 Okay, we are opening the wetlands by law review subcommittee meeting on March 18 at 1204. So I'm just going to start with general provisions section one. Let me just queue it up and then I will share my screen. All right. So, you guys, I'm going to, I'm going to just jump right into it, but please stop me at any point. Leroy Michelle if you guys have questions on anything okay at in any of these sections that I'm talking about. Michelle didn't have any comments on intro. I don't know if you do is if you do. Okay, so purpose Michelle added this comment here. Add protection of wetland plant communities so these are so that under the wetland Protection Act there's eight interests. And under our bylaw there's like, I want to say whatever it is like 13 or something. So these are actually written into the bylaw. So just to kind of give you guys a like sort of a snapshot of this so the bylaw was adopted by select board town council and that was something that the town council approved. And the regulations are something that the commission holds a hearing to create. So a lot of the components in the regulations are pointing back to the bylaw and so there are certain things in the regulations that we can't change because if we do then it's not going to be in compliance with the bylaw. In this case, these are the interests that are spelled out in the bylaw so adding in an additional interest doesn't work. However, the section that I'm saving for April, that's the big resource area section that's completely being redrafted. So we can add protection of wetland plant communities in there. So we will just just so that comment it can't be in there as an interest for the bylaw but unless we rewrote the bylaw which we may want to do at some point but for these regulations I would say that let's save that for that section. Let's save the wetland that's a great question. So I just met yesterday with Alex Y site at KP law to go over some of the other sections and he did actually suggest that in the resource area sections definition that we define as many types of wetland as we can and when I say define I mean, label, so like any types of freshwater wetland might include forested wetland wet meadow, you know anything that's not that isn't already spelled out that is important to include we should include so that's another place where this will be inserted. So I would actually insert those here as well. I believe we'll I'll double check to make sure that it coincides with the bylaw but we will, we will add those provisions in and I'll keep that as kind of a placeholder until we do that. And real quick, I think I probably have the same coming as Michelle. Okay. Actually, no those are good points. Mine was, I was a little confused where we started any activity subject regulations on a bylaw proposed within 50 feet, all the way through the end of that paragraph that seems like we could just go zero to 100 feet, unless I'm reading it wrong it seems like it's broken into zero to 50 to 100 for no reason. So this is one of the areas that I broke out in the language and the reason that I did that was, and this is another thing that we should really talk about and dig into and as we get through some of the sections we're going to, you'll see I'm, I'd really like to hash out some of these things. So, my general guidance to applicants when people are filing either an RDA or an NOI is that if they're closer than 50 feet I always suggest a notice of intent because anything within 50 feet is, in my opinion, very likely to have an impact and then anything that's outside of 50 feet I usually suggest a request for determination. Now again it depends on the project if it was a commercial project, I would just say file an NOI. If it was a, you know, a corner, a corner of a septic system I might say you could file an RDA. There is a little bit of discretion there, but generally speaking that's why I inserted it like that just for guidance related to the redundant I see your point there the right kind of says the same thing twice just zero to 50, 50 to 100. So, I don't know if you intend to make the language slightly different but I think it's just the same sentence that's different. Oh it's just repeated over. Yeah, different distance classes. I think that there's actually a typo there. So it's supposed to be activity subject to regulation under the bylaw proposed within 50 feet of areas subject to protection under the bylaw shall require a notice of intent and then it should be any activity subject to regulation blah blah blah under the bylaw shall between 50 and 100 feet shall require filing of a request for determination. That's what it should say. Thank you for catching that LaRoy. I, that was a mistake from on my side. Um, okay. So, Michelle your point here is definitely a good point and I 100% agree with you in Sturbridge we had a 200 foot buffer around wetlands and anything within 200 feet we required a permit. I agree with you. How would you suggest that we would you just suggest we change the wording, like so that it's not stating what it states. Let me just reread everything. I mean I think I think the point of it is that if something's proposed outside of 100 feet and we think it's going to have an impact, then we could require a filing I think that that's what this is ultimately stating. It's outside of and over. Oh unlikely. Okay. I mean I wasn't on the conservation commission that determined that something outside of an over 100 feet is unlikely to affect a wetland, like I don't agree with that, because it's super project dependent. If we could, if we're going to change where to make it less definitive than the word shall is the target if we can change shall not regulate to something different or maybe even drop that phrase entirely. I think we should stop it as areas subject to protection of the bylaw are unlikely to call to those areas period. It doesn't mean that it won't. It doesn't take away our authority to regulate them. This section here so a good example is if if there's a site where there's disturbance outside of 100 feet, and we get a huge storm and material washes out from outside of 100 feet into a resource area we could then take jurisdiction over the area outside of 100 feet because it's altering resource and that's the only time that we can take jurisdiction over that area. We can't get jurisdiction until something has happened so if it's like they measure it and if it's 101 feet away from resource area. They don't have to file a notice of intent. And so we're not even going to have our eye on it or anything is just, I mean, it's, it's probably out of our hands. So it just, it kind of, I think this maybe gets back to what we discussed briefly about maybe changing the numbers. I just, I feel like it's very site dependent and project dependent and like having a hard number where we're saying nothing is going to affect anything in a wetland if it's 100 feet away from it is. Like if it's an upslope 100 feet that's really different than I know that's that's the intent of my comment, I just, I don't know exactly what to do with it I like Leroy's suggestion for at least how to make it not so definitive at this point. I'm just proposing something here this is not anything we have to do but like my, I like what Leroy suggested in terms of unlikely to alter those areas period and then saying, if an activity outside of 100 feet of an area subject to protection results in the alteration of an area subject or area subject to protection under the bylaw. The commission may take jurisdiction. Yeah, I mean I can wordsmith that a little bit but that's another way of saying it I guess that might be a little more clear. But you guys, I mean, that's pretty good off the job. Okay, I'm impressed. Okay. All right, well, I'll I'll wordsmith that a little bit more but we'll kind of keep rolling with this for now but I think that's a good, maybe in between option. This is a great one this section makes me very happy the burden of proof and this is also in the wetland Protection Act and this sort of brings me back to a certain project that we're dealing with currently where the question was to us well tell us how it's not altering or tell us how it's altering a resource area and the question is, you tell us how it's not altering, because they're the applicant, they're the ones who are supposed to be doing the explaining and I think that's what this whole burden of proof section is which is very good. Okay, so I'm going to save this and we'll go to section two, unless there's any other comments. Okay. All right. Which one was it definitions okay. Okay. I'm going to start at the top and again you guys jump in at any point if you have any comments. What I did here was exactly what we had discussed when we initially looked over it I looked definition by definition at what was listed in the wetland Protection Act. There were multiple duplicated ones and I actually removed like, I want to say like four pages of definitions here that were duplicated from the wetland Protection Act and how we handled that was I took those out. And then I just stated all definitions in these regulations are presumed to be the same as wetland Protection Act unless otherwise noted. So, there's, there's that so that shortened this section up quite a bit. I added in a change there Michelle for you. Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Clear cutting. Okay, so, Loro, were you able to get into one drive with my password or did you have trouble. I had trouble again. Okay, me too. It's not just you. Okay, I'll reset that and I might use a number because it maybe it was just a typo I did check it and it worked for me but who knows what that was about. Anyway, I'll tell you what my question again this is completely up for discussion and and we can change this it's it's not set in stone in any way but there was when I went I read through this this silver culture paper, which went through all of the different. It was a silver culture white paper that went through all the different cutting practices that foresters can use. And there was sort of this whole section on clear cutting and you know clear cutting is to remove every single tree but then it was like well what are things, what are practices that result in similar end results except not completely cleared and then there was a couple examples of those. This one was the closest I could find to clear cutting that maintained sort of a clutch of trees in the middle of the property and so that's why I kept it because I liked it. I like the sense that if they're keeping because it's called a seed tree cut when they do that, and they're leaving six trees well distributed on one acre, which really isn't a lot on an acre. Thinking, and I did add in the comment they're mature trees for you Michelle and we may want to further define what mature means like six inches at diameter diameter breast you know at breast height or whatever dbh. We may want to add something even more definitive in there to to identify that but that's where I came up with that it wasn't like I just plucked it out of the sky. It is in that one dry folder so I'll make sure that you guys get a link that functions so that you can see that. Do we want to I mean so you sort of broke down the definition of C tree by just saying what C tree was you want to include C tree as defined by something like the forest service or some just some. guiding resource. That you know just shows where we pulled that number from and sort of the intent it because it seems a bit arbitrary as written. Because you mean seed tree that that's like the definition of a C tree is six acceptable well distributed seeds per acre so maybe just including the name seed tree cut. I guess the reason I don't know I agree like we should look to think about mature a little more because it's, I don't know what that means I can mean like on the end of life to but. Right. Yeah, it could be a dead snack. Yeah, so I mean I've seen like coals do big cuts and they just leave like the scraggly pines, or you know because they're not useful lumber, or like there's a cut on market hill right now and they're leaving like scrappy little trees and I guess, like, just so that I don't know just to define it so that the intent remains, which is, there'll be some regeneration. And you know maybe like native trees so it's not just going to be like tree of Atlantis or whatever tree of heaven, or Katalpa are, I don't know. Sorry, but I don't know I'd love to get other people's and opinions and expertise on this section because I'm not a forester. Leroy you're you are a tree guy why don't you curious to get your to get your opinion on this. My opinion on DVH if we're going to pick a number I go higher, maybe 10 inches but the tree. Obviously we got a lot of trees growing at different rates so DVH alone is kind of tough to go with. Another way to say mature as a tree that's actually seeding or fruiting that kind of gets close to age without measuring size necessarily. I kind of. Oh, I'm not kind of I definitely Michelle's point about native trees I don't know how we would necessarily get that in there without them putting in just a full list of acceptable trees. I'm just I'm just making notes of some of the comments here we can edit this. I wonder if we can refer to like that like a, I don't know what would it be like mass deep, whatever, there must be some kind of like maintained list of native tree species that's at a regulatory agency higher than town. So the other thing we could do is is add a definition for native and specify a tree that grows, you know, naturally in Massachusetts. If we're going to have random bits of tree or even little islands of tree. It would be really important, I think to somehow establish a zone around those trees where essentially vehicles logging equipment cannot be driven over whatever the root system is going to be the most important part of the regeneration. I don't want them to cut right up to that tree though I don't really know how you do that you know I mean they need equipment to cut trees so, but yeah I have seen roots on the most two important things about coming back from click up here. I'm just adding in your notes because I think these are all good comments. Also, if we could, if we do somehow define that it needs. Let's say a well structured root system, whatever trees are remain that would prevent a lot of like Michelle's talking about half dead trees, or snacks are about to fall over because you can clearly see they have nowhere at someone's side, you know, if it's sitting and it's going to get root system it should take care of itself. So just, I mean, I like where we're going with this because we're trying to make sure that our intent holds through a cut, but in reality like so would you and be like going out and evaluating the trees left like a violation if they didn't I think I see it is that this is, this is not necessarily going to be something that we're going out and enforcing per se I think it's more to establish a definition. So that if somebody saying well this isn't a clear cut, you know, then we could say well this is our definition of clear cut. You have to have at least this many trees left so it's more so like something that we can point to that's a little more definitive of what our expectations are. And we don't in any way restrict clear cutting at all. So somebody could propose a clear cut. This is mostly to say what is a clear cut and what is not a clear cut it's not meant to restrict a clear cut because a clear cut could be done for establishment of early habitat and that might not be something that we would want to restrict or, you know, regulate in some way you know we want people to be able to establish diverse rich habitats in town it's mostly just so that we have a way to distinguish between what is and what is not a clear cut. And so the first sentence of that states the majority of live trees from an entire stand. And then we say, like, then we give a specific number, which I don't know I'm just thinking about is there any conflict there like there's, it's a forest and there's only six trees left after a cut, it's already the majority. And I mean I think I think that what is important for me in this definition is the alteration, the word alteration, and that that's a very, very important word in the sense of it under the wetland Protection Act if you and under a bylaw if you alter an area. Then you have to meet the performance standards of our bylaw or the well and protection act, which means replacing or restoring or, you know, so for example like, you know if somebody's doing a clear cut. Maybe this means that they have to stay out of the buffer zone, you know, maybe it means they can only clear a certain portion of the buffer zone. So that we have something to hang our hat on in terms of saying well that is indeed an alteration. That that's kind of. I think why I felt like that was an important definition to include 100% agree with that. It's a really important thing to have. Listen, I want to keep us moving just because it's almost 1230 but we, we can come back to this, this is not like you guys have to make a decision on this right now. What I will do is this version that we've marked up I'll save to the one drive get you guys a new password for it. One thing I do want to make sure of just from a general standpoint is I'm going to upload a Word document and I really don't want you guys going into one drive and editing that Word document, like you guys can save it and mark it up on your own and send it just to me. Okay, but it's it what it does is it's where it's outside of an open meeting and I don't want it to be an open meeting law violation for you guys to be editing and you know sending things to each other because it's it should be done during an open meeting that we talk talk about this and review. So I'm just going to keep moving. But we can come back to this any comments, we can revisit this and again we can also talk about this with the whole Commission as well when we open the hearing if we'd like to. And I'd really like for you guys to do a lot of that presenting during the hearing of these changes but I'm happy to, you know, be there. This is another definition that I added that competent source and this is something that has come up the course of the time I've been doing this. This has come up so many times of who is a competent source. This definition came from the requirements I believe for doing a wildlife habitat evaluation. And that's something that DEP has pointed at many times for me when I was asking what's a competent source because we've had people who were questionable competent sources come through and say I'm a competent source and I said well, how do we really, you know, there's no way to quantify that really. Now Michelle you made the comment and here so this would mean anybody who comes before the board with a proposal with a permit application would have to have at least a master's degree and two years of training or experience. That, you know, people with batch I've seen people with bachelor's degree degrees who've been doing this for 50 years who are very competent. So, I'm a little on the fence about requiring that but I'm definitely, you know, if you guys feel otherwise I'm not going to argue with you. I mean, it was a question so I was just, I leave it up to your, you know, professional experience and having. You know, seeing people a lot of people come through. So if you find this sufficient and it's like consistent with DPW definition then that sounds good to me. I mean, and the other, the other thing that has occurred to me because we've had this come up before is that. And I don't know if this is something we would want to do or not. And we it might be more for like a procedure section but if somebody comes before the board and is deceptive or unprofessional and, you know, does something that makes the commission gives the commission the feeling that they're doing unethical work. I almost contemplated whether we might want to include something that the commission reserves the right to, you know, in in situations where they feel somebody's in, you know, not a competent source that we could and we can always get a third party reviewer but I didn't know if we wanted to call that out specifically. So something to think about. Can I just put 14 be. Yes, of course. So I'm hoping we could just strike one of those and put in certified arborists feel like this year we've been relying on them a lot for the hazard tree emergency service. Absolutely. And architects and landscape architects are two separate. Professional registrations. So that's why they're listening. Oh, I see. Thank you. Sorry about that. Gotcha. Sorry about that guys. Okay. All right, does that look better. Awesome. Thank you. Alrighty. Okay, so after we met after I drafted these, there was a couple additional things that occurred to me definitions that occurred to me that we would want to include in here, one of them being impervious surface and these are really important to include because a lot of times there is discussion about whether something is impervious or not impervious. And, and I don't think that that should be something that we squabble about with an applicant like we should have a solid definition for it and something that we can point to based on an application. I think from law insider dictionary, prevent or impede infiltration of storm water into the soil as it entered in natural conditions prior to development. So I added that in since I gave you guys a clean version and I wanted to call that out. Michelle. It's a very important definition to have I'm really with you there. I might have to work on some wording. I'm just saying you're right now it says impede at all and doesn't ever sell out certain things like decking and gravel, which are an impediment but Yeah, and again this isn't necessarily meant to restrict impervious surfaces in any way it's mostly just to define what is and what isn't. So like, and it's a great question to Leroy, because I think there's a lot of gray area on that one. You know, I've had people argue that decks and a lot of times it comes down to how they're constructed. You know, a good, a good carpenter will leave a space like in between boards on decking so that water can get through. Sometimes carpenters will put the boards tight to each other so water can't get through. So it's, you know, it's, it's almost, it's almost it's a it's a difficult thing to nail down. And I think there is discretion associated with what we consider to be impervious or not. I don't remember what it's worth, but I'm happy to make any wordsmithing changes and we don't necessarily have to make them right now but if you have any I'm very open minded to that change. I'll have to think on that. Okay, yeah that's that's completely fine. I kind of dropped these changes in at the 11th hour so that's a great question here greater than 5000 or 500 feet does a vernal people need to be greater than that this is these are great questions. And I'll also I love the comment about vernal pool complex and we'll come back to that as well because I think that's something that we need to pull into the resource area section that if there is a cluster of vernal pools, that those would be important to leave interconnections in between. Where did that 500 square feet come from. I believe that's from wetland Protection Act. Originally, when it comes to isolated land subject to flooding. And I think a lot of this Michelle is to prevent small areas like puddles and driveways, for example, from somebody coming along and being like that's a vernal pool or that's a isolated wetland. Understandably. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I don't know like if there's biological thresholds for vernal pools at which they are not important. But so yeah I just don't know if if like vernal pools that are 15 by 15. Or, you know, very long or whatever deep but small and might hold water for a long time and therefore be important for breeding amphibians like, are we discounting a whole class of vernal pools by saying right here that they're considered an isolated wetland like, I don't know if you added that sentence or not but are we. I don't know that last sentence sort of like couches it into isolated wetland and then is it then subject to 500 square feet and should vernal pools have like a little bit of different criteria than that 500 square feet, and that should probably have like an ecological, you know, logical base to it, which I don't know but that's just the point that I was trying to. Michelle I was going to ask you actually. If you might be willing to do a little research. I did I sent you stuff. I know but I know but was that paper did that paper specifically talk about sizes. It was more about the importance of the complex. Which I think is amazing and wonderful that we have that I'm just. I'm curious about your question and I don't know the answer and I would suspect that you're in your right, I mean if you think about it I'm sure that there's tons of those little very productive little and I mean I it. It makes me think about Hadley. And I wish they like I wish Dave Z was in on this call because he's told me so many times that there were these like really small pools in Hadley that had breeding habitats of spade foot toads previously and they were not jurisdictional and they ended up getting filled in. Oh, there you go. All that habitat was lost and now there's like very little habitat for them and Hadley. I think that that's, you know, a very spot on comment. And I think we should particularly when it comes to vernal pools we should be very deliberate about what we, the changes that we make and may try to make them as solid as possible in terms of definitions and protections. Okay, well right now it worries me that vernal pools is couch isolated wetlands. Because if we are considering that maybe like depths of vernal pool is actually another criteria to like, you know, to evaluate it as like a as an important resource, you know, because yeah, like fresh water wetland could be like a month. That's what I'm thinking of. So you're thinking of taking out this just say if we define it somewhere else be like isolated wetland with with like other conditions as listed in blah blah blah. I don't know. Okay. I just want to safeguard us from losing vernal pools because of that arbitrary number if it's not applied to vernal pools. I 100% agree with you and we went through this recently on an application actually and that's one of the reasons why I wanted so and and just so that you guys know in the in the previous version of the regulations. Vernal pools was a subset of isolated. Yeah. Oh, in the previous version. Well, right so the current in our current regulations which are in use vernal pool is a subset of an isolated wetland so that argument was actually made that Oh well, you know, if it's smaller than this size then it's not a vernal pool. Because it's vernal pool would fall under the subset of a definition of isolated wetland so if it's not isolated wetland that it's not a vernal pool you know there was a lot of teasing apart of the regulations over that definition. And so I want to make sure that that doesn't happen again and so what I did was in the section that I'm trying to rewrite right now and town council helped me a lot. So I'm going to go back to yesterday looking at that because they agree, the way that it's broken out is, isn't not good. Vernal pool is actually going to be its own separate resource area in the new regs. So it's not going to be couched under isolated wetland. And it's not meant isolated wetland is not meant to restrict what is or is not a vernal pool. It's mostly to say that an isolated wetland can be a vernal pool and a vernal pool can be an isolated wetland, but the two can be independent of each other as well. You know what I'm saying. Yeah, I totally agree with that I guess just without some language in there that says but also you know but also subject to the further definitions of blah blah blah. It kind of is, I feel like limiting. That's all I'm. Yeah, and we may want to we may want to just take that little last sentence out to. Yeah, you need just to lead it. Yeah, yeah, and I'll I'm just going to put a little note here about that but yeah I completely agree and I think we need to be really careful. In the final version that we have KP law look at I think we should specifically ask them make sure that they're comfortable with that. We'll word Smith that and come up with some edits on that. Leroy did you have anything else you wanted to add on that. No, I would say I'm leaning towards striking the entire line. Okay, I was going to say we could put a separate definition this section but if you say there's a big section for in section fourth and that should say was just fine. Okay, I think that's a simple answer. Okay, so I'm just going to part of the reason why I'm doing this is that we're going to be putting these online for people to review. And so I want to keep track of what changes are being made to what versions. So I will do an update of this to incorporate these changes for like our final review with the commission and I'll try to do something with something between now and then we're definitely coming up this this this deadline is coming in hot on this on this regulation. So I'll see what I can do to help with that. It's going to keep rolling here. Okay, self imposed hardship. This was one that I added in. So, when I first started as a conservation agent. I was reviewing a subdivision proposal. Landowner in Greenfield had a huge piece of property that they decided to subdivide and in doing so, they several of the lots in this subdivision, they cut off upland access to the lots. The commission denied it, and it went to appeal and DEP ended up upholding the commission's decision, because they said it was a self imposed hardship of the landowner that in fact the landowner in carving up the lot had created up by eliminating an existing upland access to the lot. And they said that that individual could no longer have access to their lot because they made the choice to eliminate their existing upland access and that doesn't give a landowner the right to then alter wetlands to get to the new lot. Even though that's standing case law. I also felt like it would be an important thing to include here because I think the discussion is going to come up again and again particularly in Amherst, where most of the upland has already been developed, and many of much of the land that we see remaining is marginal and has wetlands on it. And we're going to see a lot of subdivisions in the future on these large marginal properties getting carved up and this question being asked. So that's why I included it. That's good. Yeah, and I meant town attorney I already asked for help with this one, because I want it to be a solid definition there. Okay, did I miss comment from Michelle on there. Any other comments please stop me I'm just going to keep burning here. I added in a definition for structure as well. And again, not married to this definition just felt like we should have a definition. Because I think a lot of times people will argue well that's not a structure like if it doesn't require a building permit it's not a structure or you know there's a lot of arguments made that certain things are not structural. It's a structure built so interrelated parts just pieces. So what if it's like a formed. I thought about definition from somewhere I'm just thinking about like pre fab things are like chicken coops that are. I don't know. I'm sure this is fine. Yeah, I mean, like I said, if you guys have any ideas for making this better. I'm all all years and open to it I just thought it would be an important definition to include. What about tree houses. You just say on the ground and tree houses are right topic for parents right right well and and it's interesting you mentioned that because there was on this link that where I found this definition and I looked through a bunch of definitions. There was another one which said it could be on the ground or candle levered over the ground and this is another discussion I've had like, because a previous commission I worked for they had actually a no impervious surface under their regulations, like they said, there's a 50 foot no touch but there's a 75 foot no impervious surface. So you could do something that was pervious like pervious but there was a situation where somebody wanted to put like a candle levered addition on to their house and they said well there's no, there's no foundation under it so that's, you know it's not impervious and the argument, you know, it can go back and forth, you know it can go back and forth and it's not really meant to complicate it it's mostly just to have something loose a loose definition that we can go by. Yeah, I'm happy to revise that. There's our vernal pool definition. I think we should take another look at that as well probably make sure that that's solid before we. I'm not saying right this instant but before we bring it to the Commission maybe. And I think that's all for section two did you guys want to talk anything more about section two at all. Section three. Did the procedures. We're never going to get through this section. But I did make sure to incorporate the comments that we had we spent a lot of time on this section, the three of us previously. I did add in this. There was an applicant who proposes to work on a lot greater than 50 acres. And I added in is required to provide notification only to a butters whose lives within 300 feet before it was within 300 feet of the work area. Right. So I added in 300 feet from the property boundary to make sure that that was clear. I also added in certified a butters list so that people wouldn't be pulling the GIS reports off of the town website if they're inaccurate or land had changed hands. I know you guys have not had much time to look at this section so I'll put it up for you guys to comment on if you'd like to. I do think that the last couple weeks of this process is going to be hopefully a little bit. You guys, I might hope that you guys will do a little bit of homework in terms of reading these and coming back with any final edits before we take it to the board in early May for full review. The board may have markups as well so there is more time if you guys don't have time to to mark these up again. I did break I combined the sections for requests for determination and determination of applicability before these were two separate sections and I felt like it was extremely confusing. Because there were things that were in one section that related to another section and vice versa that really they just sort of belonged collectively together. I did the same thing for notice of intent in order of conditions because they were broken up into two different sections. This is not a comment but just to thank you notice of intent number five. I think you ended up doing really well in the wording there. I know I've been doing it for a long time I think that works though. Yeah, definitely an important one and you know it did occur to me. Thank you for mentioning that Leroy. It did occur to me that there are going to well. I'm curious. Okay, let me ask you guys a question. So under the wetlands Protection Act when somebody files a request for determination. When we receive that we are supposed to hold a public hearing and issue the determination within 21 days that state law. There were occasions and recently we had one of these where a request for determination was extended with the permission of the landowner. And, and that's completely fine, but there are situations where information that comes to us. We don't really detail the impacts clearly enough, or the information that comes to us it might actually be sufficient for review under request for determination but ultimately, like, I'll give you an example. A couple more pieces of information would help the commission to be more comfortable issuing a negative determination, versus saying no you need to, in addition to this file a notice of intent. And so that specific requirement around stormwater I think is a really important one because it falls underneath the notice of intent and order of condition section. And there may be instances where the commission wants and I'm not saying full on stormwater calculations, but there may be situations where the commission wants additional drainage detail to make sure that there's any scour that's going to occur at, you know, the outlets of roof drains or French drains or foundation drains or who knows what, you know, there's so many things that can cause stormwater issues and run off issues on a single family house lot. So, something to think about, if we should include something about that in request for determination. Right now that's all falling under buffer zone under our performance standards there is some notes about drainage and point source discharge and like two year 10 year and 100 year storm events looking at the calculations under request for determination that might not always be appropriate to require those. Do you guys follow what I'm getting at my explaining this clearly. Yeah, I forgot that we're going to have to have similar wording where it's just discretionary every time. If we want to put that in my good some form of add on discretion but again if it's going to be on a case by case basis anyway we might not want to put anything right. But do you think Michelle. So this is sort of parallel to the stormwater best management practices and just trying to. Yeah, so under request for determination. This is kind of like just procedural right, but it doesn't say anything under request for determination regarding stormwater and that's the reason why I specifically called it out. Because because it says under number five under notices of intent that the Commission may require at its discretion stormwater best management practices be implemented on any site where it is deemed necessary to protect. Gotcha. And we may want to include that under request for determination as well. And then coming up recently right so I think it would both. I'm supportive of it. Because I think it should be accounted for in that in that part of the procedure and you know give us some authority even if it's just discretionary to consider it, and that the applicant would know that that's within a purview to consider. Yeah, and go ahead and put it in that's why I like the wording so much. Since the may require and discretion so essentially every option the book forever. So yeah I see no reasons and also put it under RDA. Okay, let me just take a quick look here. I'm going to put it underneath section four here. I'll fix the formatting later. There we go. Okay. All right, I just plugged that in there. Okay. Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that right. I wanted to make you guys aware of that distinction. There was some of this. Some of these changes came from the wetland Protection Act. It was very weird, like some of the denial under wetland protection were included and some of them were excluded which didn't make any sense to me so this now includes all of the same reason and rationale that it can be include denied under Well and Protection Act that's right here failure to use this section here is what I'm referring to. There was a lot of really weird, like things that were copied over from well and protection but then like one line would be removed and I'm like what is what's up with that it seemed almost like it was like it was like a, either a typographical error or somebody left it out on purpose. All right. A lot of this is just standard requirements for legal notices, coordination with other boards I did include electronic versions I inserted that specifically so that it was clear it's not like we had to be sending these certified to all the departments. Some of these didn't change the security section didn't change that's like a bond that could be held by the commission for assurance that something was done right. Just to type our number one, second line says area delineation one or one time. Could you, could you direct me where that was again loroy extension of permit number one. This is delineation one or one time. Second second line in the paragraph. Yeah I see where it is I'm just reading it. The commission makes and the order of conditions or order of resource area one or more. We're a period of up to three years that was a good catch thank you. I'm going to probably do your homework. You guys get me a plus. Thank you for going through it. I didn't have as much time. This is good. I felt that I didn't have time to put up electronic comments so you went on that one. Well hey, it doesn't really matter as long as we get them in there that's that's at the end game. Conditions for extension. So, you know that flagging has to be in place to issue an extension that it must be in full compliance to get an extension so there can't be a standing violation on a site to get an extension on a permit. Some important ones anyways. There was definitely this was one that I went through with Alex y site there was definitely some word smithing that went on there. We did make sure that entering property meant we had permission of the landowner. And then these violation sections this is another one where it was cut and paste from the wetland protection act but some sections were removed. So this is now complete. It's apples to apples with well and protection act which is how it should be certificates of compliance is pretty standard. Oh, there was a lot I think we went over this whole section recently but there was a lot removed under the enforcement section we took out a lot of the there is still information on finding but there was like 10 paragraphs literally in here on fines so we took out a lot of duplicated stated over and over again items. And then the emergencies. This was again taken from wetland protection. And I added this in mostly just to help people but I think we went over this who what where when and why on an emergency certification. I'm sorry but I was hoping we could get to the end of this and I don't know if you guys have any comments I didn't want to rush you guys through this but and I went through with the town attorney so there wasn't, you know, I mean there were a lot of changes but it wasn't anything from a really a content standpoint it was mostly just getting rid of that superfluous information and making did I say it right. Say it again Michelle superfluous superfluous how you say it Leroy I mean I think I say it a third way like super. Whatever. All just to be all individualistic with it. Alright, so anyways it was getting rid of a lot of duplicate stuff making sure it was consistent with wetland protection act but I think there was some really good changes in that section. And I see that it's one o'clock so I don't want to take any more of you guys time unless you have additional comments. I'm going to upload these changes edits to the one drive I'll make sure to get you guys. password that actually works please let me know I'll send you a new password please let me know if you're able to get in. And I, Michelle did ask that I double check on the reminders from zoom because she's not getting them so I'll double check for the webinar that you guys are both getting reminders hopefully I can get a note. I have for regular me it's enough about. Yep. Okay, I will double check that. Is there anything else that you guys have. Nope, thanks for all the work on this. And so next week, next second in two weeks is our two hour meeting isn't as everybody's still okay with that one. Yeah. That the goal of that is going to be to review the resource area change that which one is it. It's the handler standards for inland standards for inland wetlands. I don't know how I'm going to get it done in two weeks but I'm going to do my best and we'll just try to get through it. Okay well if you don't have it done and we need to talk about rolling that to our, we can know, we can discuss what works that. Yeah, we might need another two hour later in the month. But we'll see how it goes. The, the last, the last section is again, that's the fees one so. And I think the two important things for you guys to keep in mind and I'm sorry I just want to say to the important things to keep in mind or the fees. If you guys have any changes on fees to think about that but I'll upload those sections so you can comment on it and then the other thing that's really important for the next session is to think about resource area impacts and particularly buffer zone, because Amherst is very, very lax about buffer zone alteration, allowing up to 35 feet a lot of communities have a 50 foot no disturb. And even some you know like incorporating like not allowing more than like 20% alteration of the entire buffer zone on a property so just think about those things because those are going to be really important for us to talk about. And that's going to be a clean version that you guys are looking at it's not going to it's going to be very different than the last. I'm looking at the whole document that that section is is so difficult that I'm going to just have to start basically from scratch and I'll copy over and paste where I can but not going to be able to do with the whole thing so. All right, with that we will close the meeting at 107. And during two weeks until two weeks. Thank you everybody. Thanks guys. Have a good day have a good weekend. You too. Bye guys.