 And then we're recording now. Right. We're opening the. Bylaw subcommittee meeting at nine oh two on March 4th. To our vote. Thank you, Lori. To all of you. So. You guys saw that I sent you sections one and two and thank you, Michelle, for sending some comments on that. Trying to just get my thoughts together for as we move forward. I just want to give you guys a little bit of an update on where things stand. So section three, I went through yesterday with Alex Y site from Copeland and page in detail. And I'm going to revise those sections and then I'll be getting that to you hopefully really soon. And so that that will mean that we have basically sections one, two and three drafted. Those will be clean. Documents for you guys then to do track changes on. I'm going to have a page set up on the concom website. That has the existing bylaw regulations. And then the. Marked up. The marked up ones that we've been working from for each section. And then. Any comments that town council has all include those documents and then the clean versions. That have been marked up by you guys will eventually get up on there. And then what I'd like to do is for each section have. A public hearing for review of the public and comment of the public before it's reviewed by the full commission and approved by the full commission in a public hearing. That's kind of like the general timeline I have in mind, but if you guys have any questions. Please let me know. I know I'm kind of barreling through this a little. With the explanation. So. Okay. So my thoughts on that are that what we will do is have. We'll have the revised, the old version, the markups and the new version. Available for the public to review online. We will say that. In the legal ad for the public hearing notice. And it will be very similar to. A public hearing that we have for a project with concom, right? We'll open it up. We'll say. Just general in general terms. We're revising the entire bylaw. This is where the revisions came from. We've gone through this whole bylaw subcommittee review process. And these are our final sections. They're available for review and comment from the public for, you know, a period of time if anyone has comments, you're welcome to submit them say over a 30 day period. They can submit comments to us. People can comment on it in the public hearing. We'll have a public comments phase where people can talk about it, but we're not going to be going through it with a fine tooth comb like we are right now. We're not going to be going through every single change. We're going to be saying this is the revision. If there's comments on it, comments. And basically I'm hoping that there might be some minor adjustments here and there, but for the most part it will be reviewed and approved in the public hearing. As this is the vetting process right now. This is the process where we're giving, we're going through it section by section. So that's kind of what I'm thinking. And what I talked about with Dave, but if you guys have thoughts on that, please, please share. So just to clarify when we review with the concom members, it will be in a public hearing. Yep. And if we want to present, well, I mean, I, I do think that, that a public hearing is this place. And if, and if any concom members have any issues with. Anything that they want to, you know, tease apart more. Section by section, we can do that. We can absolutely do that if people have questions or if the public has questions, we can tease it apart and explain. The revisions and why they came about and why we made certain changes here or there. We, you know, if there's a section that's like controversial, we can delve into that section. But my thought is to not go through every single change, because I mean the first round prior to the, even looking at it, there was over 800 changes. And since I've reviewed it, there's been a ton more. So it would almost be impossible to go through every single change. The other thing I just wanted to mention to you guys. So my thought about today was to go through section five and section six, which is like a little paragraph, but. Section. Four. Section six, which is like a little paragraph, but. Section four is. Going to be very tricky. There's a lot of problems with it. I'm just going to state that sort of at the get go. I talked to Michelle a little bit offline about this, but basically. And I kind of delved into this with you guys a little bit too, but. So. There's basically, there's two ways that you can do it in a bylaw when you're referring back to the wetland protection act regulations. You can either copy the wetland protection act regulations and paste them into your bylaw. So that they're basically that saying the same exact thing. Right. Or you can refer to the wetland protection act directly and just say the wetland protection act regulations apply under the bylaw. Or you can write your own or some combination of the two, like the wetland protection act regulations apply except where explicitly stated in these sections. However, what my observation is, and I'm more than welcome to and more than happy to share these sections with you guys, if it's useful for you to see. I did a comparison of section four. The wetland protection act on one panel and the bylaw regulations on the other panel. There's certain sections of the wetland protection act that are taken out of the bylaw regulations, like it's copied and pasted, but then certain things are taken out of our bylaw. And then there's other places where things were added in. And it's all throughout the entire section. And it's very confusing about what sections apply and what sections don't apply. I talked with Alex about it. The town attorney, you know, there's certain things that are take provisions that are taken out, which add additional protections. And also the other thing that's very bizarre. All of the inland resource areas are in there except for Riverfront, which is very weird, like why was Riverfront left out. So I am essentially going to rewrite those sections somehow in some capacity, and that one is going to be a big section to go through. Very complex. A complete kind of pain in the neck, to be honest with you. I don't know why they, why it was designed that way, the framework of it. It may have just been the opinions of the people involved in drafting it. I really don't know. But it's. Just so you know, that's why we're skipping section four. So we're, we've gone through sections one and two and three. In the original document. Sections. Four, we're going to skip for now. In section five, we're going to have a look at today. So we'll, we'll revisit section four. Is that sound okay? Do you guys have any comments on that? I'm down with that plan. So good to me and thank you for all the work. You are welcome and I'm happy to do it. If it makes our lives easier, which I think in the end, this. Document is going to be much easier to. In force. And administer. There's good. I'm going to, I'm going to have a ton of suggestions for you guys on a ton of discussion items. I think we're probably going to have to dedicate to complete sections. We're going to have a look at, we're going to have a look at, we're going to have a look at you to section four. And the other thing I just wanted to mention really briefly is. In two weeks, the meeting that we have. My son has a physical in the morning at nine 30. Usually they only take an hour and then I would be dropping them at school and getting back, but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up and I'll try to get you the documents in advance, just in case. I get held up for some reason at the doctors and can't get you back in time. I don't think it's going to, I don't think it's going to impact anything. It's more so just my anxiety about like, oh my God, I've got a nine 30 appointment. And I'm going to be back in time. I think I'll be fine, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. If I'm like 10 minutes late, you guys could get started and have a look at the document. The other thing I was going to maybe point out is that I can't really do any earlier on a Friday, but I can't move it later in the afternoon. If you guys want to make it one o'clock for that meeting. I could do that. If it. Makes everyone's life easier. Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's going to, I don't think it's going to impact anything. But I think the best way to approach with you guys is to have one, two hour session for section four. Like if we could have one session where we go from noon to two and set a noon to one, but. You guys can think about that over the course of this session, and then we can talk about it. I don't think this section is going to take as long as the other sections, but I do think we should jump in if you guys are okay with that. Okay. So here we go with section five. The first notation, unless otherwise specified, we're here in the procedures for filing a notice of intent under the state well and protection act shall apply. Some wording changes here. Nothing earth shattering. I did have a look at several other towns and their bylaw fees, just to get a sense of our fee schedule here to see if we are in line, but I don't think that we should change a whole lot. We don't need to update anything as far as the fees that we're charging people. Our fees are pretty, are pretty. On the same line as a lot of other towns in the area. So I don't really think that we should change a whole lot. There is one. Change though that I would like to discuss with you guys, which is the fee for the emergency certification. The fee for emergency certifications, because usually when emergencies happen, it's a threat to public health or safety. It's something that somebody's got to deal with, whether they want to deal with it or not. And if they don't deal with it, then it means that there's a safety issue or a health issue for everybody involved. And having a fee associated with it just makes it a real administrative pain in the neck because. You know, somebody contacts me usually around 24 hours in advance and says, you know, This emergency has occurred. I have a, I have a huge tree that's hanging over my house about to, you know, break my roof. Can I, can I cut it down? And then I've got to be like, well, you need to submit a $75 check and you've got to submit X, Y, and Z. And then after the fact I'm hunting them down for the money. And after the work is already done. It is a, it dissuades people from dealing with emergencies. And, you know, if people don't deal with emergencies to threaten public, you know, public health and safety, then it ends up being. You know, it's not good for anyone. I would rather make it easy for them to deal with an emergency. And we have them a lot. So. I'm just kind of getting your thoughts. Other towns like North Hampton charge $100 for an emergency. I do have a thought on that. Okay. Laura, do you want to. You have anything. Kind of put this. Morally speaking, I'm 100% down with that thought. So I would like to see that happen. Somehow we get the emergency cert to zero. That said, you might have partially answered my question already. How much does the 10 actually get from this? Where will it hurt the budget? Does it hurt conservation budgets, et cetera. Years on me, it happens a lot. So we probably rely on some portion on this money. But yeah, as far as the ideal, I'm with you 100%. No one ever asked for emergency cert. Just a little tiny personal story. I know we're short on time, but I used to own a small tree company. And that was always my deal. If you call them with a hazardous condition, we'd make it free or as close to free as we could because you didn't ask for it to happen. And they're expensive to remove. And that's all there is to it. So I definitely like the idea. I would just want to make sure that we are not angering our own budget. Yeah, that was sort of a long line. My thought too is I assume these fees are covering some. Administrative cost burden. So if they are frequent and. Are a significant part of revenue for covering the administrative part of this, then. That's something I'd want to consider before moving it, but I totally agree with like. The incentive of people addressing it without. A barrier. I don't know if this is an option that would work, but we could increase. Well, another thought I had was how long have the other fees or all of these fees been in place? Like, are they something we should be revisiting with like inflation and just the true cost of. Doing business at this point. Are they old rates and should they be revisited? And if we remove the emergency cert, we want to increase them to sort of cover. Some of the costs associated with that lost revenue. Yeah, so. All excellent questions and comments. Emergency certifications usually come in the form of a phone call or an email. And I always like if let's say I get a phone call from somebody that says I have an emergency. I will tell them you have to submit in something in writing to me, either just a hard copy letter that you submit to the office or an email that outlines who, what, where, when and why that it's an emergency. All the details. And I go out, do a site visit just to visually confirm what they're telling me is the truth. And then I have a two page form. Very simple that I fill out, sign scan to them so that they have 30 days to do the work to take care of that. From an administrative standpoint, it's not any more involved than a certificate of compliance. Really. It's the same exact process. I get the request. I go out, do a site visit and then, you know, we also do handle ratifications of emergency service in a meeting. So I'll say there was an emergency. This is what the situation was the permit needs to be ratified. And that's basically that. Very low impact from an administrative standpoint. All of our fees go into the general fund. They don't go directly to the conservation department. So they go directly to the general fund of the town and they don't go to anything specific to conservation is my understanding. So it's not going to change the conservation budget based on those funds coming in. So that's one thing I wanted to mention. And then the other thing is. I'm going to be completely honest with you. I haven't been collecting them. I haven't been collecting the fees for them because I don't think it's right that we collect a fee for it. And so I just don't even bring it up. I just say submit your request and I'll process it. Whether that's okay or not. Okay. I don't know, but I'm just being honest. I don't really agree with it. I don't think if somebody has a tree that's hanging over a public way that could, you know, kill somebody, I don't think that they should have to pay a $75 fee to, when they're already paying $1,200, $2,000 to take the tree down. I don't think they should have to pay an additional fee. Anyway, hope that answers your questions. But I don't, I don't. I mean, a site visit is a significant expense. Just, you know, in a. In a cost of doing business way, but I guess the fact that it's all going into a general fund, I'm not sure how to like think about these fees in general now. So it seems, seems like they shouldn't, they should be going towards your work, but. I don't know. Is there any precedent or a mechanism for. This is just spit going here, but. To keep an emergency search fee, but charge it to the person doing the work again, just speaking from experience, I'm a tree company and I'm going to get $2,400 to take this tree down. I don't mind making it 2475. You know, I mean, if the filing goes to the. I don't know if that's even legally possible. Hmm. I mean, usually it's the landowner that has to pay the application fee or the applicant. I mean, the other thing is we could make it really a low fee, like 10 or $15, you know, so that it's like sort of negligible and not. I guess now, I mean, if this is going into the general fund, it's not actually supporting your position or any of the work that you're doing, right? So then what are the points of these fees? And if they're not directly going to cover the administration expenses of. Of doing them. Well, I mean, there is a budget line item for my position. So. You know, the town pays me from there at the annual town budget. So it just provides a little bit of like. Income to compensate for the fact that there's staff. The general fund can go into salary money. And I assumed it goes into whatever. It's a good question. I'm not a finance person. So I can't answer that. But I, but I can tell you like just as an example for like an, an and rad filing. Like abbreviated notice of resource area delineation where the entire site is being delineated and I'm walking every inch of the site. Those fees can be in the thousands and usually they are like the application fee will be like $2,500. And if we get a couple of those, we've got like five grand, you know, in application fees just from two over the course of the year. That's just an example. Then there's also notices of intent. Those are also significant application fees, usually in the realm of anywhere from. I mean, it depends on what the activity is, but they can be up to a couple of thousand dollars as well for the permit filing. We also don't have to make a decision on this right now. You guys can think about this. Yeah. I mean, I sort of think we might want to consider upping. Okay. So. There's a disconnect between the money, the significance of how much we're charging and what the money goes to support. So I don't even know how to answer this question. I mean, what's the, I mean, if the general fund is going to like go to something totally random, like what is this even reflect these costs even reflect. So I have a hard time with this. I maybe Dave could weigh in on this, but emergency cert is pretty high compared to the rest of them. So if we could tack on like $10 to adjust for like, you know, the inflation of the times, the other ones and lower the emergency cert, you know, touches the surface of this, but yeah, without understanding more about the intent, like who the purpose of how these dollar amounts and what the funding goes for, I don't even know how to answer it, but I agree with bringing the incentive of people addressing emergencies without penalty. I mean, I totally agree with that. Okay. Well, let's move on so that we can try to get through the rest of the section, but that it's all good questions and good, you know, to make wise decisions about how we do it. I'm, I'm kind of, I always hesitate to raise fees because I, especially now with inflation, it's like, it's so expensive to, you know, buy groceries for your family or whatever. So it's like, I don't want to raise, you know, fees for people to file permits if we don't have to, and I don't really see that we have to, but I, I understand and I agree that, you know, at the end of the day, I'm here and I'm, you know, somehow the town has to budget for my position and, you know, justify that in some way. So, okay. All right. So plan requirements for requests for determination. This is, this, this whole, this whole section is very confusing as far as it goes back and forth a lot between request for determination and notices of intent. There's way more permits than that. As you can see, I mean, from the permit list, there's, there's a lot more than just request for determination and notice of intent. There's, there's, there's amendments, there's extensions, there's certificates, there's emergencies, there's enforcement orders. There's all kinds of permits that we issue. So I just changed this to wetlands bylaw, but you'll see as we go through this that there's like a back and forth about RDA versus NOI and the, and the plan requirements. So I just want to preface with that. So this says plan requirements for filing a request for determination. So, the whole point of a request for determination is for you guys to make a decision, number one, approving the delineation, looking at the area and whether it's jurisdictional to you, or permitting work and making a determination as to whether or not that work is going to have an impact on the resource area. This is saying that you can use the town of Amherst GIS mapping to depict the wetland resource areas for your application. Now, in some very, very limited cases, that might be okay. All right. And I have in like maybe two instances since I've been agent or since I've been administrator for the commit commission have allowed that. And those are in situations where people are really far away. They're putting in like a fence or doing something that would ordinarily be a minor activity under the Wetland Protection Act. But generally speaking, this is something that the state does not allow. Like you cannot use just a wetland layer that doesn't confirm anything in the field for a permit filing. So I wanted to highlight that because it's confusing to the public and they see this and they think, oh, I can just print out the GIS layer and that tells me where the wetlands are. And that's not true. You can print it out and it says there's no wetlands and the whole site is covered in wetlands and or you can print it out and it says there's wetlands and you get out there and there's nothing. So they're really the wetlands layers and GIS are not reliable. They require a field confirmation. And so I'd like to adjust this so that it's straightforward and not misleading to people. Can we just remove that entirely and said you've only used it twice. Yeah, why not just remove it. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. I'm not sure why this has a preamble preamble or for the resource area section. So it doesn't really belong there. There's a lot of things here like the statement would do regard like weird language that I don't it's just unnecessary all together. So I highlighted those things. I'm going to go through here and rewrite this section but I'm just trying to highlight for you the things that are like, okay, this is weird and I'm going to change this. Once again, there's a reference here. You know it's referencing so as part of any wetland application you have to include a USGS the most current USGS topographic map has to be included with the application. And this is saying in the case where the project requires two or more plans to show the locus, which is the locus map, eight and a half by 11 sheet clearly identifying the proposed work with labeled boundaries of the resource areas must be submitted. So I don't know if this is supposed to be a separate like number like D rather than included with C, but it gives the impression to whomever's reading this document. So you can use the USGS map as the plans that you submit for your proposal, which you also cannot do. It's mostly just to show where the site is located for our reference point and also to make sure that there's nothing on the site like a perennial stream because the USGS will tell you whether the stream is perennial or intermittent. So I just highlighted that and I'd like to make that clear in revisions. Is it possibly mean like a zoomed out version on a single sheet instead of so in saying whether you need like two sheets to show the whole thing is it saying to also submit like a single, you know, zoomed out version so the whole thing is visible on one sheet. Is that what it's saying? Maybe. Because that would be helpful. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, I'm not sure it's not clear to me. So the proposed work labeled boundaries resource areas must be submitted. I mean, I just don't even understand why it's not clear. Yeah, let me let me work on wordsmithing that a little bit. And when we, when we come back with the revisions, you guys can have a look at it and see if you think it's, you know, if we can improve that a little bit to make it a little more clear. So this is repeated again and again throughout the application. It says local tax list. It's another very confusing. You can actually go on to the town's GIS website. Or map site and do a buffer that tells you where our butters are within 300 feet. The problem is that is not a certified a butters list and the problem with that also is that the GIS data is only periodically updated with ownership information. So for example, let's say Michelle is doing a project at her house and her neighbor next door just sold to a new person and moved away three months before. And Michelle goes in and she uses the US, the town of Amherst GIS mapping software to produce her tax list. And she's notifying somebody who already moved away three months ago versus if she went to the, to get a certified a butters list, the assessor's office would, would have an updated record of who the new owner is. And then it would go to the correct person. So this is something that the state requires. It's got to be a certified a butters list. I don't know why local tax list is even stated here. It should just say certified a butters list. And this, this issue comes up again and again. In these regulations, it's referred to as a local tax list as opposed to a certified a butters list, which is always the language that is used in the Well and Protection Act and any other towns bylaws is how that's referenced. And so these, these sections were wiped out and these were not by me, these edits, these were by others. But I think that the calculation or that the edits that were made are, are fine. I think it's kind of like just some of some of the requirements in here are overkill and also duplicative. Like if you're in a flood zone, if you're proposing work in a flood zone, you have to do compensatory storage period. That's a requirement under state law. So we don't really need to get into all of this. Complex soil analysis information. They have to scroll up so I can see the header. Sorry. Yeah, that's good. Just okay. Sorry, go on. I just wanted the full picture. Yeah. Also, I mean, we've, we've talked about this before. This is for a notice of intent, it could be a single family house. Single family properties are not subject to stormwater calculations under state law. I did insert in another section, some requirements that if the commission in its discretion decides that there needs to be a stormwater management plan on a given site due to site specific conditions that the commission has the discretion to require that. But I don't think we should require it for everyone because like, if somebody's putting up a fence, if somebody's putting in a garden, if somebody's putting in a pool, they shouldn't have to hire an engineer to do stormwater calculations. It's just way over. What if they are putting in a house? I mean, shouldn't they have to do a perk test? Or does that come along later? They have to do a perk test anyways with the Board of Health. We don't, we don't evaluate a perk test. We don't approve a perk test for a septic system that is done completely through the Board of Health. So it doesn't belong in these regulations. So let's say you buy a property and you want to see if you can put in a septic system to build a house. You schedule a perk test, you file a permit with the Board of Health. The Board of Health agent is out there with you and witnesses the perk test and signs off on the perk test. If you're putting in the septic system, you file with the conservation commission and you have to show where that plan is located, but I'm not looking at your perk test results on that. That's a Board of Health sign off. It's a jurisdiction issue. Is F the same as C kind of the stabilization of, I mean, is that why that got crossed out? I mean, the new C F and G were redundant. So I didn't, I didn't actually make these edits. These were done by others. But I don't disagree with these. You're not going to produce. Okay. So let's just take these one by one description of any alteration of the flood storage capacity of the site. You're not going to be evaluating the flood storage capacity of the site if it's not located in a designated FEMA 100 year flood zone. Period. So it's, it's, it's, and that is covered in bordering land subject to flooding, which is in the performance standards for the resource area specific section. It doesn't make sense for that to be included here. Soil characteristics in representative portions of the site. Any application includes soil information. So it's a sort of a standard requirement of a notice of intent application through the state. Runoff and plan calculations using TR five modified soil complex method and based on 1050 year 100 year flood frequency. Those are stormwater calculations that are done for multifamily subdivisions. They're also required for industrial for commercial work. These are not single requirement of single family. And also those are state. Those are all state requirements. Those are all state laws, the stormwater management. So having that duplicated in here doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me because it's a requirement under the state. The town has a stormwater management bylaw, which is administered through the department of public works. That's a whole separate. Regulation that they administer. We have the stormwater, we have stormwater regulations which are tied into the wetland protection act through the state. I don't think it makes sense for us to restate things in the bylaw that are already required under state filings. I think it makes things very confusing and it doesn't specify whether or not it's required for single family homes. I'm not sure anything about these calculations not being required for single family homes. I do think that F is actually not a bad one to keep. I do agree that. Slopes. Facing wetlands are important to stabilize and maintain. So I am not opposed to putting that back in. I don't think it's redundant. I don't think it's redundant. I don't think it's redundant. I didn't know if it was. Redundant with. The next one. No, I don't think that it's redundant because no, I don't think it's redundant because they're two, two separate things. I think that's fine. All right. Plan requirements. So this is saying that any plan requirements submitted to the, to the conservation commission, whether it's just a bylaw requirement or a state requirement would require one inch equals 40 feet. Scale on a plan. The state minimum allows one inch to 50 feet. Again, it's like, you know, we're telling people if you file like the state state standard is different in Amherst and they have to basically revise all their plans to comply with the, with the town bylaw. And I just don't think that's necessary. Plans are completely readable at a one inch to 50 scale. I don't really see why they would need to be one inch to 40. I can agree with that makes it easier for everybody if they only have to print one set. Right. Yeah. Okay. So here I inserted this competent professional here because. This is a, and you guys may have seen in the document that I revised, I added competent professional to the definitions list. This is a huge one. That's so important. And the state does not have a definition for competent professional. And this can really create a lot of problems because you get somebody who. Let's say they were a, they worked as an excavator for 30 years and they come and they decide that they're going to start a wetland consulting business, but they have no experience in soils. They have no experience in plan identification, biology. It's just really important that people have experience and that they're competent to be submitting stuff to us. And if we have no requirement, anybody could do it. I agree. And I liked your definition that you put forth in number two or something. Can I just throw something out there for the previous thing you said, but the, the, the scale. So I'm not disagreeing. I just had a thought about why that would be different. If there was intent to that or not, but. We do have like some subtle differences in the bylaws about. Like vernal pools or maybe. Potential vernal pools or resources that might occur on smaller scales than like a large wet meadow or something. So the only reason I could see. That being useful for us as if under the bylaws, we sometimes look at smaller. Resource areas that are like, you know, a bordering wetland vegetation could be 10 feet. And with that detail be lost. At a larger scale, like for the purpose of reviewing. So that makes sense. I'm saying like some times we are taking a finer scale look at things than the state does. And yeah, okay. Do you think in a case where there is like a 10 foot, you know, riparian. Edge, like, does that disappear? One by 50 or like, is it just depicted? But much smaller. You know, Michelle, I think you do. I think you do make a good point. You know, you know, you know, you know, there are. And I don't even think we should specify one inch. It based on the comment you're making. I don't think we should specify one inch to one inch to 40 feet. I think that what we should say is the commission may require at its discretion that plans be drawn at an appropriate scale on a case by case basis. That differs from the state standard or something to that effect, because. Like you said, you know, it. You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, in a small site, they may need to zoom in even further. Generally speaking, we get plans at multiple scales. Usually we'll get like one plan that shows the entire site on one scale, and that might be one inch to 200. And then, and then we'll, it'll move into like other sheets and then the, the additional sheets will zoom in to, and I can show you an example of this if it would be helpful. I mean, I can, I can picture it just seems like they probably have to do that for their own, for their own purposes. You don't, you don't need to go in. I don't want to hold this up too much. I like your compromise. Oh, I think you like where you're going with the word again. Yeah. Discussion and keeping the steel open ended. Yeah. Yeah. Like if you get a plan and you can't read it, you know, you can say, we want this at a different scale. This is just an example from Hickory Ridge. And I was just looking at this one the other day. So this is like, over a site overall schematic that shows the entire, the entire site, right? Stop, stop, stop. Computers keeps going. Okay. You can see it's trying to, yeah, see. So, and then each of these squares represents a smaller scale plan that zooms into these areas. And then so if I keep scrolling through the plan set, it's going to zoom into drawing C2 and E1 and then C4 and E3. To those specific sections of the property so that you can see them at a more refined scale. So anyway, let's just say. Yeah, maybe so like you suggest of removing that one by 40. And then just the, yeah, I like that. Okay. Something like that. Commission may require at its discretion that plans be drawn at a scale appropriate to see site conditions on a case by case basis. So if we get a plan and we can't really read it, we can say you need to submit this at a better scale. Does that sound good? Okay. I'll word Smith this a little bit. I'm going to go through the whole section and rewrite it just like I did with the other sections, but I'll. I didn't like this permanent and seasonal. Even if it's a seasonal wetland, it's, it's permanent. It's their year round. So I don't really like that language. Oh. I actually wanted to insert something on this particular one. And then I would like to fill in a little bit of that. Consultants. They will delineate a wetland and then they'll put a little arrow pointing to it that says low quality wetland. And I would like to put something in the regulations that states no personal opinions can be stated about the quality of a wetland. like how do I say this it's almost like propaganda when people see that they immediately say oh it's a low quality wetland so it's really not important and to me there might be marginal wetlands or wetlands that have been impacted so much by human activity and development surrounding it that it's you know it's there but it's not connected to anything because all of its hydrologic connection has been disconnected but that doesn't mean that it's not functioning it doesn't mean that it's not high quality um it meant it's serving some kind of natural resource function so that was just an idea that I inserted there because I do think that people shouldn't be stating their opinions about the quality or lack thereof of wetland yeah and if they mean maybe that like um it's highly invaded or degraded as you said it's still not really relevant to the by law what wetland is a wetland right yeah exactly and there and and it doesn't really matter they're all regulated the same so even if it is a highly degraded wetland it's still equal it has equal protection under the law um so I don't really see that there's any that that's productive to state that um I just change this to resource areas or buffer zones so that it's just clear that all all impacts have to be have to be accounted for um this color coding thing is ridiculous um it's not necessary to require a color coding system for consultants if we can't read the plans we spit them back and say resubmit the plans they're unreadable I've done that a hundred times um this is a really really important one um requiring the commission can require a surveyor to do this we have so many sites in town where there people try to use a gps unit and there is no way that they are getting sub meter accuracy on wetland flags which you know sub meter accuracy is less than three feet um accuracy and if you're depending on a plan for um design and construction purposes if it's a heavily forested site in my opinion the commission should be requiring survey and not depending on the sub meter gps um just my personal opinion I agree I mean I've been out in the field with sub meter gps and especially in forested areas that can error you know cloud cover yeah yeah and they're not required to say to us oh this point here is like only accurate to 20 feet you know it could be 20 feet this way it could be 20 feet that way you know um if it's a survey we know where the point is and I think that's really important so this is getting back to the drawings and the requirements that were stated up above like this this talks about soil characteristics and that there needs to be boring done um so some type of due diligence on a property to determine for site planning um and so it's already stated here so it was kind of duplicated I did these are not my edits um so let's go through these cross sections of all wetlands showing slopes banks bottoms and bottom treatments so I I don't necessarily think cross sections are important for a wetland delineation the only exception I would say to that is um for stream crossings because for stream crossings you really do need um I'm just going to highlight this you really do need the cross sections because in order to see that you're meeting the state stream crossing standards like 1.2 times bankful that the that the design is um uh 1.2 times beyond where the bank is and also that you're meeting the openness ratios that are required under state law but for for wetlands I don't think that that's necessary existing and proposed water storage capacity of the property including calculations and data on which the capacity is based uh please if you guys in reference reference to like flood risk for other adjacent properties like it's holding capacity so if you pave a wetland that water is going to go somewhere else is that what it means maybe that's not well worded but I don't really know what it means okay um I think it's it's a storm what they're talking about there is stormwater calculations which are required for you know they're required like I said for very specific things not for single family homes now that doesn't necessarily mean that um for a single family home construction you're not putting some consideration to water right a lot of times you have um roof you have gutters that are installed for roofs and then you have downspouts and then the downspouts are directed toward a french drain or a foundation drain um a lot of times those foundation drains will drain away from the house and then you'll have either catchment somewhere else or you'll have like a level spreader you'll have like a little gravel outlet where the where the the drainage is coming away from the home there are stormwater considerations that are typically included with single family house plans but it's not considered that you have to submit a stormwater management plan and that's kind of what the this language is getting at I think um I mean I guess I could go either way on that but I do think that it would be very overkill for a single family home owner to have to calculate all precipitation that falls on a given property over the course of a 365 day period like it just seems well okay so here's a story about um a neighbor of a neighbor who you know build a house and change their drainage and all of a sudden the other neighbor has a flooded basement like so is that does this fall and is is the intent here trying to prevent maybe you know adjacent effects I think what you're getting at Michelle and I think this is important to state somewhere in here which is really smart is um to their neighbors backyard I mean that that does come up a lot it really does absolutely and I think it's a really important point but I think it's going in a different direction than what the other line was saying no which is not to say that this is not you know it's just worded differently you know that might be out of place I mean obviously without it has to be word Smith but yeah I don't know that the stuff that's crossed off is hard to follow also agree and so I'm trying you just fade it away on your volume Michelle I'm just trying to you know understand the intent of the original author and these sort of hard to follow points here location and the elevation of benchmark used for survey I think that's probably an important one oh that's a storage on downstream channels and culverts the feeling is proposed I'm just going to remove this one this is an interesting one here um sorry that one kind of got lost in the cross yeah that was interesting does it is it included in the stormwater stuff like I kind of remember talking about it with the mass development but yeah I'm going to keep this one in but I'm just going to highlight it um that we might need to put that in another location but yeah I think that's it's pretty kind of relevant um invert elevations on catch basins is also important I don't like I said I didn't make all of these edits a lot of these were made before me so this is exactly why we're looking at this proposed on-site pollution control devices absorption pillows detention basins was vegetation lovers yeah I mean these are that these are all stormwater best management practices that are described here I don't really think that belongs there I mean it's like it's like a it's a plan requirement that's required anyways you have to include that you have to include so much information on the stormwater management plan um locations and details of erosion control devices and stormwater management features okay so I think I think this viii covers the viii above because it says stormwater management features so I'm I am going to pull that one out if that's okay with you guys because I think vii covers it there now but I'll I'll wordsmith this a little bit now that we've talked about it and I know kind of where you guys stand with it site visit site requirements prior to inspection stakes indicating the corners are proposed houses yes absolutely stakes indicating the limit of proposed works yes lot number or house number posted at the location not necessary boundaries of all resource areas clearly delineated and flagged yes minimal conditions no real substantive changes there all structures facilities equipment as part of the project shall be continually operated and maintained so is to so is to maintain compliance that's not how you spell maintain okay with the permit just cleaning up the wording there a little bit I think so we have a whole section on violations a whole whole section in in section three of the regs so this is duplicate and not really necessary number 10 there and there's a whole section on extension of permits as well so I think that it's it's duplicate and it doesn't really make sense here because this is conditions for submission requirements and then this is section six which is basically saying that the commission can hold a public hearing and revise these regulations at any time so wow that was a really great timing we made it through the entire section um do you guys have anything else you want to add not in regards to this at this time okay I was thinking at the next meeting depending on where I'm at with section four we might want to start looking at you guys markups for sections one and two I'm going to be finishing the revisions on section three and sending that document along for your markups as well but that's kind of where things are it's all I have for you today and we'll be in touch okay and if you do want to schedule a two-hour session I'm open to that I just would need to you know prepare in advance so maybe Leroy is that even is it possible for you are you interested or um that's very possible for me as long as we're going forward so 12 to 2 instead right I prefer that too okay we're we don't have to schedule it today um let's not plan on that for the next meeting on the what is it going to be um I have it in my book so why don't we announce that now so that the next meeting of the committee would be the subcommittee would be on march 18th that's the day that I have my appointment so just in case I'm a little late you guys aren't panicked but I I'm hopeful that I won't be late um but then maybe we'll what we'll do is actually and I think the timing of this would be really great is to have it be our meeting on April 1st okay did we plan for it then I just need to make sure I don't yeah yeah why don't we plan for it let me just have a quick look because we're supposed to be doing the let's make sure that I yeah we do have a meeting on April 1st so we'll we'll plan from from noon to two um on the April 1st bylaw review subcommittee meeting that we'll have a a two hour meeting that day and I'm hopeful that what we will be looking at that day is section four now I'm not sure that I'm going to go through every single change because I might rewrite that entire section but what I will do is send you guys the documents far in advance and we'll kind of go through the spirit of what the changes are and my comments from town council and that sort of thing all right um so hopefully we'll make that meeting right thanks for all your hard work on this it's looking yeah smooth yeah it's coming along for sure okay well with that we will close the meeting of the wetland bylaw review subcommittee at 103 eastern time um and we'll see you guys in two weeks sounds good take care guys thank you okay bye thank you