:51there with a shovel and there's several

2:40:53layers of all types of different things.

2:40:55Um, it is being used for parking. It's

2:40:57being used for storing. The town is open

2:41:01to doing some mitigation after the

2:41:04bridge construction

2:41:06and restoring some of that area for the

2:41:10work for the town to do it since we're

2:41:12going to be basically using all of that

2:41:14area for staging and whatnot. Um,

2:41:18overall was

2:41:20>> well the the the

2:41:22what do you call it the tar ground tower

2:41:25>> millings? What

2:41:26>> millings? millings that are in there. I

2:41:28think did the town put them in for him?

2:41:30>> No.

2:41:32>> Because that's a violation of the

2:41:33wetland protection.

2:41:35>> So, it's over existing gravel. So,

2:41:38there's layers of things. I'm not saying

2:41:40that it's not right and wrong, but yes,

2:41:42when someone violates the wetland

2:41:43protection act, we have to go in and

2:41:45acknowledge that and do some enforcement

2:41:47and try and make some things right. Um,

2:41:50but we're it's and millings are not

2:41:53great for the resource area as well. The

2:41:57burm that they did that was

2:41:58inadvertently created by clearing all

2:42:00that out is a benefit because before

2:42:04that was all straight runoff into that

2:42:05wetland in the back. So indirectly they

2:42:08did a positive thing. They did some

2:42:11negative things. Um, but this is ongoing

2:42:15with review and potentially needs to go

2:42:17to site plan for the change in the

2:42:19parking structure as well. Um, so I at

2:42:23this time I wouldn't like to make a

2:42:25recommendation for action because we

2:42:27kind of

2:42:27>> the toilets that he has

2:42:29>> sorry

2:42:29>> toilet storage and

2:42:31>> I think they were just taken I think

2:42:32they were just taken forward or

2:42:34something.

2:42:36>> Yeah, they're getting thrown out.

2:42:38>> Um,

2:42:38>> so they're going to be taken out,

2:42:40>> correct?

2:42:40>> Okay. But as far as um any type of

2:42:43restoration and mitigation, I don't want

2:42:45to make any recommendations at this

2:42:47point because if other things have to

2:42:50change on the site if it does need to go

2:42:51to site plan review, this is one of

2:42:53those things that might have to go

2:42:55through a couple different cycles, but

2:42:57also the town being willing to do some

2:43:01restoration within that 25 ft buffer and

2:43:03bringing some of that back. That's going

2:43:06to be at least a year out from now. and

2:43:09any other possible area for mitigation.

2:43:12They don't have any. The site that they

2:43:14own as they currently own it is 100%

2:43:18impervious. The property line actually

2:43:21is even further over from where that

2:43:24entrance is. So that vegetated strip

2:43:26that goes down along National Grid, they

2:43:28don't even own that section. So there

2:43:30physically is that that back line is the

2:43:33only place that they possibly can plant.

2:43:36And that's where the town is open to

2:43:39well is is ready to commit to doing some

2:43:42restoration. We just don't know what

2:43:43that is what yet and we need to see if

2:43:46any other impacts might happen from

2:43:47doing the bridge process. So I'd

2:43:50recommend we kind of table this for now

2:43:52but while things are kind of still

2:43:54ongoing.

2:43:57>> I'm okay with that.

2:44:01>> So an update.

2:44:02>> All right. So um item 15 with the tree

2:44:04removal policy

2:44:06um everyone is getting homework. We

2:44:10earlier this year we had talked about

2:44:12the tree removal policy and that it

2:44:14might be time to kind of take a look at

2:44:15it and what needs to change. So everyone

2:44:18has a cop printed copy of the tree

2:44:20removal policy as well as the mitigation

2:44:23paperwork that that is then sent out

2:44:27that Lori follows up with in the plan

2:44:28that they're committing to. um in your t

2:44:32in all of the free time that you have um

2:44:36uh we're requesting that you kind of go

2:44:38through this make some notes you know if

2:44:40there's things that you want to change

2:44:42improve modify you know making note of

2:44:45those so that way at our next meeting we

2:44:48can sit down and everyone looks at their

2:44:50notes and makes their recommendations

2:44:52for what they would like to see change

2:44:53if at anything at all so we can make

2:44:56steps towards formally accepting and

2:44:59updating

2:45:00this policy.

2:45:02Um, any questions on that?

2:45:05>> You guys can even scribble on it and

2:45:06just turn it into [cough] me [laughter]

2:45:09and I'll read you

2:45:10>> just make it look like I did something.

2:45:12>> Yeah.

2:45:12>> So, the policy is based on our bylaws.

2:45:16>> So, the policy is referenced in the

2:45:20bylaw, but this does not require a bylaw

2:45:23change. This is something that we vote

2:45:25on internally. It doesn't need to go to

2:45:27public hearing. So, policies are

2:45:30internal, regulations are usually

2:45:32internal, bylaws when we have to go um

2:45:35public hearing to town meeting and

2:45:37follow that process. So, um I will go

2:45:41through my update as I where's my other

2:45:44that I have? I'll go through my agent

2:45:47update as I have it written here, but I

2:45:49also have some other things as well that

2:45:51I jotted down. Um,

2:45:55drought status. We're no longer in a

2:45:57drought for now. For now, it's been a

2:46:00while, but we're not in a drought. So,

2:46:02that's great. Um, looking into the rest

2:46:07of this year,

2:46:09we've got

2:46:11continuing the Plimpmpton master plan.

2:46:13We've got that as a special meeting.

2:46:16Tree removal will readress at our next

2:46:18meeting on the 22nd.

2:46:20We potentially have Tim Harrington from

2:46:24Big Alam Lake Association coming in to

2:46:26do a presentation on just the findings

2:46:28of what they did with this year with

2:46:30their new practices. Um, I'm

2:46:33recommending that they go to Slack

2:46:35first, make that presentation to Slack

2:46:37so Slack can also have some information

2:46:39to make recommendations and either

2:46:42accompany them or uh come forward. But

2:46:44since it's part of an active order of

2:46:46conditions, we still want to hear Tim's

2:46:48update. So, we're working out the

2:46:50timeline to get that

2:46:51>> time is Tim asking for

2:46:53>> has not give been given a time limit

2:46:55yet.

2:46:56>> I'd like to just because of what

2:46:59happened before when VA asked to come in

2:47:02front of us and it was over an hour. I'd

2:47:04like to figure out as a commission how

2:47:07to time bind that.

2:47:08>> Absolutely.

2:47:10>> I can keep it short [clears throat] and

2:47:11sweet and just say report on the update

2:47:13and what your plans are for next year.

2:47:16But you you're going to make sure that

2:47:17he goes to black people.

2:47:19>> Correct. Correct.

2:47:21>> Um Yep. So then for So that's

2:47:24potentially October 22nd, but we might

2:47:27push it to November. Um

2:47:30November meeting. We'll also look at the

2:47:332027 calendar. Um

2:47:37at this point, are we open to moving the

2:47:41meeting dates to Wednesdays for 2027?

2:47:44No,

2:47:45>> no,

2:47:46>> I can't.

2:47:46>> Okay.

2:47:47>> On Thursday, u I think the issue with

2:47:50the slack one to the last

2:47:53>> and it seems that maybe we changed

2:47:56something, but seems that now

2:47:59it might be like

2:48:01Okay. Um, perfect.

2:48:04>> I told you.

2:48:06>> All right. And then

2:48:09December 17th, that's uh when Slack is

2:48:13proposing to have the joint meeting with

2:48:16the objective that they are requesting

2:48:19to just kind of help get some alignment

2:48:22of what their purpose is. Um that

2:48:26looking at the charter and what's

2:48:28required there, possibly making

2:48:30recommendations on updating the charter

2:48:32of how times have changed. So that would

2:48:34be the objective of the joint meeting.

2:48:37Um, as far as a start time, if we would

2:48:40like to do it earlier at like that five,

2:48:43it's December 17th, so for you guys, I

2:48:45don't know if you're on winter break

2:48:46yet. Um, but if we can do like a 5 to 6

2:48:50before we go into the regular meeting

2:48:52or, you know, 5 to 6:30 and then hearing

2:48:55start at 6:30. Um, but if you could give

2:48:58me an idea of what might work as of

2:49:00right now. Um, if do you think a 5 to 6

2:49:04would work?

2:49:07December 17th.

2:49:10>> I think you guys are done there.

2:49:16>> Oh, that's November.

2:49:17>> That's my birthday week. So,

2:49:19>> your birthday week

2:49:21count as your birthday month cuz that

2:49:24Christmas.

2:49:25>> Yeah,

2:49:26>> that's fair. Um my only question is if

2:49:29that is the purpose of the meeting

2:49:31really that is a

2:49:34select board and town meeting purview.

2:49:37Do [clears throat] we ask for a member

2:49:40of the select board or Robin to join us

2:49:43during during that session to at least

2:49:45be listening into what that I know we we

2:49:50don't generally ask them. So I don't

2:49:52think it's a big ask

2:49:53>> but we we don't set their purpose. The

2:49:56town does.

2:49:57>> Absolutely. and we can discuss with them

2:49:59what we think they could benefit us. But

2:50:03I think we should have at least

2:50:06>> a select board member or Robin or both

2:50:08here if it's just for that hour. Does

2:50:10anybody have an issue with that?

2:50:12>> I don't have a problem.

2:50:13>> I will invite them. Um I know Mary

2:50:15Dowling is the Slack representative

2:50:17that's been assigned. Um per my

2:50:20recommendation, Chuck's been sending all

2:50:22the agendas. She hasn't attended a

2:50:23meeting yet. They were very excited that

2:50:25floor came.

2:50:26>> Yes. They were very happy to see her. So

2:50:29when we get down to that too, we can

2:50:31>> we cannot um I have like that meeting

2:50:34until 5. So

2:50:35>> Okay.

2:50:37>> 5:30 the year. Yes.

2:50:39>> Okay. So we could do like a 5:30 to 6:30

2:50:42and regular public hearings start at

2:50:446:30.

2:50:45>> Okay. Um and then as I had kind of

2:50:46mentioned earlier for the November

2:50:48meeting, I am either going to be absent

2:50:50or I will be virtual. Um, we'll be going

2:50:54to North Carolina and my flight lands at

2:50:564:00. So, I'll be at the house before

2:50:59our 6:00 meeting. So, if it's, you know,

2:51:02something that I have to be on that, you

2:51:04know, kind of pressing, then I'll hop

2:51:05on. If not, I'll just have very detailed

2:51:07notes and everyone. Exactly.

2:51:09>> Exactly. We're not worried.

2:51:11>> All right. [laughter]

2:51:14>> I'm going try I'm going to try and run

2:51:15through the rest of this. Um, you guys

2:51:17all have your invitations for Dowy

2:51:19Vision Night. If you are able to come,

2:51:21please register. We need registration

2:51:24because we need to know how many buses

2:51:26we are reserving that are taking us up

2:51:29to the area. Share with your friends,

2:51:32neighbors, anyone that's interested on

2:51:34what's going on. Um, we are I will be

2:51:38going to the CPC meeting on Monday with

2:51:42our request for CPC that will be going

2:51:45on the town meeting warrant. special

2:51:48town meeting is November 16th. There's a

2:51:51couple items on there, including the new

2:51:54solar bylaw. So, save the date for

2:51:56Monday. Um, November 16th for special

2:52:00town meeting.

2:52:01>> So, you're going to CPC on the 6th.

2:52:03>> I'm going to Yep. CPC on on Monday

2:52:06with Heather.

2:52:07>> Are we doing the conservation the MACC?

2:52:11>> Um, getting to that on here.

2:52:14>> Sorry. Okay.

2:52:14>> Oh, no. You're good. Um, great servage

2:52:16pumpkin walk is going to be on October

2:52:1823rd at the Riverlands with a rain date

2:52:20of the 24th. We are also doing the next

2:52:24step of the year land your legacy on

2:52:26November 10th. So, more information will

2:52:28come out there.

2:52:30Um, the town's website updated on

2:52:35Tuesday and

2:52:38a lot has happened. So, please be

2:52:40patient with us as we are trying to go

2:52:43back. Um, for communities that I've

2:52:45already spoken with that did that

2:52:47transition, most of them had said it was

2:52:49hyperlinks, meeting minutes, and

2:52:51agendas.

2:52:52We all logged on on Tuesday and there

2:52:54was so many glitches. Everything on the

2:52:56calendar was gone. Things on websites

2:52:58are missing. If you went to our

2:53:00conservation page with the meeting

2:53:01documents, it was still backdating us

2:53:04from September. So, we're going to be

2:53:06working through updating this. It's just

2:53:08been it's been a crazy couple of weeks

2:53:11and this is usually the time of year

2:53:14that we start to slow down and it's not

2:53:16I'm constantly chasing fires and put

2:53:18meetings and it's it's and this is every

2:53:20department. Everyone's spread really

2:53:22thin right now. So, just be patient as

2:53:24we're trying to update that. Um I

2:53:26recently sent a letter rejecting an

2:53:28application for a small battery energy

2:53:32storage system on Mashapog Road. Um,

2:53:37the application was applied for under

2:53:39the bylaw only because they claim that

2:53:42they are 101 ft from the resource area,

2:53:47but we have no RDA or ANRAD confirming

2:53:49that. And also, it's not

2:53:52>> No, it's at

2:53:55>> nine. It's by the worship center.

2:53:58>> Oh, the one right after the corner. So

2:54:01there were kind of kind of Yeah. Um so

2:54:05and there's a whole lot of zoning red

2:54:07flags too. So I you know spoke with

2:54:09Aiden, Robin and Bill and said can I

2:54:11even accept this? And we tagged in town

2:54:14council and it

2:54:15>> cannot accept this application at that

2:54:17time. So that's going back to the

2:54:20beginning. Um Gil's on the agenda to get

2:54:23appointed on a Monday as an alternate.

2:54:27So, um, select board will appoint him,

2:54:29um, on Monday and he'll get sworn in.

2:54:31So, he'll be able to

2:54:32>> get on our next meetings here.

2:54:35>> So, yay.

2:54:36>> Congratulations.

2:54:37>> Also, more squished up here.

2:54:39>> Yeah.

2:54:41>> Also, that being said, there's currently

2:54:42a vacancy on open space. Um, Becky gave

2:54:46her resignation to Carol, so and she's

2:54:49losing people. So, Open Space needs

2:54:52support. if you know people that are

2:54:53looking to get, you know, they meet

2:54:56maybe once a month and Carol's very

2:54:58flexible of working with the schedules

2:55:00of whoever can show up. So, if you're if

2:55:03you know of anyone that wants to get

2:55:04involved with the town that doesn't have

2:55:05a ton of time to commit, obviously

2:55:07Flora, you and I know from experience

2:55:08that it's, you know, a nice start to

2:55:12getting involved, too. So, light

2:55:14friends, neighbors, and whatnot know.

2:55:17Um, the lead mine forest stewardship

2:55:20plan that everybody read and was

2:55:22approved has officially been approved by

2:55:25the state. I'm trying to scan it.

2:55:28However, it's in like an industrial

2:55:30strength staple and I need wire cutters

2:55:32to cut the staple so I can properly scan

2:55:35that and make that public as well. Um,

2:55:39it is budget season. and all of our

2:55:41betterment requests and everything were

2:55:43due today and our budgets are due next

2:55:44week. So, I'm busy trying to get numbers

2:55:46and estimates and everything for town

2:55:48meeting for next year and all of that

2:55:51that's due. Um, we're also doing a lot

2:55:53to prep for not only special town

2:55:55meeting in November, but we also have to

2:55:56start preparing for special town meeting

2:55:59in April. So, there's a lot of just

2:56:00deadlines that we're trying to crunch

2:56:02with that. Um,

2:56:05the MACC conference is coming up in

2:56:08October. This one I will not be

2:56:10attending. I last year was the first

2:56:12time that I ever attended the fall one.

2:56:13I didn't find it as great as the spring

2:56:16one, but there's a lot of fundamental

2:56:17classes. If um I can send the link again

2:56:20if anyone's not getting it, but if you

2:56:21want to sign up for fundamental classes,

2:56:23if you want to sign up for the

2:56:24conference, let us know so we can get

2:56:26you all registered. That comes out of

2:56:28our budget. Um, for any new members too,

2:56:32if you're don't have your MACC

2:56:34certificate or if you have a couple

2:56:35certificates behind, if you want

2:56:37updates, let us know so we can get you

2:56:39registered for that as soon as possible.

2:56:42Um, and then one item that I did not get

2:56:46on the agenda, but we can do just as

2:56:48this update as well, um, I think I

2:56:49mentioned before that Cedar Lake is in

2:56:51the process of applying for a 604B

2:56:53[clears throat] grant for a watershed

2:56:55study specifically to address the algae

2:56:57issues. Um, and I'd like to write a

2:57:00letter of support on behalf of the

2:57:01conservation commission. We already have

2:57:03one from Slack. We are um we're getting

2:57:05one from select board and we're um

2:57:07getting one from hopefully one of the

2:57:09state reps as well. But if anyone can

2:57:11make a motion to

2:57:15and provide a letter of support to Cedar

2:57:18Lake Association for the grant that

2:57:22would be

2:57:23>> no downside to that. So moved.

2:57:25>> Yep. Any discussion? See none. All in

2:57:28favor in favor. Eric Aspar in favor.

2:57:32Ed

2:57:32>> good in favor.

2:57:33>> Stub it for

2:57:36>> we don't know. Yeah.

2:57:38>> Um

2:57:41I know that I'm forgetting things

2:57:43because it's just

2:57:45it's been a tornado lately. So

2:57:47>> site visit.

2:57:48>> There might be some random things that

2:57:49are coming in here and there with other

2:57:51updates. But for now that's all that I

2:57:53have for my updates. um

2:57:55>> a site visit. I mean 10:14.

2:57:58>> When do you guys want to do the October?

2:58:00You

2:58:00>> want me to email you guys about the um

2:58:04conference because I am going to go to

2:58:05that.

2:58:05>> Yes.

2:58:06>> Okay.

2:58:06>> Yep. And then um if you click the

2:58:09catalog too, just specifically which

2:58:11classes you want to sign up for.

2:58:13>> Good for you.

2:58:14>> Well, I was going to say if we have

2:58:16floor, didn't you say the 14th wasn't

2:58:19good for you for something or

2:58:21>> Oh, it is good.

2:58:22>> But for me, it's good. You said, "What

2:58:24day is it?"

2:58:25>> Oh, no. 14th.

2:58:26>> Yeah.

2:58:27>> The same time.

2:58:29>> What day is it?

2:58:30>> It's Wednesday.

2:58:31>> 14th. Yes.

2:58:33>> Okay. For site visits. Um I

2:58:36>> 14th for site visit.

2:58:37>> I will be up in the air for the 22nd.

2:58:39Just so you know.

2:58:39>> Is that what we decided though? Was

2:58:40Wednesday the 14th for site visits? Did

2:58:42I miss that?

2:58:43>> Is that what works?

2:58:44>> Does that mean you're flying or you

2:58:45don't know whether you're coming?

2:58:46>> I don't know whether I'll be I I may

2:58:48have an event I need to be at.

2:58:51I was supposed to be at one site, but I

2:58:53came because I given a a dedicated.

2:58:56>> Did we receive any new obligations

2:58:57today?

2:58:58>> Uh, one RDA.

2:59:00>> Okay. So, we might only have one site

2:59:01visit.

2:59:04>> Okay. The 14th or we can

2:59:07>> 14th. Good.

2:59:08>> Y

2:59:09>> Eric, you who who was a no to the 14th?

2:59:12>> No, I can do the 14th.

2:59:13>> You'll be appointed by then. Are you

2:59:15available for the 14th?

2:59:16>> Actually, not.

2:59:17>> Okay. All right. I'm going to book it

2:59:20for the 14th then. And

2:59:23yeah,

2:59:24um liaison reports.

2:59:28>> Uh I went to meeting

2:59:32>> finally. Uh it was very nice. Uh they

2:59:34were happy that um someone from

2:59:36conservation was able to to do it. Um I

2:59:40think by this scale now allows me to go

2:59:44to some of the meetings and I'm planning

2:59:45to do that. you already mentioned um

2:59:48their their plans. They want to create

2:59:50some type of docu documents to see how

2:59:54uh they can have a better interaction

2:59:56with translation as well as with other

2:59:59departments. And I think the main the

3:00:01main things um were

3:00:05in in terms of questions and things like

3:00:07that. One of the things that came up is

3:00:09like um they're interested in having uh

3:00:12like just summary like there were a lot

3:00:14of a lot of things that they were they

3:00:16were discussing but one of the things

3:00:17that I I noted is an interest in uh

3:00:20having a little bit more information

3:00:22once a negative decision is made. So

3:00:25like for example if there's a vote that

3:00:27is an abstain or a vote that is a is um

3:00:30negative to

3:00:33if it's a possibility of saying why um

3:00:35one is abstain or one is is like

3:00:38negative that I think is

3:00:41>> absolutely

3:00:49>> I don't think it's an unreasonable ask

3:00:51but I don't know that it fits within

3:00:54what is

3:01:00necessary under Robert's rules of order

3:01:02and everybody and also that everybody's

3:01:04going to be comfort.

3:01:06So we should

3:01:07>> I think that enough required

3:01:09>> we still support it anyway. So

3:01:12>> say abstain not in favor you have to

3:01:14explain why.

3:01:15>> Oh okay. Yes. Well, yeah. When Yeah.

3:01:18Yeah. I mean, really, when if anyone's

3:01:21choosing to abstain from a meeting, if

3:01:22you if you do not provide some general

3:01:25reason as to why you're abstaining, if

3:01:27it's like personal, it can be

3:01:29challenged. So, we could get a complaint

3:01:31and then someone and then which would

3:01:33actually require like if it if that

3:01:35complaint came across through I think

3:01:37that's through open meeting law. Um that

3:01:39would actually require us to reopen the

3:01:41hearing and they have the authority to

3:01:44make us do a new decision. um as far as

3:01:46justifying decisions themselves such as

3:01:49so say for example that we are granting

3:01:51a waiver for disturbance within a 25- ft

3:01:53buffer when I'm writing the order of

3:01:56conditions you all are communicating

3:01:58this and in my recommendations I'm

3:02:00communicating it to you as well as this

3:02:03is why I think I think it is or is not

3:02:05okay when I'm writing an order of

3:02:07conditions that is also stated the

3:02:11um disturbance within the 25 ft no

3:02:13disturb zone was approved because

3:02:16they're offering mitigation because this

3:02:18is an improvement to an existing

3:02:20condition. So, generally, and that helps

3:02:23us with defendable decisions. So, if

3:02:25someone were ever to challenge and say,

3:02:27"Well, you're allowing this person but

3:02:28not this person," and tries to claim

3:02:30some type of bias, that's just a strong

3:02:32defensible decision on our part. That's

3:02:35a simple thing that we can share. Um

3:02:37even the decision or the summaries at

3:02:39the end of every meeting, we send um

3:02:42summaries to all of the department heads

3:02:44every morning. So every Friday after the

3:02:45meeting, Lori goes back to the agenda

3:02:47and it's general approved, continued,

3:02:50you know, denied, things like that.

3:02:52That's something that we could if

3:02:53there's a lakefront property on that

3:02:55agenda, we can pass that along to Slack,

3:02:57too. So it's not unreasonable. It

3:02:59doesn't necessarily create any

3:03:01additional work. It's just it's kind

3:03:03it's information that's kind of already

3:03:05there. Um just sometimes if it's a new

3:03:08thing for us, it'll just be a new habit

3:03:11that we'd have to learn to develop of

3:03:13remembering to send things.

3:03:15>> That's fine. I heard that different.

3:03:18>> What I heard was they were asking for if

3:03:20as we were making our individual votes

3:03:24that they wanted a reason for those

3:03:26individual votes

3:03:30>> I think is required. If you're

3:03:31abstaining, you say like, "I'm

3:03:32abstaining because I have a conflict of

3:03:34I'm abaining because

3:03:35>> I think I I don't know, maybe I've been

3:03:37misinterpreting the regulations, but I

3:03:39think

3:03:40>> you can't abstain just because you don't

3:03:42want to answer. You have to have a valid

3:03:44reason. You can't just say I don't want

3:03:46to say yes or no. It has to be a valid

3:03:48thing." And and it can just be I I feel

3:03:50that I have a personal conflict and I'm

3:03:53not comfortable voting like that. In my

3:03:55opinion, that's not a legal opinion. In

3:03:57my opinion, that is a valid enough

3:03:59reason that can go on record of just

3:04:00saying I personally am conflicted that I

3:04:02don't that I'm you know

3:04:04>> but it has to be on record. was, you

3:04:06know, a similar situation where you had

3:04:07abstained,

3:04:08>> right?

3:04:11>> Accused myself, but um

3:04:12>> yeah,

3:04:13>> but there it wasn't just abstensions, it

3:04:16was also negative negative votes, right?

3:04:18That was the other.

3:04:20>> Yeah. So like it came like to the to the

3:04:23one that I I um like I don't know how we

3:04:26voted, but like if I vote no like um you

3:04:29vote yes and there were like two

3:04:31abstains that I don't think you were

3:04:32here. So then he didn't pass. But then

3:04:35it was kind of like in the end like

3:04:38>> I think it was clear why I say no.

3:04:41[laughter]

3:04:42>> But it wasn't clear why others have.

3:04:46>> That one might be harder. So say for

3:04:47example there's a project and four of

3:04:50you vote yes and one of you vote no, the

3:04:53motion still passes. The motion still

3:04:55carries. But if they were looking for an

3:04:57answer as to why that one person said

3:04:59no, that's not really something I'm

3:05:00documenting. Now, if it's a project that

3:05:03say the vote carries and you vote no,

3:05:06that's in my decision. The commission

3:05:08voted no because XYZ.

3:05:11>> Right.

3:05:12>> And that also helps me in your

3:05:13communication too when you guys are

3:05:14clearly communicating it. If we don't

3:05:16approve this, like a perfect example is

3:05:19we deny the issuance of an order of

3:05:21conditions simply because we denied the

3:05:24waiver for no disturbance in 25 ft

3:05:26buffer. They didn't get this waiver so

3:05:28therefore we can't approve the project.

3:05:31of the final um the the final note

3:05:34>> right

3:05:35>> for like something

3:05:36>> I think overall it'll be important to

3:05:37communicate that a lot of the time

3:05:39people want black and white cut and dry

3:05:41answers

3:05:43that's just not possible every site is

3:05:45different we learn from things and I

3:05:47think that the commission in general can

3:05:49say that from you learn from experience

3:05:52so one person is doing this type of

3:05:54activity and you're looking at it and

3:05:55say all right it's not not a crazy big

3:05:58deal it's not going to have a huge

3:05:59impact but once every house on the

3:06:01street starts doing it. Well, now we

3:06:04have a big cumulative impact. Now we're

3:06:06saying now, you know, we're getting

3:06:07tighter on those decisions and getting

3:06:08the well, you let them do it, but yeah,

3:06:11we didn't realize everyone was going to

3:06:12start asking it and we have to we have a

3:06:14role to look at this big cumulative

3:06:16impact. It's not necessarily picking on

3:06:18you in your project. It's just we're

3:06:20seeing this change to the landscape and

3:06:22our job is to protect resources.

3:06:23>> The question is obviously whether we

3:06:25should consider if everybody would do

3:06:27it,

3:06:28>> right? I mean, so like

3:06:30>> I mean like

3:06:32categorical imperative. You should

3:06:34universalize your maximum. [laughter]

3:06:37>> I think that's the mistake.

3:06:41>> He's he's using professor words again.

3:06:43Can you I make a motion we make him stop

3:06:45that.

3:06:47>> Sounds good.

3:06:48>> Close the meeting.

3:06:49>> Anybody needs to take something?

3:06:51>> I'll second that.

3:06:52>> Any discussion?

3:06:53>> All in favor? In favor?

3:06:56I don't think Ed's closed a meeting in

3:06:5820 years. Good job.

3:07:01>> How you doing?

3:07:02>> I