 Okay, I'm going to start recording now. Yeah. So opening the February 18th meeting at 1206 a p.m. or the subcommittee on the bylaw review. So both Leroy and I had that we were around page 26 I think we had just started on talking about bank. I think it might actually be good for us to have sort of a general overall conversation and just so that you guys know, I was supposed to meet with town council this morning. We town council and I I think are on like page 16 at this point, because it's really heavy to go through with council word by word but he had to cancel this morning for an emergency. So we haven't gotten very much further but I anticipate I sent him the whole document and I anticipate that at some point we're going to have sort of a longer session to go through things. I just wanted to just preface this and I think it might be a good chance for us to have an overall discussion on some of these issues. So if you look at our bylaw, and I'm just starting here where the standards for inland wetlands begin in the bylaw. There's a preamble. This is and it's the same exact format as the wetlands Protection Act. There's a preamble, which talks about the specific resource area and what the characteristics it has that basically tie into the interests of the wetlands Protection Act so it'll talk a lot about public private water supply protection of fisheries flood control storm damage, all those those eight interests of the Wetland Protection Act seven inland interests of the Wetland Protection Act. And do you guys know what those are. Okay, so it's messy if I can remember all of them. It's water supply groundwater storm damage prevention prevention of pollution protection of fisheries. I'm missing one, but that I mean, generally what it means is like the reason that the Wetland Protection Act exists is to protect these general public interests. And so we can we can talk a little bit more about those as time goes on but what's really interesting and I had this queued up let me see if I can do this. What up. I guess I didn't have it queued to the right spot. So, let me see if I can get my finger on it. It ties into 10.55 of the Wetland Protection Act. So it's 310 CMR 10.55 which is banks. And once I get there. What you'll see is so I'm putting them side by side so that you can see what we're working with here. Just shrink it so you can see it hopefully you can see. Let me make that pain smaller. It's really annoying that it won't let me make that smaller. You just change your view three bar drop down next to download. Oh, there we go. Thank you. So teamwork. So, if you see these side by side. And this is I'm looking at BVW and not banks. But it's basically repetitive and there's a couple minor changes to. The language, but for the most part they're the only difference that I could find was it said it's less wildlife habitat first. So banks and it and also are likely to be banks are likely to be significant to public and private water supply groundwater supply flood control storm damage prevention prevention of pollution protection of fisheries and wildlife habitat. So this is and I don't know who made these changes. Banks are significant to wildlife habitat is listed first public and public or private water supply groundwater. So you can see they're very similar and and I just wanted to point that out because for the most part, each resource area that's listed of the inland resource areas follows almost the exact same text of the wetland Protection Act with a couple exceptions and it's, it's a little odd. Honestly, that it follows that format. I'll just, I'm just going to zoom in. I'm going to maximize this and zoom in a little bit so you can see this. So, we shouldn't just copy and paste from the wetland Protection Act in our bylaw. It's really not, it's not a good practice to use what it adds a lot of text and also what makes it very difficult under our bylaw is to distinguish how our bylaw is different from the Well and Protection Act if all we're doing is copying and pasting and doing a couple little word changes here and there. It makes it very difficult to know how does our bylaw go above and beyond state law as far as protection of these resource areas. One of the things that the town council are, I should say our town attorney recommended was that we have this statement at some of these headings that say something to the effect of unless otherwise specified there in or here in preamble definitions and general performance standards are the under the state wetland Protection Act shall apply and and then our bylaw beyond that would basically this is kind of my recommendation to you guys would state very explicitly where our bylaw goes above and beyond state law to protect these resource areas. And in a situation where we deny a permit, or we're in an appeal it makes it very easy to call out where areas where a given project is, is out of compliance with our bylaw, because we can point directly to well, you know these standards are more strict under the law than under the Well and Protection Act. So, I wanted to throw that out there, and that would really require going through the each resource area section by section to see where there's additional protections provided and also I think it would give us an opportunity to say, where are their holes in this where we need to sort of fill in and add additional explanation for what other interests we're protecting or, you know, specific conditions that we want to like performance standards that we wanted to implement. So I want to just kind of put that up for discussion amongst you to to talk about what your thoughts are on that if you like it in its current configuration where it's like copy paste with a couple word changes here and there, or if you'd like it to be sort of more in line with what I was thinking to want to get your perspective and opinion on it. Roy, want to go first. It sounds like you and council have the right idea about heading and then just breaking up parts separately. And like we're saying about clarity when we're calling out bylaw, not fractions but permits denied. I think that would make a lot of these sections for us significantly smaller like this. Thanks. I mean, really our protection differences only. There's only one significant difference right and that's the distance. The hundred to 200. That's a great question, Leroy. So, I've gone through some of these and we can we can go through we can start going through a little bit on some of my comments as well. But yeah, I mean, like, for example, wildlife habitat is one of the interests in our bylaw that is not in the Well and Protection Act, or in the eight interests of the Well and Protection Act. Literally that one that one statement wildlife habitat is like a little insertion. So, you know, for example, we could state, like as its town attorney recommended and less otherwise specified here. I think that all of the items in the Well and Protection Act shall apply, and then say in the preamble with the exception of a wildlife habitat is an additional interest that we consider banks to be significant to or something like that. And then so on and so forth, like specifying those specific items but you're absolutely right it would cut down on the text and it would shorten the documents significantly if we did that. I think it clears clear error to the public. I really like that. I know you just hit ball in there but when we're doing the wording. I don't know do we, is it what we call it the exception like that we say with the exception of always say more like in addition to. Right, exactly. Yeah. But yeah, those are my general thoughts. Yeah, I think that's all very sound logic. And they don't want like I guess it'll just probably take a lot of time to sort out what's the same and what's different. So I imagine it'll be more of a time commitment to do that. Um, so nothing gets lost in the, in the simplification, exactly, hopefully not wildlife. Right. Yeah, I really, I do really like that idea and I guess probably we just want to be certain with Council that our, unless otherwise specified includes all the legal legal ease that it needs to cover everything so there's no pinholes in it that. Yeah. Yeah, and I mean I think that we should also talk about issues where we want to incorporate things as well. So I think that that's great and I think as long as I sort of have a general sense of what you guys are thinking, then when I go to rewrite this which is going to be really quite the process. I will, we're basically going to have three documents we're going to have this document which is sort of the markup where we'll have the old version which is the original, and then we'll have the new version, which is kind of like the rewrite, which when that comes, when it comes time to to look at that it's going to look very different. I just have one follow up question to that. Yeah, is that the method that other towns bylaws follow or is there a general consensus as to how people handle the differences. That's a great question Michelle. I will, I will look into that for you and and report back to you on that. I always like finding like a good exemplary. Yeah, document and you know, seeing what people did right. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely and every town is a little different. As far as format is concerned but I do agree with you and I know I mentioned this already a couple times but I think that there are potential ways that we could make these, these resource area sections quite a bit stronger. And, and also because that we know more about wetlands now and their functions then maybe when this was originally written like for example, the fact that wetlands are considered to be carbon sinks, you know, like something like that like that's something that would probably not be mentioned in here at all because it's like based on new research, we know more about their functions and particularly around climate change and things like that so. We may want to incorporate. I'm not necessarily saying we want wouldn't want to incorporate more interests. Maybe we would, I don't know. We can come back to that but there may be other elements to wetlands in terms of functions that they serve that we would want to call out as being important and relevant. So that's what we're saying behind bringing it up to like our current knowledge about climate change preparedness and functions and we have some. We have some good knowledge on the conservation commission to help us do that too, but yeah, let's bring it up to date. That all sounds good. So, um, let me see here, I know I got through page 30. Also, I just reminded me when she was talking about other towns. Our thing about having a town only permit or a letter permit time thing kind of dead in the water until council talks about it with other people for a while, or is that moving along in the background. Yeah, I, I do need to follow up with council that was one of our questions that we had discussed at the, at our last meeting. And it's definitely it's come up, it's come up again already in terms of, you know, questions of how to handle it, like, recently at the last meeting we had a gentleman come before the board 21 East Hadley Road for a electrical utility pole in his front yard just a temporary one. But he was, he was over 50 feet from the media annual high water line of the Fort River. He was, he was over 50 feet from a wetland so he would have qualified as a minor activity under the Wetlands Protection Act but it was only, it was only a little event under our bylaw and so that came through sort of as an informal request. But yeah, I mean I think that there's, there's that component where it's like what do we do for for really basic ones like that do we make people and I am actually making him file a request for determination for that. And he's putting in another piling as well for a little addition to his son porch but those two items being the only two items that he's doing on his property. You know it's it's a lot to have them hire wetland consultant to, you know, flag the bank flag the wetlands. You can map get it all on a plan and then you know put up erosion controls for two pilings. It's a lot to ask of somebody and then you know $300 for illegal add notifying all the butters within 300 feet. So, I'm hopeful that we can come up with something. But town council will get back to me on that. So, there was a couple things here. I think that we. I wanted to just to talk about with you guys. So here we're talking about bank, and we're going to get into to rear front as well. One issue that we've had again and again is people wanting to put in bridges, like foot bridges or other bridges and not file a notice of intent application. There has been in the riverfront area as well as in buffer zone and here we're talking about buffer zone to bank. My philosophy on that has always been that anybody who's putting in a bridge of any kind needs to file a notice of intent application. And the commission is definitely backed that up quite a bit. And the commission of Amherst college had come through right before I went on maternity leave Amherst college came through proposing multiple bridges in their sanctuary which is south of college street. And the commission basically denied the permit and said you guys have to file a notice of intent so they're coming back, but I didn't know if if somewhere in these regulations we wanted to specify that specific item. But including it potentially. I'm not sure exactly where in the document we would have that but wanted to see what you guys feelings were on that if that was something you'd be in favor of including. I guess I'm happy to specify I just don't. I don't really know why we have to, because like you said when it comes up, we let people know, and that's been fun and it's pretty clearly an alteration to a resource area. So, well, I think it's kind of self explained right and you're right it does come up a lot but I kind of feel like we might just have to keep explaining it. Well there's there's really two things that I'd really love to have rolled into our regulations that require notice intent one of them is bridges any type of bridge work and any work within 50 feet of a resource area. And part of the reason for this is because yeah you're you're absolutely right Leroy it does require conversations but I'll give you some examples. In the case of Amherst College. It was a former staff person who worked for the town of Amherst who was advising them. Oh you could just file a request for determination and then there was other folks who were familiar with the wetland Protection Act who said that they should be able to do it with a request for determination. And, and that's, you know that's fine for those folks to have those opinions but they really guided the applicant to file a request for determination and in Amherst. So, ordinarily in most towns let's say they don't have a bylaw for a request for determination application you don't have to notify a butters you only have to post illegal ad in Amherst you do have to notify a butters that's a requirement under the bylaw. So, it's a lot for somebody to file the permit notify a butters post illegal ad, you know, do all their paperwork to submit it only to come to the Conservation Commission in here sorry you should have filed a notice of intent application and then they've got to go through the whole process all over again. In the case of that Amherst College application, I must have had 20 conversations with them saying file a notice of intent file a notice of intent and they kept on with the request for determination. That is true. Through the thing and then at the end ended up being told you need to file a notice of intent. It was really tough. It was a really tough situation because it felt like we're fighting it, at least me I felt like I was fighting against the current on it the entire time and it would have just made it a lot easier if I could point something in the regs that substantiated what I was asking. And then the other one was, you know, 50 feet within 50 feet of a resource area. So I'll give you an example on that let's say somebody's constructing a house within 50 feet of a wetland. They're certainly going to be altering the wetland as a result of the work if you know, depending on how it's constructed how careful they are vegetations being removed the existing conditions on the site, it might be a lawn, and they're just, you know, putting in an erosion control and staying on existing lawn but they might be doing a lot of tree clearing as well. Again, it was a consultant who does work with the town very frequently. There was a proposal for a garage that was going to be coming in, and this consulting firm told the applicant. Oh, you can file a request for determination if you're within 40 feet and you'll be fine. And when the applicant contacted me and said I'm in the process of filing a request for determination I said well what is the work and what's the plan. And they explained it and I said well you need a notice of intent for that. And they were like well we were told we could do it with an RDA. Again, to two very important items which a lot of times get lost and applicants who aren't familiar with the process or sort of expectations they might not check in with staff first they might be relying on applied advice from a consultant. So just wanted to respond and give you some examples. Yeah I mean so Leroy has a good point that it should just carry through based on the existing thing but if it's a common kind of application that's often a point of confusion and misery for the applicant and on you. I would support having like clarity. And also just to like sort of safeguard where we, if it's like a conversation with the commission at least they go into it, knowing what I don't know what to expect or they have some structure to the project. I think about that Michelle is very good point about continuity for the commissions over time. If it's something easy to point back to. So, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's something I want to like just keep in mind is, you know, I'm comfortable with all the decisions we make but just to like put some, you know, I don't know, longevity and perpetuity into this structure. We have the chance to. Yeah, absolutely no I think those are all excellent points. Okay. So I wanted to just talk about those while we were talking about bank because I do think that they're, they're important. Yeah, so can I just, yeah, there's like a deletion of 200 feet of riverfront is that something we should look at or I don't know what's going on there but it just looks like a. Those were edits that were made by made by others. And changing anything that we need to talk about or is it like your superfluous information that's just a redundant explanation. It seems to go from 100 to 200 there so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something we should talk about. So, I think that what they were correcting here. There's a whole separate. There's a whole separate set of performance standards for riverfront area. So riverfront has its own general performance standards. So, it's a little bit confusing because we're getting deep in the reeds with this. I don't need to take us down a rabbit hole. Okay, I know this is a good educational opportunity and I want to talk about it because it's, it's very important. Okay. So let's talk about bank specifically. And this is awesome for you guys to get a little bit of a deeper read into the wetland Protection Act and also our local bylaw. So bank is on a stream right and it could be a perennial stream or an intermittent stream and how bank is delineated is a main annual high water line or first observable break in slope. Those are sort of like the definitions of how they are delineated now. If you think about a river, let's say the mill river will use mill river as an example if you guys have ever walked down at the mill river. That's a good question area. If you ever look at the bank of a river, you can see where the river is flowing right and you can see that when the river is at its high point. There's a point of the river where there's a break right and there's no vegetation but then all of a sudden there's vegetation. Do you know where I'm talking about do you know the that line that I'm talking about. So when somebody goes out and they're flagging bank that's what they're flagging. Perennial river like the mill river. You're going to be flagging both sides of the the bank on either side. Now with intermittent streams. This is a really interesting one now over the history of my time doing this when I first started as a conservation agent. Intermittent streams didn't have two banks, which is really interesting. There was a center line that was mapped for an intermittent stream and they didn't do the individual banks now over time I believe with case law that that's changed. But it's a really important distinction with bank because perennial streams at that first observable break and slope mean annual high water line is where the river front line begins. Okay, so and the river front is an actual resource area. It's not a buffer zone. It's a resource area. And it should always be marked as such on any plan that comes before the conservation commission. So that line where that break is from 200 feet extending out from that line that is resource area on a perennial stream on an intermittent stream. That line is a buffer zone. So there in intermittent streaming the resource area is the stream itself. And on inner for a perennial stream. It has a 400 foot wide resource area that surrounds it. So, I believe that the reason that that's crossed out is because and this is that it's a good point in the sense of I think what you just called out there Michelle is important in the sense of there. We're not specifying here perennial or intermittent and I think we need to because this is saying within 100 feet of the upper boundary of bank. 100 feet of the upper boundary of an intermittent stream, and that should be spelled out specifically because if it's a perennial. And then of course perennial streams have the 200 foot riverfront area. Now crossing that out here isn't going to change the fact that there's a riverfront area there's a riverfront area regardless I think with the former wetlands administrator. Some of these resource area definitions have a lot of issues, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's really important for us to do what the town attorney said in terms of referring to the wetland Protection Act but then being very specific about how we are more we're more stringent or have greater protections, because it's going to become very unclear and especially for let's say an attorney who's very familiar with legal language could could find ways to say oh well wait a second you're saying bank here. The 100 foot upper boundary of the bank well then that means that the riverfront area doesn't apply like the outer riverfront area wouldn't apply here wouldn't be the account for performance standard under banks do you see what I'm saying. So, since it specifically says within 100 feet of the upper boundary of bank but it doesn't specify perennial or intermittent. Somebody could make the argument that it's not going to impact the bank if they're in the outer 100 on perennial stream or something to that effect so we've just got to be really careful about some of this language and just check it and double check it. But I think that that's a really, really interesting point and I'm not entirely sure why that riverfront area was in there to begin there to begin with. But I do think breaking it up into perennial or intermittent would be smart. It's interesting here to under be so under bank. You can alter up to 10% or 50 feet of the bank. You can actually alter beyond that. If there's no adverse effects on wildlife habitat. Can you imagine altering more than 50% 50 feet of bank and not having an effect on wildlife habitat. That's very, very interesting. Probably where so like in this section right here under D where it's talking about work on a stream crossing shall be presumed to meet the performance standards provided that the work is in compliance with the stream crossing standards. This would be a great place to have an insertion on the requirement for an NOI. Okay, so another sort of question that I had on this. So, for consistency sake, I just want to come back to the Wellands Protection Act for just a second. I guess they don't. So I, I'm going to have to do a little bit more checking back and forth on this but one of the things. So there's, there's bordering vegetated wetland is defined in here 10.55 bordering vegetated wetlands means they have the border on something. So, for example, if you have a wetland that's beside a river, or I mean that's really primarily where you see them is above rivers alongside rivers. Sometimes you'll see like really expansive huge wetland systems like as an example like Lawrence Swamp, you'll have like the Plum Brook or the Hot Brokers thing flowing through it and then there's these huge wetland systems that surround them. But there's also isolated wetland systems and in this case, so just for consistency sake, we have bank first and then bordering vegetated wetlands are second under well and protection but then under our bylaw we say vegetated wetlands bordering vegetated, sorry, vegetated wetlands bordering and isolated. So, part of me wants to break up bordering vegetated wetlands so that it's consistent with the Wetland Protection Act and then have an entirely separate resource area listed as isolated, because the Wetlands Protection Act does refer specifically to isolated vegetated wetlands separately. And that needs like the Oxford comma on it also I mean just to split it bordering and isolated. Well that's an oxymoron anyway but without the comma, it doesn't make any sense to see what I'm saying bordering an ice. It says like a bordering an isolated wetland instead of bordering comma and isolated well ends. I don't like this. Perfect. Yeah. I don't really like the way that this is, this is broken up. Detained. Detained is a weird word for there should be retained. I mean some of these are kind of like nitpicky things but um. To your big question and I'd be in support is quite enough to do it for sure. Okay, I think that's pretty important. Yeah, I agree. I'm just making notes for our minutes. Okay, and so in terms of the content of these like I didn't really pick these apart a whole lot. Because again, a lot of these are not really changing substantially other than where it differs from the Wetland Protection Act and that's where we want to point out those those distinctions. There's a couple really interesting things under BVW. This is really interesting. So the characteristics of Amherst soils are different than almost every other town and there are there are good reason for that. And so they specifically call those things out. Interesting like, you know, when we were out, for example, Michelle and Roy when we were out at the Mitchell farm where they were. There was that that wetland that was sort of in the hayfield and we were trying to distinguish that and we were looking at soils I mean some of these issues that are specific to Amherst soils. That we didn't even really call upon a lot of this language for, which is interesting. But in some cases Amherst does have a very unique red parent material in the, and this is in certain parts of town that there's this red parent material I don't know if you guys have ever seen that in the soils and Amherst. But I definitely have. But just so that you guys are aware of that. It's kind of interesting from a delineation standpoint why Amherst is unique and different. Is the soil itself red? Is that what it means? Yeah, and it makes it really difficult remember like the like oxidized rhizosphere is that you can see when you're. It's like, it's like a depletion and oxygen depletion in the soil where you can easily detect wetland soils but in soils that have that red parent material it's extremely difficult to assess the wetland. Because to assess whether it's wetland or not because of that so anyways it's just a kind of interesting, interesting tidbit that's in here that's tied into this. I just want to point that out and so and we can we can dig into this as well a little bit more as time goes on this is this is about where I left off on my edits. Under our local bylaw we have this 35 foot no touch zone. And it's it's actually we get into it a little bit further down into the document. But it occurred to me in in reading these particularly bank and BVW, but I mean, because. Rural pools have 100 foot no disturb so like bank and BVW are two resource areas that have 100 foot buffer and so when you get within 35 feet there's that no no disturb or no touch zone. But what do we want to stay in the bank and the BVW. Maybe in the preambles or in the presumptions of significance that the reason that we protect that 35 foot zone. The reason that it's really important to protect that 35 foot zone like something to the effect of and this is just me again sort of spitballing but like work that is located within this. So a very important buffer around resource areas is important to protect for the following reasons, like it's, you know likely to be detrimental to the resource likely to alter the resource. So we want to incorporate some language like that into bank or BVW to make it stronger, because right now, it's kind of a standalone section down at the end that just says 35 foot no disturb. As you guys know as we get into the, the last, the final 15 pages those are going to become really important and those are going to be things that I really want us to talk about more. And actually, if you guys don't mind I'll flip down to it right now just for the sake of you guys seeing it. I do take issue with some of these. And I think we should reconsider some of these and, and so, because likely will be digging into these in the next session, and we're kind of coming down to the end of reviewing this document I think we really need to think about this. I apologize for all the markup because I think this makes it really difficult to read, but for a single family home, I'm sorry it's a 30 foot there's a 30 foot, no work distance from the resource area. And there's a 50 foot building setback limit. For commercial, there's a 30 foot no work distance, but there's a 75 foot building setback. Okay. So, keeping those things in mind and that's what I'm talking about in terms of specifying in the resource areas because this is the only place this is listed. And down below this, as you can see these presumptions are res rebuttable and maybe overcome by a clear showing that the nature of the proposed work, special design measures and construction controls or site conditions will prevent alteration of the resource area so they're going to overcome the these setbacks if they choose by, you know, narratively explaining or putting in, you know, site design features that protect the resource. But if you go a little further down here. Let's look at that interesting ground mounted solar that was installed as being 30 feet away institutional mixed use multifamily ground mounted solar photo photo will take 30 foot setback. That's really interesting that that was inserted that was not by me that was by former editors of this. But then parking lots. So yeah, so you can see they fixed that those edits like driveways used to be able to get closer parking lots used to be able to get closer. And other roads used to be able to get closer but they kind of made those all consistently 30 feet setbacks. I just wanted to point those out to you because, you know, they're trying to make them more consistent and what would happen before. Like so with commercial development, for example, because the building has to be 75 feet away they put the building 75 feet away but they put the parking lot in between the building and the wetland. So there's a big parking lot there. And a lot of times, you know, the parking lot is like the area where they have all the stormwater features and so they have like stormwater treatment and then the discharges go out right at that 30 foot distance from the wetland. So you're discharging stormwater from a parking lot right into a well and basically or within 30 feet of a well and those setbacks I think are very significant to bank and to BVW. And so I just wanted to really plan to see that we should start thinking about those. Do we want to change them. Do we want to keep them as is. Do we think that single family home structure setback being 50 feet is adequate. Do we think that commercial setback of 75 feet is adequate. Do we think driveway and parking lot setback of 30 feet is adequate. Are you posing the question. I mean obviously it might depend on the circumstance in the situation, but generally just like a number doesn't cover the entire circumstances that could be influencing wetland likes from water runoff or the extent of vegetation or I don't know the condition surrounding the area the hydrology all that stuff right so that's not contained or specified in just saying 30 feet. I don't have an answer for that right now. I don't think I'm, I think I'd like to hear you discuss situations further but Roy want to chime in. I'm with you I'm going to need some time to think about it, but I guess in the same vein and number can't capture a lot of the variables. So, I would Aaron the side of the number is being well because there are other things we can be we do look at as more important. It's hard for me to tell it looks like they're all edited from 25 to 30. I'd be all right with all of those. I wouldn't mind increasing the commercial industrial kind of like Michelle said I'd like to hear some more stories for you behind this really goes. If you have an instance where commercials building buildings but then putting parking lots behind them. I'd be more comfortable changing restrictions on commercial industrial blocks as opposed to driveways or utilities parking lot. Yeah. Yeah, I mean for me the question comes down to what's more detrimental to a wetland is it a building or is it a parking area. It's definitely commercial industrial yes it's bigger and it lasts longer it's around longer. But if somebody is like, yeah, impervious surface for sure but like a house would have impervious surface and potentially like lawn fertilizers and you know they're laundry detergent and just like I'm really glad that you mentioned that Michelle because I have like is a side note that because in our orders of conditions we have a standard condition that says within 100 foot buffers owner we were front area you can't use fertilizers pesticides or besides etc. And so it's an excellent I mean we can't work who's monitoring that it's it's in there but homeowners aren't reading. Really though. So, so, so just using an example right. Let's say somebody says their property is literally right on top of the wetland let's say let's say they're the the wetland line runs through their lot, and they're out there spraying. And whatever the green Camelon you know the trucks that come out and spray hazardous chemicals all over the lawn to kill. You know they put a little, they put the little yellow signs up that say no pets or children. You know, hazardous pesticides have been sprayed here but they're spraying them right next to a wetland. And I get a lot of calls from people saying my neighbors property is is right on top of a wetland and they're out there spraying true green Camelon all over their their lawn right next to a wetland and I say well it's in our general orders of conditions that if somebody files a permit they then can't do that but it doesn't say it anywhere in our regulations that they can't. So it's an interesting point as we're talking about these setbacks and that's why I want to just get the kind of the juices flowing in terms of thinking about this now because we're going to get into the nitty gritty of how to. You know, if we want to include these things if we don't you know the setbacks thinking about those things but yeah it's they're all interesting points. Yeah, well I guess off the bat I'm with the Roy that it you know, increasing at least the institutional mixed use like commercial just commercial, whatever because they generally include a lot more impervious surface and car parking and stuff. And then I'm wondering, like I feel like this sort of needs a diagram because so we have these numbers but they're rebuttable so like one strategy would be to like encompass all of the worst case scenarios. And the most protective measure which would be to increase all of them to 50 feet and then based on individual circumstances allow for less, you know, removing some of that boundary or buffer. So if we have 50 feet and they come to us and they said this is what we're doing and we say okay we can like, you know work that back to 30. So rather than starting small and not really having the ability to increase it even when we would think that it would be in order to do so. Have like a more protective measure that we could use our, you know, use the conservation Commission to decide on reducing that. Yeah, well I mean I think it's it's particularly interesting like the the solar because there's so much clearing required for it so like if you're talking about an untouched forest buffer around a wetland let's say what this is essentially saying is they can clear up to. Then beyond 30 feet for solar because with solar, you know it can be up to the 30 foot boundary is what this is saying and so then you're carving into that buffer that's protecting the wetland. And so yeah I think if our if our regulations say you can do that that's what people are going to do and and people are going to point to this and say hey your regulations say that we're allowed to do this. So then there's no saying well you've got to move back you've got to move this back 10 feet or another 20 feet you got to be at least 50 feet away because if you're you're within 30 feet you're then potentially altering a resource area and with a wetland it might be changing the temperature of the wetland that might be reducing the shading of a wetland. So, just we don't have to belabor it too much right now but think about those things and we can when we start getting a little further along on this we can talk about it but I think, as it pertains to bank. And BVW these are, these are extremely important numbers to keep in mind, and whether we want to tie in some language into the specific resource area. I think it's going to be really important for us to consider at this, at this point in our review. Anyways, I don't. I feel like I'm a little bit less prepared today than I have been for past meetings for, because I've had such an intense meeting schedule is weekend also because the town attorney canceled on me right before our meeting this morning, but I'm going to try to. I guess, I guess what I'd like to ask you guys is, is, if you envision continuing going through for the next 10 pages sort of as we have been and just get through the whole document you think that that makes sense for the next meeting. Just talking. I think just having a chance to review it beforehand I think would help. And if there are specific sections you want to discuss maybe like throw that in the email so we can formulate some thoughts and have our discussion. Okay. Roy, what do you think are you. What I might do is, and I was thinking about this is send you guys. Wetland Protection Act, the the actual performance standards for each of the resource areas and then our unedited sections of the local bylaws so you can kind of see them side by side. I think that would be helpful. That's one of the things I had thought about, but my first inclination is that would be overwhelming. Yeah, you can like maybe like section by section or just break it down because it's language. Maybe the Roy can handle it but that sounds sort of intimidating. All right, well let me think about it. Let me think about it and I'll try to get you guys some way. I think like, like section by section I could, that sounds realistic because I also need to like budget. Yeah. Okay. All right fair enough. I don't want to take any more of you guys time I very much appreciate talking this through and look forward to talking more. No attendees so I will let me just make sure. Thank you for joining us. So, see you guys, I guess next week. Closing this meeting at 9121. My clock is on different times. 103. See you guys. Thank you. Take care guys. Take care.