===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, Jeffrey Viviano Conservation Administrator Michael Larouche, Associate MINUTES March 17, 2021REVISED 3/11/21 @ 5:35 PM Second Revision 3/15/2021 @ 10:55 AM 7:00 PM In accordance with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and available for viewing over the Lunenburg Public Access You Tube Channel The Town of Lunenburg, in response to the COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is currently following the guidance from the Lunenburg Board of Health, Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the CDC regarding the virus and steps communities can take to prevent the spread and all town facilities are currently closed to the public. In accordance with the Governor’s Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G. L. c. 30A, § 20, all public meetings are being conducted remotely. This meeting will be able to be found on the Lunenburg Access YouTube channel within 24 hours after the meeting. To Participate Remotely on Zoom members of the public may use cell phones, tablets or computers with audio and video capabilities. The Zoom Meeting ID is 843 6901 4668 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission- REGULAR MEETING Time: Mar 17, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84369014668 Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 One tap mobile +19292056099,,84369014668# US (New York) +13017158592,,84369014668# US (Washington DC) Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcXBSnc2Mv No participant ID is needed, just press # when asked. All participants who are not members of the commission or staff will be muted by the chair. Computer and app users may use the “raise hand” feature to request to speak. To access the raise hand feature, open the participant list by clicking on participants. To ===PAGE 2=== raise your hand, click on the button at the bottom of the participant list. The chair will call on you and unmute you. Telephone audio users may dial star (*) 9 to request to speak after joining the meeting. Members of the public must give their name and address before they begin speaking. Please direct all comments to the chair. If you have trouble accessing zoom or have general questions you can send an email to lcc@lunenburgonline.com during the meeting. Emails containing questions or comments that are to be read aloud at the meeting must be signed with full name, address and phone number. Please be aware that if you are using video, other people will be able to see you and that anything that is broadcast will be recorded. The agenda lists all the topics which may be discussed at the meeting and are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair. Votes may be taken as a result of these discussions. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by Open Meeting Law. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. Call to Order Announcements Public Comment Comments are to be limited to 3 minutes and on a subject matter under the direct jurisdiction of the commission. Comments about current agenda items are to be made during the comment period of the specific agenda item Minutes of previous meetings –March 3 and March 10 2021 Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: 1.0 Appointment: Gini Albertson, Pollinator habitat. Gini Albertson appeared before the commission. She outlined her work with the pollinator habitat on Hollis Road. The proposal outlined a strategy of enhancing the habitat to protect certain species of insects that are considered threatened. The proposal outlined materials that would need to be purchased. She noted that this November will be the fifth anniversary of the habitat and was looking forward to having a big celebration. The total amount of funds need would be a maximum of 1000 dollars. KJ noted that the habitat that Gini and her crew have worked so hard on has been an amazing effort. He noted that he was in favor of funding. Tanner Cole volunteered to contribute some wood chips to the effort. RB noted that Lakeview Nursery would donate up to 300 dollars of plants. KJ moved to approve a maximum of 1000 dollars for the habitat purchased to come from the Hawes gift fund. JR seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. 2.0 Appointment: Discussion of Septic system placement, 25 Pearl Street Mr. Wolfe outline an issue on construction regarding the 4000 gallon holding tank previously approved. He noted that after the installation, the tank was installed in the first location. It was due to the contractor using the original plan as his plan of record. He noted that moving the tank back would be difficult due to its size and the grading would have to be redistributed and it is currently ready to be seeded. JR asked how the tank was installed. Mr. Wolfe noted it was installed with a boom truck in 2 pieces ===PAGE 3=== and is also sealed. It would require a crane to uninstall and would require a crane and is likely to break. Mr. Wolfe noted that ground water on one side was coming in and was dealt with. He was afraid that uninstalling it would likely create a mess due to the ground water. He noted to the commission that the error was discovered this past Saturday and worked was stopped and they self- reported. CL noted that the commission intentionally moved the tank and wondered if the contractor would be responsible for the cost of the new tank? Dan Wolfe noted that it could be discussed with the contractor. BP felt it would likely cause more damage to remove it at this point and may be more protective of the environment to leave it in place. JR was concerned about setting a negative precedent. RB the commission should have the order of conditions amended instead of approving it as a field change. He suggested that perhaps we could convert some bank back to native or add additional plantings. He also noted that the commission should consider a fine. CL agreed with RB’s suggestions of an amendment and the reason it was moved was for long term impacts to the lake. KJ said that he feels a field change was appropriate, as the tank was still outside the 30 foot zone, and that a fine was not appropriate. CC noted that she agreed with RB, but was hesitant about a fine. BP noted to Mr. Wolfe that an amendment appeared to be the sentiment among the commissioners. RB asked if the new placement of the tank would be required to be revisited by the Board of Health. MR Wolfe noted that it would not. JR asked if the fine issue would be discussed at the hearing. BP noted that JR could make a motion, however as there were only six members present that it would likely be a tie vote. JR proposed consideration of a 1000 dollar fine. JR moved to issue such. Cl seconded. KJ asked if we even could assess that amount right at this time. RB stated no. Cl state it would be more appropriate to discuss it at the amended hearing. The vote on the motion was unanimously to not approve the motion. Hearing/Forum for the benefit of the public. NOTE: THIS HEARING IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2021 WORKSHOP DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THIS AGENDA (SEE OLD BUSINESS) The Lunenburg Conservation Commission, under authority granted by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40, Section 8C, is revising the rules and regulations governing the use of Lunenburg land and waters under its care and control. The Conservation Commission will hold a public forum/hearing for considerations of revisions to commission land use policy. The supporting documents are available for review at the Conservation Commission office by calling 978-582-4146 ext 431 by appointment. Emailing a PDF is also an option on request by emailing lcc@lunenburgonline , the meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by March 11, 2021. The initial draft revisions and any alternate proposal or updates will be posted on the town website. The public is invited to attend. Land Use policy to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of CL and a second by JR with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. BP noted that there will be more workshop activities taking place later on in the agenda to finish the workshop items between now and the April 7 meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 for the restoration of the buffer zone (to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) To be continued to the April 07, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of BP and a second by CC with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. ===PAGE 4=== Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.The Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for a Notice of Intent by Proctor Masonry for work at 203 Fire Road 16 for the construction of replacement retaining walls and the removal of trees affecting the current wall structure. ( to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) To be continued to the April 07, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of BP and a second by CC with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Cynthia Ritchie for work at 137 Flynn Road to build a natural stone wall along the waterfront to protect against future erosion of the edges of the land and beach. Cynthia Ritchie and Brett Ramsden were present to represent the applicant. Cynthia recounted the process used to get to this point. She received direction for the application process and noted confusion with WPA form 3. She thanked MM for his guidance through the proposal. She noted that they currently have an engineering proposal for 5000 dollars. She noted other wall activities in around Lake Shirley. She stated that she shared the commission goals for using the natural stones and will be having Brett Ramsden hand lay the boulders. She noted conservation goals listed on the state website. Decisions, she noted, are made on policies and goals, and that she does indeed shares the commission goals. BP noted the diagram was the very first diagram that was received and the commission need the time to discuss the diagram. JR noted that some of the commission went out and examined the site and had no concerns on the rock portion of the proposal and wanted to know more about the replacement of the dry dock and work within that area. He also noted the trees that had recently been cut along the shore and the plan for these trees to be replaced. Cynthia noted one tree hanging on the peninsula had been blown over She questioned the need for the permit for the rock erosion protection. BP noted that yes under both state and local regulations would require the filing. RB noted that the act referred to was MGL ch 40 Section 8 C the Conservation Commission act and this situation was in jurisdiction under MGL ch 131 section 40 and there were also issues of flood plain that would be triggered and it would need to be examined if there were negative impacts to the flood plain and if compensatory storage was required. The other item was that for a replacement wall, it would need to be put back within its original place. The work would be finished during next year’s drawdown so there as time to consider the application and noted that the dry staking would be appropriate MM noted the length on the wall if not naturalized would require a wildlife habitat evaluation under state regulation and the naturalization both avoids this requirement and allows for a more permanent naturalized solution not normally encountered in other walls. Cl noted that more details were needed and that there was drawing that was submitted that shows a cross section and due to the undercutting of the shoreline and he felt replacing that eroded area would not necessarily impact flood plain. He noted that the dimensions shown may need to be adjusted as the height seems to exceed the bank height in most areas. He noted that there was a considerable section of beach on the lot and perhaps the stone on that section was not planned for and that it should be excluded as that would seal off the open area. He also noted a tree replanting detail should be added as well. Cynthia Richie said they did intend to have the rock barrier extend across the now beach area. BP noted he was going to conduct a straw poll if the current style drawing with some details adjusted would be sufficient. Brett Ramsden reviewed the drawings and noted the drawings were based on discussions with the applicant after the site visit. He also noted the collapsing dock and why having a wall there would be necessary. The dock would be repaired without disturbance to the ===PAGE 5=== ground similar to the current configuration. He noted that the wall needed to be run along the beach area due to the erosion and perhaps add granite steps to be able to utilize the beach area with a boundary. Cynthia Ritchie noted that the work would be done in the spring time. BP asked about the need for the plan. CL noted that a full blown engineered plans may not be necessary and that the current drawing should be refined with more detail. He noted the granite steps should be on the drawing and if there was any fill was going to be there. He noted that the adding of stone to the beach area may constitute a new wall. KJ stated while we need more detail on the drawings particularly the beach area, an engineered plan would not be necessary. JR also indicated he agreed with Cl and KJ and that Brett Ramsden has addressed this prior. RB felt an engineered plan is necessary as it is 560 feet of lake frontage. He noted the engineer would have to certify the plans were compliant prior to approval and after construction. The engineers also have the design experience necessary to meet the aesthetic goals as well as the wetland protection regulation goals. CC noted that an engineered plan is not necessary and maybe a separate drawing some elevations of the beach area could be added. KJ noted that the risk of with having others in previous projects have to come back multiple times to address questions with hand drawings, perhaps the engineered plans may be a time saver. CL noted that perhaps we should during straw polls let RB speak first as his argument was compelling with some survey work being needed. JR said Brett Ramsden had the equipment necessary to establish some accurate elevations and he would like to see what Brett could do first. Cl noted that when the lake comes up within the next 2 weeks there would be work within the wetland. Was that acceptable? Cynthia Ritchie asked if this project could be divided in pieces. BP noted that the applicant had the option but would have to refile a new application for items not included in the first plan. It was noted that the project still does not show in the database. MM stated he would check on that issue as there was some delays created by the pandemic dynamics. Brett Ramsden outlined elevation issues and the work methodologies involved. He also noted that there would have to be a cut in the floor of the lake. He noted that if that doesn’t happen it would likely result in other trees being compromised within the future. RB noted that with the lake being full by April first would not be a good condition to work in and that it needs to be completed during the drawdown. CL asked if there would be equipment used. Mr Ramsden noted that there would be some work with a mini excavator to get around the area that there was thicker woods there would need to be a dry bed from a drawdown or there may be tracks in the water. BP recapped the commission points. He noted MM would find out what happened with the DEP filing number. Cynthia Ritchie noted they would go ahead with the engineered survey. She also wondered why there were other walls allowed on Lake Shirley. RB noted that DEP would likely have their own list of questions. BP noted that this item should be continued to the April 21st meeting. BP noted that concerning the questions of walls. Many of them were predating the regulations and many of the walls constructed were due to replacing of existing. Cl moved to continue to April 21st. JR seconded, and the commission unanimously approved the motion to continue with agreement of the applicant. Cynthia asked for feedback on the proposal. Cynthia asked if it was OK to remove three trees including the tree from the area that fell over. MM noted that the tree that has fallen should be removed. CL noted that an administrator’s determination be submitted to keep the process clean. BP asked the commission if it was ok for MM to work with the applicant. The Commission said yes. Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Joann Magurn for work at 238 Fire Road 16 for the construction of a single family home with a drive way crossing. ===PAGE 6=== BP noted that he, MM and RB had a meeting with Town Counsel concerning the legitimacy of refiling a prior denial and the notes from the meeting were on the cloud. MM noted there was no further communications from DEP regarding the communications. He noted that the applicant requested a continuance to the next meeting. RB moved to continue the meeting to April 7 at 7 PM. KJ seconded and the Commission voted unanimously. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to five existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. NOTE: CL RECUSED FROM THIS MATTER DUE TO BEING AN ABUTTER. Greg Roy appeared before the commission representing the applicant. He recalled the history of the continuance from the last meeting to coordinate with the abutter Mr. Luck. He noted they are still working with Mr. Luck however wanted to present the proposal for the commission input. He also noted there is still no DEP number issued. He also recalled the site walk with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Roy reviewed the plans submitted and the existing wall and therefore there was no regulatory bank. He noted there was no 100 foot buffer zone established on the plan as the entire lot is within the 100 foot buffer zone. The 30 and 50 foot was shown on the plans. He noted there was no alteration proposed for land under water body. He noted the limits of the 100- year flood plain. He noted there was no flood plain proposed to be altered. He outlined the wall on the western side would be replaced with a natural stone wall and would match the exiting dimensions. He outlined the activities of remove and replace within the 30 foot no touch zone and noted there was a waiver requested. BP asked if the current patio was a solid concrete. The answer was yes, and it was proposed to be replaced with pavers. Mr. Roy noted the dimension of the patio was proposed to remain exactly the same. Mr. Roy outlined a post that needed to be reset and would reestablish a fence. Mr. Tremblay differentiated the different materials on the patios. Moving east Mr. Roy noted that a kayak rack was requested. He noted it was in an area previously disturbed. He noted that there is an oak stump/trunk that is proposed to be removed and is within the limits of the fence. Between sunset lane and the home it would be a resurfacing of the driveway. He outlined erosion controls placed on the plan. Mr. Roy outlined three retaining walls adjacent to the driveway with the timber retaining wall proposed to be replaced with block in the same dimensions. He noted the area across from the house is proposed to be replaced. The eastern lake wall at the water’s edge is currently a railroad retaining wall and as such there is no regulatory bank in this area and the wall is proposed to be replaced with block material in the same dimension. Mr. Roy noted that he has met with Carl and Phyllis Luck to address their concerns on site and are working to propose a detail that is amenable to the applicant and the Lucks as the wall was built integrally with the Lucks property and are attempting to work out an optimal location for a wall terminus and that has not been resolved. This applies to the walls along the waters on both the easterly and westerly side and an a side wall. RB asked if there is anywhere on the plan that the wall would be in the same dimension as the ghosting of the wall would indicate it comes out into the water. Mr. Roy noted that he would provide clarity on the plans. RB clarified the details on the plans for sections C and B. There are also no details called out at section D and E. Mr. Roy noted he would resolve the discrepancies with the notes on the plans. RB clarified that there would be no filling in the flood plain with the wall. RB asked if there was a new infiltration basin proposed. Mr. Roy noted it was an existing one and that it ===PAGE 7=== would require erosion protection. JR asked if the ongoing negotiations were concerning the wall intersections. Mr. Roy noted yes. A motion was made to continue to April 7, 2021 by JR with a second by KJ and a unanimous vote of the commission to approve the motion. RB abstained. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Empire Management Corp for work at 757 Chase Road for the demolition and reconstruction of a Commercial building with grading and parking.(to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) A motion was made to continue to April 7, 2021 by RB with a second by CC and a unanimous vote of the commission to approve the motion. ENFORCEMENT: Actions continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing. NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street New Business: APR discussion and consideration for Pierce Property on Chase Road (780 Northfield Road) BP noted that this item was taken up at a meeting of the open space commission Tuesday night March 16, 2021 there would be 10 percent funding of the APR by the town. The open space committee recommended the passage. JR asked if there was 10 acres to be donated. BP noted that there has been no official word. RB asked what the current zoning of the land is. RB indicated he was in favor of the APR which is in the amount of 66,500 dollars. He read the proposed warrant. RB moved to a favorable recommendation KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously. CC excused herself from the meeting at 9:35 PM. Old Business Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. BP recalled the last session and the review of the changes proposed by CL. BP noted he spoke with the director of the lands grant programs and that Massachusetts is a home rule state and the commission is free to pass restrictions on recreation use types as long as the land is kept open to passive recreation. CL noted that the land management plans on the Lane and Table Rock properties and there is a defined process to changing the plan. It is not the same process included in this regulation. He asked that we incorporate that process into the proposed commission regulations to ensure the process involved for changes were consolidated into one process so that once a change went through the Land Use Process it would also allow changing the Land Management Plan without further process. ===PAGE 8=== BP noted that the plans only needed to be changed if the uses on the table was changed. CL opined that since the Land Use Regulations are referenced in the Land Management Plans, a change to the Land Use Regulation automatically effects the Land Use Process. CL explained the proposed changes. KJ indicated he would not be in favor of the proposed change. Cl explained that the land management plans can be changed however we would have to go through the process defined in the plan. It was clarified these are only other land use management plans except for Hunting Hill. RB noted it would be likely easier to insert the statement in the land use plans that the plans should conform to the local regulation. BP noted that the current uses outlined in the management plans on those properties are consistent with the uses outlined in our regulations and that the uses are unlikely to be changed rendered to be moot. CL pointed out that the bow hunting provisions outlined contains a requirement for a special permit. BP noted that the author of the plan noted that the intention was simply the land use regulations be followed. CL commented that that was good to know but not what the document says. KJ asked what the details were for having to visit which sites. JR asked that maybe we should require a special permit for bow hunting. KJ noted that the commission should develop its own land use regulations and the two management plans if changed would be a separate process. RB noted the land use plans were drawn up as a requirement of the grant but not as a condition of approval. He felt at this point we should not insert the language and simply change the land use management plans separately. BP felt inserting the language would complicate the process. JR noted that there is no clear answer on this issue. KJ felt that inserting the language would complicate the issue and that there were other parcels not included in the process. RB is not in favor of adding the language. CL felt that the 2 land use plans should be changed at a later date. BP assured CL that there will be a date set for that issue after the final regulations were enacted for the affected parcels. CL noted that with respect to the issue of dogs he noted that the language of control and restrain had the same meaning then we should not change it in our regulation change proposal. CL asked to change the language back to the current language in the current regulation. KJ noted that he is not opposed to matching the town by law. RB noted that he would be opposed to any additional language on the towns by law with the exception of picking up after the dog. BP indicated that CL’s changes will be adopted as proposed. CL noted that the alcohol and quiet enjoyment sections of the regulations that were removed be reinserted. BP asked if we could have CC and JV present and over that item at the next meeting. KJ noted that there is existing state law does not allow open containers and asked if that were covered. CL noted that the proposal would cover open or closed containers. KJ felt that it was an issue that is excessive in regulation. CL noted that it is not without precedent and is in the hunting hill regulation. JR noted that he examined other commission regulations and that there was similar language in those regulations. BP noted that he would prefer to defer to the full board. CL asked about the status on bicycles staying on trails only. BP noted that the issue was addressed in the previous meeting and the commission had decided the insertion was not necessary. CL noted that according to an email from Sharon Jordan that the previous regulations were a result of new trails being cut in. BP noted that there was a provision that new and rerouted trails were prohibited without the express permission of the Conservation Commission and that was satisfactory. BP presented suggested language from Adam Costa regarding the Hunting Hills and that there was a three-party board (a member of the Lunenburg Con Com, Shirley Con Com and the Commonwealth). that governed the use of the hunting hill land area. The language was read to the commission by BP and that the Hunting Hill regulations be added as an appendix and that the current proposed language in the proposed regulations be struck. Cl noted he liked the approach as the regulations on Hunting Hills would conflict with our regulations ===PAGE 9=== and supported the position of town counsel. It was noted by RB, KJ , BP and JR that they would be in favor of adopting Town Counsels regulation and BP said he would make the change to the draft language. JR presented a slide show. He outlined the areas of changes he proposed. He suggested a mission statement that could be inserted. He presented statistics of the percentages of population by usage. He also outlined examples of issues concerning private property issues. He stated the proposed changes that 28 % of the land would allow for firearms hunting. He examined areas in surrounding towns and the square mileage associated. He presented a definition of quiet recreation. He also recommended the establishment of a community garden. He proposed not changing the hours of operation from dawn to dusk as in the current regulation, with limited exception that would require special permission. KJ indicated that he was not in favor of changing the existing hours of operation. JR presented statistics of accidents. He suggested that hunting be restricted to white tail deer. He suggested adding a new section outlining quiet outdoor recreation. He also suggested a drunkenness section and motorized vehicles with exceptions. He suggested a prohibition of an open carry weapon but allow concealed weapons. He outlined statistics on hunting accidents. He also outlined language for dog control, use of grills and overnight camping, tree stands, traditional bow hunting and top dressing of animals caught and hunting hills. He further defined hunting and differentiated sports hunting and natural predation. He also outlined the issues with respect to the use of lead shot. He cited statistics that bow hunting has increased in popularity. He further outlined the amounts of deer taken by hunters. He outlined statistics that show an increase in the use of open spaces. He constructed a review of the money obtained by the fees of hunting licenses. He noted the funding sources for the purchasing of different open spaces. The proposed mission statement was reviewed. JR noted this was to reinforce state law and the mutual goals. KJ and RB noted they didn’t see the need to add it to the language of the regulations. CL noted that a mission statement is always a good idea. BP noted he agreed with KJ and RB that the current introduction is sufficient. BP reviewed our current introduction. JR added if it would make sense to ask the public. The order of the language was examined in relation to the mission statement. KJ, RB and BP noted they are not in favor of changing the order. CL and JR stated they are in favor. Quiet recreation was raised. KJ noted this issue in many places in JR’s presentation and that snow mobiles needs to be addressed. KJ noted that in one year there were more injuries and accidents by snow mobiles than there were in hunting. KJ noted that we have to be open to compromise and we need to be careful of what we allow and what is prohibited. JR referred to his decibel chart. He noted that snow mobiles run at 90 db and a shotgun blast is at 170 db. He noted that the snow mobile clubs also do many beneficial activities concerning the trails. He noted that it is a family activity. RB noted that a shotgun blast is very intermittent and that snowmobiles make a more consistent and drawn-out noise. With regard of changing the language of permitted uses KJ, RB, and BP were not in favor of making the changes and JR and Cl were in favor. BP reiterated that the issue of hunting will be revisited when all seven members are present. With respect to the hours of operations as presented: KJ, RB and BP are opposed to changing the language proposed. The proposed 1.2.1 regarding infringement of quiet enjoyment, KJ, RB, and BP state they were against the change. CL noted it would need further work. 1.2.2 proposed by JR about drunkenness, alcoholic beverages, and glass container and it was noted by BP is that it would be taken up at the next meeting. CL noted it should go back to the current regulation and he would support that. 1.3 as proposed RB, KJ ,BP and CL noted the added language was not necessary and the current proposed is covered adequately. ===PAGE 10=== 1.4 regarding carrying of firearms (concealed versus open carry) JR proposed language was re- examined and it was agreed that it could be reworded. RB, KJ and BP noted they were satisfied with the current proposed language and CL noted he was opposed to any firearms. CL noted that in Massachusetts a license to carry does not differentiate between open and concealed carry. BP noted that this issue will have to be revisited with a full roster of the commission present. 1.5 JR withdrew and the commission will continue to forward the current proposed. 1.6 With respect to Dog regulations the definition of restraint and the email from the police chief. JR further explained the definitions of restraint and control. KJ feels the definition of CL that was adopted was sufficient, BP, CL and RB also agreed the current adopted change by CL was sufficient 2.1 Overnight camping was reviewed. KJ noted that he had no issues with the proposed changes. RB noted he was not in favor of the proposed change. CL noted that he didn’t have any issues with the proposed change. BP indicated the proposed changes would be adopted. 2.4 Permits for tree stands was stated that they are not adopted as noted by KJ, RB, BP and CL. With respect to the dressing of deer KJ , BP, RB and CL were in favor of leaving the current proposed in place. 2.5.2 Was considered moot. BP reiterated that the items that were not discussed would be taken up by the full board. The matter was closed to the regular meeting. RB asked if JR was opposed to the forwarding of left-over issues if there was a clear majority of the commission in favor of a certain direction. JR indicated that his item of most concern was opening up further lands to the firearm hunting. JR also indicated that he would want the full board present for that issue and the issue of limiting animals hunted. BP assured that when the formal hearing requiring motions and votes takes place, he would want the full board present. Update on trails grant – status report, if any. Certificates of Compliance Extension Permit – Committee Reports – Any Updates Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrator’s determination – Open space and land and Trail use issues and strategies:  Forestry Planning /Encroachment on town open space ( draft plan discussion) Update on Rayno/Hollis To be taken up at the meeting of 4/7/2021 Communications / public comment asked BP if there was any public comment. No one had comment Adjourn RB moved to adjourn, KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. Meeting schedule: Next meeting is April 7, 2021 at 7PM ===PAGE 11===