===PAGE 1=== Town of Lunenburg Conservation Commission Bob Pease, Chair Tel: (978) 582-4146 Kenneth Jones, Vice-Chair 960 Massachusetts Ave. Richard Bursch Lunenburg, MA 01462 Catie Childs Carl Luck Jack Rabbitt Matthew S. Marro, Todd Dwyer Conservation Administrator MINUTES October 7, 2020 7:00 PM Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Meeting was called to order with BP presiding and all member present except KJ and CC. MM, staff absent Due to power outage. Note: All votes taken by roll call due to remote participation under pandemic rules. Comments: JR asked MM to contact Dave Oram for emergency certifications John fortune appeared before the Commission to inform them that the siphons at Hickory Hills Lake have been opened Due to the drawdown, the land owners Association requested an emergency certification to remove a mound of gravel at the shoreline that was preventing use of the boat ramp. JR Totally supported the emergency measure. BP Recalled the last time it was actually an enforcement order issued on a non-adversarial basis to remove a hump of gravel for safety reasons. JR Motion for MM to issue the enforcement order. RB asked if there was anything in writing regarding the request. BP did not know. RB had no problem with the concept as long as it was documented by the Hickory Hills land owners Association. Mr Fortune Indicated that he would send an email to the Conservation Commission. CL Indicated he had no issue giving the permission but express concern regarding the ordering for safety reasons. He felt it was more of a personal property issue. BP noted that we would wait for the email before taking the issue up again. 7.1 Deed Restriction final version- EO- 183 Island Road- update - No one was present to represent 183 island Rd wow. BP noted the deed restriction. CL noted That there was a word on the restriction that was supposed to be changed. After discussion it was agreed by the Commission and applicant to change no “grading” to no “alteration” in the restriction. JR Ask to add no dispersion of water from the pool to the Lake to the restriction. He clarified that it would be a flexible pipe run greater than 100 feet from the Lake. Action was delayed until a future meeting. 7.2 LSIC, Request for a field change to Drawdown Order of Conditions -Wendy Gendron was present to represent the Lake Shirley improvement Corporation. She outlined the condition in the order of conditions which called for a drawdown end date specific to December 1st. CL noted he would support the request. He noted that when the order was approved it was suggested for a December 31st date but it was rejected originally by the LSCI and wanted to know why the change at this point. Wendy noted during the order of conditions hearing there was a time constraint where the Lake Shirley improvement Corporation did not want to spend extra time having to go back to fisheries and wildlife for another approval. JR wanted to know if we needed to go to DEP for their input and approval. RB noted that the original date in the GEIR was December 1st and was not sure there was language in the order if there was any procedure available. RB also noted we should put it on the next agenda as we still have time and should research the order. Wendy Gendron did agree that the GEIR did state a December 1st date however it was not a hard and fast date depending on the site and input should be sought front Fish and Wildlife. Wendy also noted that the commission had the ultimate decision on an amended date. ===PAGE 2=== 7.3 Conservation Commission talent back applicants: The chairman noted it was TD’s last meeting with the Conservation Commission and praised his performance and thanked him for his service. The chairman reviewed submitted bank applications the Commission as to their background. The chairman noted Jeff Viviano at current point is the only applicant and will be going in front of the board of selectman and is appearing as a chance to say hello to the Commission and ask any questions. Jeff echoed the chairman's sentiments regarding Todd Dwyer and his service to the Commission. Jeff noted he had been to many meetings with the system as an associate member and is familiar with the process and the expectations of the Commission. JR gave praise to commissioner Dwyer for his depth of engineering experience and asked Mr Viviano what type of technical background he had that might be able to contribute to the commission's efforts. Mr Viviano did note in his occupation as an airline pilot he does have some engineering experience and has HV AC experience. His experience in that field gave him the knowledge of reading plans and deciphering items like elevation in required installations. RB also praised Mr Dwyer’s experiences and how it will be missed. He asked if there was a 10 day advertising. That was met. He wanted to ensure there was sufficient time for sufficient applications. BP noted it was advertised in the Ledger and has been on the website for 12 days. He further stated his expectation for the board of selectman to appoint someone next week. Mr Dwyer thanks everyone for their kind words and expressed how he will miss being with the Conservation Commission. He thanked Mr Viviano for his coming forward to volunteer and that he reminded the Commission Mr Viviano went through the application process himself and also was an associate member period. BP reminded the Commission this is not an interview and there was no recommendation that was coming forth. The board of selectman did ask BP to write a recommendation based on Mr Viviano's being an associate member in the past. Commissioner Dwyer did notice on the Board of Selectmen agenda that Mr Viviano's talent bank application is on the selectman's agenda for the next meeting. CL also praised Mr Dwyer's service to the Commission. CL asked about Mr Viviano's availability due to his scheduling problems in the past even for his own NOI hearings. Mr Viviano replied that he is adjusted his schedule to account for the time he would need and that is experienced as an associate member gave him a definitive account of the amount of time needed. The Commission thanked Mr Viviano for coming to the meeting. HHL -The chairman noted to the Commission that he had just received an email from John fortune and read it into the record. JR moved to issue an enforcement order that the Hickory Hills lake Association use any method available to remove the gravel noted specifically in the email request and that occur within the next 30 days. Mr Dwyer asked for amendment to the motion that any matting necessary be placed to prevent tracks being left into the Lake bottom. BP noted that the lakebed in that area is all gravel. Mr Fortune noted the excavator would be on dry ground along the shoreline. TD asked if there was a way we could keep it in the motion for just in case purposes. CL wanted to know why we couldn't issue it as an emergency cert with an RDA follow up. RB noted in an emergency certification there had to be an overriding public issue. Simply pulling the boats out of the water is not an overriding public need. TD ask if the Hickory Hills land owners Association could add a page to the Lake management plan outlining this procedure. This way in the future, there did not need to be repeated appearances to the Conservation Commission. RB seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve Pursuant to the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Michael Defazio for work at 130 Flynn Road The work is for the construction of an attached Garage within the buffer zone. Michael de Fazio appeared representing himself. He outlined the project and its relationship to the wetland to the Conservation Commission. TD ask for more specifics regarding the payment on the driveway. Mr Defazio noted it would be a gravel grated base driveway and there would be no expansion or pavement. Jr asked if there was an impervious bottom on the existing garage. It was noted yes there was, and it would be removed loomed and seeded.CL confirmed the placement of erosion control. TD moves to issue a standard order of conditions based on the plans. CL ===PAGE 3=== seconded and the Commission voted to approve the motion by unanimous roll call vote. Pursuant to the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Thomas Crocker for work at 200 Island Road. The work is for the demolition and reconstruction of a single family home within the buffer zone. Paul Kirchner appeared representing the applicant. He outlined the project scope for the Conservation Commission along with its relationship to the wetlands on the property. He noted the current condition of the property which is currently dilapidated as it has not been occupied since 1999.He outlined the waiver requests from the 50 foot no structure zone for the proposed driveway. He did note that the new driveway and structures are actually further away than the original structures. CL Examine the location of the proposed driveway. JR examined the pre and post development for the driveway and the material the driveway was going to be made from. It was determined it was going to be paved. He also noted that there would be increased impervious in the total 100-foot buffer zone. Mr Kirchner noted that this was a new structure and that they had taken care to pull the structure away from the more sensitive inner 50 foot areas of the buffer zones and the site was limited in locations due to the steepness of the slopes on the property. BP clarified what the request was for. RB asked if there was a forward access to the garage considered. Mr Kirchner mentioned it was the landowner’s preference. BP noted familiarity what the topography of the area and a front orienting entrance could be difficult. Jr asked why a large driveway pad was needed. Mr Kirchner responded it was needed for a standard turn around. He noted this particular orientation was designed to maximize distance from the wetland edge TD asked if the existing driveway entered off the abutters’ property. He asked why the house wasn't rotated so that the house in the driveway would be out of the buffer zone. He noted a 30-degree clockwise turn might accomplish this. Mr Kirchner noted rotating the house 30 degrees would cause it to face sideways hence facing the cul-de-sac instead of the road front. BP noted that he supported the proposal as proposed. After straw polling the Commission it was indicated the Commission would like to see a reconfiguration of the plan. RB noted he would like to see a limit of work shown on the plan as well. The applicant requested a continuance to the October 21st meeting at 7:00 PM. Jr made a motion to continue to the date and time prior specified RB seconded and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. Pursuant to the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Request for A Determination by Fred Arnstein for work at 181 Peninsula Drive. The work is for the construction of a shed within the buffer zone. Mr. Arnstein appeared to represent himself. The applicant presented a picture to the Commission at the preexisting shed. He noted one of the pictures show the shed and its full dimension and location. JR noted that the structure was a tent and it was not previously authorized and is well within the 30 foot no touch zone. He felt the structure should be moved back out of the 50 foot zone. He felt the structure was a temporary structure put up annually and taken down as needed. CL Noted he did not feel there was enough information to document a pre existing structure and felt it was out of compliance with our local by law. RB noted there was a property line issue and that there was no documentation as to its pre existing structures. BP noted he went through historical ortho photos and noted that it could be clearly seen there was some type of structure there previously. CL moves for a positive determination JR seconded. The applicant did ask where else on the property with the Commission be favorable for a location. The chairman instructed the applicant to work with the conservation administrator on a potential location. The motion for a positive determination was passed by a unanimous roll call vote. Continued : Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Determination of Applicability by Keolis will be held. Work proposed is vegetation management on various rights of way within the town of Lunenburg for Railways . RB Notice at the meeting previous the concern was expressed about abutter notification and he ===PAGE 4=== noted the communication from the applicant noting mass general law but the abutter notification requirement under bylaw was not applicable. He noted that MM had advised a negative determination and recommended the commission moved forward with the negative determination. CL noted guidance from other organizations advising a positive determination. It would not stop Keolis from proceeding. RB noted that MM had advised the negative determination was the commission’s historic action and felt it should continue along those lines. BP noted the MACC mailing. CL felt the commission should continue. JR moved to continue the hearing. TD indicated he received a text message from MM and he still recommended a negative determination. JR withdrew the motion and moved to issue a negative determination RB seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. RB in closing did note that MACC is an advisory group and not really a ruling agency. Continued: Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Jeff LaPierre for work at 1672 Mass Ave. will be held. Work proposed is rebuild of an existing shed, grading of existing lawn, repair of a retaining wall, removal of a tree and the repaving of a driveway with gravel. Mr. Lapierre appeared at the meeting to represent himself. He noted he was having survey done. CL noted his concerns pertain to what trees are going to be removed and what trees were going to be left in place as well as accurately noting the current configuration of the driveway. He noted he was going to have everything represented on the plans to present a more accurate drawing. JR examined the location of the proposed new shed versus the old shed. Mr Lapierre noted the shed was moved out due to old wood rotting underneath and was planning on putting a foundation in its place. Jr ask the applicant to consider moving the shed out of the 30 foot no touch zone. Mr Lapierre indicated a willingness to examine the issue as his plan is drawn out. TD asked what was under the shed prior and he was told it was loan with some old stumps buried and the owner had them removed. RB noted that he agreed with JR’s concern and noted that there was no previous filing for the shed. He also asked for the plans to reflect current condition and further note disturbance up to the edge of wet and wanted to ensure that was represented on the plans as well. The owner indicated it would probably be possible to get the shed out of the 30 foot no touch zone but was not sure about the 50 foot no structure zone and noted that the plywood on the shed was dated 1998 for the shed being there for about 22 years. TD asked the applicant how long he owned the property, and it was noted that it was purchased by the current owner 10 years ago. He also asked if he had pictures prior to the work done in the property. And the owner indicated yes. RB moved to continue the hearing to the October 21st meeting at 7:00 o'clock PM. JR seconded the motion. JR asked If the applicant would be ready by the 21st. Mr Lapierre indicated he was not certain. It was agreed that if it was not ready, he would request a continuance. CL noted it should probably be moved for the November 4th meeting. RB amended his motion to change the date to Nov 4. JR seconded the amendment. The Commission passed the motion by unanimous roll call vote. Continued: Pursuant to the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Bright Farm will be held for work at 361 Mass Ave. Work proposed is the construction of a commercial greenhouse ( Lettuce) resulting in alteration of an isolated wetland subject to the Lunenburg Wetlands bylaw. Maryann Dipinto and Sean O’Neill appeared before the commission. Mr O'Neill recapped the issues outlined from the last meeting. The updated mitigation illustrated on updated documents provided were reviewed to ensure they met the commission's previous request for a larger replication area. MaryAnn DiPinto outlined her methodology in how the wetland replication area was chosen and calculated. JR asked if Hannaford was notified as to the expanded replication area. Mr O'Neill noted that he was dealing with the property owners as an offer to Walmart were tenants and have apprised them of the current status of the filing. RB asked if there was a construction schedule for the wetland replication. Ms. Dipinto noted there was a mitigation sequence submitted, however the actual time table has not been determined due to other remaining approvals. Mr O'Neill noted based on their construction scheduling spring of 2021 should be the time all of the earth work including the replication is completed. BP reviewed the standards of replication with the applicant. RB had examined the replication sequence And requested a condition be added to the order of conditions that would require any plants that fail to ===PAGE 5=== grow be replaced in kind. He put that in the form of a motion, JR seconded and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion in a roll call vote. CONTINUED: Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Request for Determination of Applicability by Gary Williams for 99 Ruth Street will be held. Work proposed is (Continued )the restoration for vegetation removal. Also proposed ( New) is for the placement of a stairs and dock The Commission issued a positive determination of applicability for the remediation plan by a motion of CL second by TD and a unanimous vote by the Commission roll call to approve the motion. The Commission issued a positive determination of applicability for the Placement of the dock and the stairs by a motion of CL second by TD and a unanimous vote by the Commission roll call to approve the motion. CONTINUED : Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Request for a determination by Andrew Leblanc for work at 362 Townsend Harbor Road will be held. Work proposed is the placement of a dock. JR moved for a negative determination. CL seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve by a roll call vote. CONTINUED : Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Joanne Magurn for work at 238 Fire Road 16 will be held. Work proposed is the Construction of a single family home, driveway, well and sewage disposal system with portions of the construction within the 100 foot buffer zone. Neill Gorman, Brian Butler Joanne and Butch Magurn were present to represent the applicant. CL noted that the new information/documents provided that day did not meet the timing requirements for data submittal and consideration. BP allowed the information to be presented and used for the purposes of providing the applicant feedback. Mr Butler noted that the information was presented commensurate to the prior site visit on Sept 1. Brian Butler reviewed the information presented the Commission subsequent to the previous meeting. Neil Gorman outlined the change from the detached garage that the driveway leading up to that structure is going to be gravel with the remainder to be pavement, therefore significantly reducing amount of impervious originally planned by eliminating the first 640 feet of originally proposed paved driveway and converting it to a proposed gravel. He addressed the span requested from the previous meeting over the flood plain. He noted the applicant is proposing instead to add a second open bottom culvert widening the amount that's actually spanned. He also removed the proposed compensatory storage area in order to reduce work within the zero to 30-foot zone reducing the amount of work by about 2200 square feet which was mostly associated with compensatory storage. He noted that an adjustment was made in the culvert opening as a result of removing the compensatory storage. He contended that there is less flood plain filled as a result. He also noted the removal of mitigation plantings near the location of the detached garage that was no longer needed due to the reduction in filling of floodplain. He further reviewed mitigation plantings by the proposed house structure. He noted that they were removing 1200 square feet of previously impervious area and that area would also be part of the mitigation planting. He noted there was four more Oak trees that would be planted that were added to the plan from the previous meeting. He reviewed the previous proposal upper conservation restricted area on the lot that was originally 3.7 acres and increased it to four acres. He noted 1.3 acres are wetland and 2.7 acres was Upland. Within the 50-foot buffer zone was .9 acres, .4 acres was within the 50 to 100-foot buffer zone and the remaining 1.4 acres was outside the 100 ft. buffer zone. He noted that the total ===PAGE 6=== 16 acres there was a less than 6% disturbance in total. He again re summarized the changes in the plans. Brian Butler answered a concern expressed on the September 1st site walk regarding the number of trees that would be removed which came to 27 trees over a 6 inch diameter in the area of the house and that there would be no tree cutting to facilitate the driveway. He reemphasized that there was a large amount that would be re naturalized based on the numbers represented previously by Mr Gorman. JR noted he was appreciative of the reduction in pavement. He asked what the potential impacts were for snow plowing as the driveway was only 10 feet wide and was concerned about ruts being dug into the driveway. Mr. Gorman clarified that the road shoulders were at 10 ft. width. He expressed concerns regarding the sensitivity of the esker and the impacts to continued plowing and driving on it. He noted that there were some smaller trees to be removed and noted the standards do not differentiate between four inch and six inch tress with the exception of the rate of replacement. He expressed the concern there would be long term stress placed on the Esker. He further noted the septic system should be greater than 100 feet from a wetland and asked if the Board of Health had approved it. It was noted by the applicant that the Board of Health did approve the septic system. JR questioned how this was approved by the Board of Health He also asked if the property had been in front of the planning board. The applicant responded that the planning board deemed it a buildable lot. JR asked if there was a turn around required to be placed in a driveway and cited regulation concerning heavy equipment traversing the driveway. He further noted that wetland crossings under bylaw would not necessarily be allowed if there was an alternative means of access or an alternative configuration of the lot analyzed. CL Noted that he shared many of the concerns previously cited by JR. He felt there were alternative locations available on this thirteen plus acre property that could be built on and that if an order conditions for this proposal were denied, it doesn't mean we are denying development of this property. He expressed general concern of the amount of 30 ft. no touch areas that were being disturbed and would not have to be if the home were built elsewhere on the property. He further noted that the esker the road was on was very narrow and sensitive. In some areas it was as little as 14 ft. wide at the crown and expressed concern the road disturbance would eventually go beyond the crown. He also stated that he felt packed gravel was impervious and he would actually prefer pavement as it would be more stable. He further wanted to examine if there was a waiver granted from the Board of Health for the septic system as the Town regulations prohibited septic systems within 100 ft. of a wetland. He wanted to know what the waiver was based on and if wetlands were taken into consideration or if it was based solely on Public Health issues. He noted that there were no paths to access the Lake or any docks on the plan shown for access to the Lake, therefore the plan was incomplete. He strongly recommended if an order of conditions was approved that conditions be added that the 50-foot zone now be considered the no touch zone expanding from the 30 ft. no touch. He indicated there were still some questions on the math that he felt was not answered and that the Commission should be given time to review that. He indicated uncertainty over the tree replacement count strategy and how it would technically meet the requirements of the bylaw. He noted that identifying the tree removal count to those over 6 inch diameter was arbitrary and the regulation does not restrict the diameter. He questioned how many trees were over the 8 inch diameter which requires two replacement trees for each removed tree. He noted that if it was on the plan he had not had the time to review it. He was uncertain about replacing trees with shrubs as their value in function appear to be substantially different. He questioned if the Planning Board had reviewed and approved this plan as prior LCC request reviews have had problems with emergency vehicle turn around requirements. He noted the potential that adding a turnaround could also change the plan. He noted that he would like to be sure to see the final plan before taking a vote. TD noted the cart path that across the wetland is hard packed gravel and actually would result in very little disturbance to the wetland and indicated support of the plan. Despite the crossing of the wetland, where they have sighted the house actually would minimize the total disturbance on the esker. He noted that going further south on the esker would require grading that would be quite ===PAGE 7=== severe and would be more detrimental to the stability of the esker despite not being within 50 feet of the wetland. He said based on the site walk his previous concern of a span is actually unnecessary and the site walk changed his original opinion and he fully supported the application as presented. RB felt that CL and JR eloquently described his concerns on the location of the house and felt the by-law requires the commission to see if there are other less impactful locations that could be determined that could eliminate the need for a waiver from the local by-law and that the house could be moved to a less sensitive location.. BP noted he agreed with TD and felt that this area proposed for the house was the least impacting and felt he was in favor of the proposal. He further noted there were two members that indicated a favorable outlook on the project and that TD was no longer going to be member of the commission as of tonight. He stated due to Mullens rules the applicant had two choices. The applicant could withdraw and reapply but notice of intent or declined to agree to a continuance and it could go to DEP for a potential lack of action. Joanne Magurn noted that she felt they have met the regulation requirements of multiple local agencies, have DEP approval, and could not understand what more they would need to do to have the commission approve it. BP said the Commission was within its rights to deny or approve the application, but to approve it they would have to grant a waiver. The applicant asked for clarification as to what constituted a majority. There was some discussion between the applicant and the Commission initiated by BP if four votes were required to pass this project? Neil Gorman ask if less than four votes constituted a lack of action. BP noted in his opinion yes. He noted, stressing it was his opinion only, a three to two vote against the project was not a denial but a lack of action. Based on this discussion, the applicant expressed their preference would be to go for a lack of action as opposed to a continuance. RB made a motion to approve the application as submitted TD seconded. BP stated that in the case of a lack of action, the Town Bylaw would not apply. RB did not agree with the statement regarding the interpretation of a majority of votes. There was no further discussion. The Commission failed to pass the motion by a vote of PB and TD approved the motion. CL, JR and RB voted no on the motion. . BP did note that the motion failed to pass however there was no denial at the same time. Based on his understanding. Pursuant to the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Solovei Trust for the constru ction of a driveway within the 100 foot buffer zone at 422 Mulpus Road. . Steve Marsden appeared before the commission representing the applicant. CL left the meeting at 10:00 PM and indicated his support of the proposal feeling it was straight forward. Mr Marsden described the current condition of the site, the proposed construction and its relationship to the wetlands. He noted the location of the driveway was based on sight distance requirements offset from a driveway abutting the property a cross the roadway. He outlined the proposed work and that the driveway was proposed to be paved in that it made a more stable surface then a gravel driveway which would also be considered an impervious surface. ===PAGE 8=== RB asked if there was a diagram of the replacement for the existing pipe to ensure it could take a traffic load, Mr Marsden noted the pre-existing culvert has been time tested for heavy traffic and is in good condition and would remain. As there is no grade changes a headwall would not be necessary, RB noted that the site inspection showed the flows under the culvert was clean and did not indicate obstructions. TD noted the driveway may be in the 50 foot no structure zone and it was not shown. He asked if the driveway could be moved. Mr Marsden noted that any change in configurations would result in extra disturbance. Leaving the current culver t in place would minimize any disturbance. The driveway site distance was also emphasized. JR asked if crushed stone may be a better alternative. Mr. Marsden noted that crushed stone would be pushed off in plowing resulting in an unstable surface and more maintenance in sensitive areas and the recharge trenches included in the design would mitigate runoff.TD moved to approve the plan as presented with a standard order of Conditions. JR seconded and the commission voted unanimously. ===PAGE 9=== ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). MM was not available for discussion due to a power outage at his home and no ability to participate in the zoom forum due to lack of internet. NON 99 Ruth Street – update see above EO-32 Brookview Ave, Patricia Adams – received response EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 Updates( If any) NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI NON – 232 Burrage Street EO – 788 Page Street EO- 4 Townsend Harbor Road New Business – CH 61 A release request 360 Flatt Hill Road. The Commission examined the plans and decided that they would not pursue the purchase as they felt it would not meet the criteria the commission looked for. RB moved to allow the sale to proceed. TD seconded and the commission voted unanimously. Old Business – Town Warrant Follow-up discussion on transfer of stewardship from the town to the Conservation Commission of 111 Mulpus Road Rear and 970 New W. Townsend Road. The Commission reaffirmed the submitted warrant articles by a motion of RB noting the commission had previously discussed a list the commission voted on in a previous meeting and was not sure is was necessary but felt it was prudent to be cautious. The commission noted they were small parcels in sensitive habitat that were surrounded by conservation land. TD seconded and the commission vote unanimously to approve the motion by a roll call vote. Update on trails grant – status report, if any. Certificates of Compliance – None to present Extension Permit – none to present Minutes of previous meetings - August 19, 2020, September 2 & September 23, 2020 Committee Reports – Any Updates Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrators determination – Emergency permit follow up 5 Spring St extension Enfacement investigation to go to the agenda Open space and land and Trail use issues and strategies.  –Forestry Planning /Encroachment on town open space  Discussion on Land use policy and discussion of Saliba/ table rock management Communications / public comment/ Adjourn - Meeting Schedule- Next meeting is October 21, 2020 at 7 PM The meeting adjourned at 10:28 PM by a motion of JR, a second by RB and a unanimous vote to approve the motion. Special note by the Conservation Commission ; THANK YOU TODD DWYER FOR ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICEON THE COMMISSION AND BEST WISHES ON YOU R TERM AS A SELECTMEN.