Conservation Commission Meeting - June 23, 2026

According to my clock, it's a little after seven, but I'm usually a little bit fast. So, I'm going to call the meeting to order anyway. So, um, with that, I'm going to call to order the Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.

We are holding this meeting remotely this evening as we have for a while now because on uh March 22nd uh 2025 sorry March 28th 2025 Governor Healey signed in into law an extension for hybrid remote meeting options for municipalities which will extend unless further amended until June 30, 2027.

This is an accessible meeting for the public. There's a raise your hand feature um at the bottom. Uh there's a with all else failing wave your hand.

And there's also a chat feature. So if you want to be heard or you have a comment um by all means please feel free to participate um with one caveat. If you're not speaking, please keep your um your microphone muted because we will get your feedback and that could inter that could interfere with somebody's presentation. We wouldn't want that. Um this meeting has been duly posted and

noticed in the town hall and on our website and that's in accordance with Massachusetts laws and town of Dartmouth bylaws. Our first matters and we do have a quorum tonight. Our first matters are um administrative and the first is to receive the conservation commission meeting minutes for April 26, 2026. May I have a motion to that effect, please?

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes. Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Um, the second administrative or updates from staff.

So, uh, Jennifer, either you or Eduardo may feel free to give us any updates that you wish to do. So, sure. Um, I do have one question about the minutes procedure. if is there a time frame um in which if you guys receive them via email in advance um that you're comfortable with approving them? In other words, just to get them through the approval process more quickly. Um like if we had sent these

out five day at least 5 days or a week ahead of the meeting, is that is there usually a standard process where you don't need to receive them first through the meeting? Um, it's a great question.

They've been in that vein received first primarily, I think, to um, accommodate the delay in actually getting the minutes out. Now, I I don't know if that's still necessary, but technically, we receive the minutes, the general public and us get a right to look at them. So I would say uh if we get the minutes a week before the meeting that'll be ample time.

There's no requirement um that it has to be received first and then voted upon.

We can do that at the same meeting. So, we'd vote to receive, for instance, the uh April 26, 2026.

And if we had those minutes, let's say a week before the meeting after it's been voted to receive, then it would be voted to approve.

So, there's no reason it can't be done the same evening is what I'm saying.

Okay. That's just helpful for us to know. I think moving forward we can be a little bit more efficient and get them posted to the public's a little Yeah, I think they had a problem with that before having them u submitted in a timely fashion. So I I don't know that it's something that had to be done.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, not but I think from the standpoint of just getting them done and making sure we we were able to take care of that. That's how they handled that before and this has been a vestage of that. We've never changed it.

Okay.

Um um thank you for that background info.

It's helpful.

Um so just a couple of um updates. Um I've been working with HR to get our um administrative position um like the the job classification and um basic duties put together, the job description for that so that we can post it. Hopefully, it'll be posted before um the end of the week. I'll meet with Cody tomorrow and just go over a couple of last minute items. Um and then it should be posted

and hopefully we'll be able to get interviews scheduled before our HR director leaves um so that uh we can get that process well underway. Um because I know that'll slow things down a little bit when when that position's vacant.

Um, and then, uh, so Eduardo and I are excited for that. I think that's going to be a huge help. And absolutely.

Yeah. Um, and then we are working on an archiving and kind of purging project to try and open up some more space in the office to fit the third person. Um, because as if any of you guys have been there, there's a lot in lot file cabinets.

Probably a good 20 or so. So, um, we're looking at archiving a lot of the information and there's a lot of duplicate, um, plans and NOI submittals and all of that in the files. So, we're looking to get rid of some of that duplication. So, um, hopefully next time you come to the office, you'll see that it's a a little bit more um a little more space so we can fit in that third

person. Um and then just a side update that um a survey went out for the water quality advisory committee um for all of the um appointees including Liz um and then the staff that are uh part of that committee as well um as far as getting that first meeting scheduled. So hopefully that'll take place sometime in July. Um and then Liz or myself will be able to report out um kind of how that

first meeting went and how it ties back into everything we're doing as a commission.

Sounds good. Eduardo, anything that you'd like to add?

Um Jennifer pretty much covered everything uh I believe that we had. Uh so I have nothing really nothing else to to add on to that.

Okay, appreciate that. Um that concludes the administrative portion of the meeting.

Um we're now going to the wetland site inspection determinations for minor projects. And the first one we have and the only one we have is 788 Smith Neck Road. So um with that, I would ask for staff's input on that, please.

Uh yes. Um it might be easier if I show the commission uh a view of the site uh just to kind of explain where the flags are and uh what we did there.

Uh I haven't done this in a while. Let's see if this works.

Hold on one second. Okay.

Newfound appreciation when the engineers have a problem with this, huh?

Oh, yeah.

I I may have to just I might I might disappear for one second and then I'll just hop right back in. Give me one moment.

Okay hopefully that does it.

Okay, can I screen?

Okay. Um so staff um so this is for a septic uh replacement uh and so staff went out and flagged um two different wetlands. So I'll start off on the left over here. So Concom 1A through concom 6A uh delinates the edge of a bordering vegetated wetland. Um a much it's a much larger wetland. Uh there's multiple kind of connecting ones. Um the further down you go. Um staff also and so this red line here

shows the estimated buffer zone of this uh edge here. and staff um also delineated a small little pocket wetland here uh labeled concom 1 through concom 6 uh isolated uh from this back portion here uh as noted from this little lime green circle here and its buffer zone is this orange line going around here estimated 100 foot buffer zone um there is a flood zone off on the left and um

back portion of the slide. You can't see it from here uh because it extends a little further out. Um staff did not um flag the wetlands across the street here as that belongs to a different owner, but its buffer zone pretty much encumbers uh the orange buffer here um give or take. Um, so that's something that the engineer uh will have to take into consideration as well. Uh, and so staff is um,

uh, recommending the, uh, commission to approve this both of these wetland lines.

And when did you go out for that, Eduardo?

Um, trying to remember the date.

Was it?

Yes. Yesterday.

Yesterday.

Yep.

All right. So, that was the 22nd.

So, let me just stop sharing here.

Okay. Does any uh commissioner have a question?

I don't see any. I'll entertain a motion to approve uh the delineations.

um that were determined by staff on site on June 22, 2026 for 788 Smith Neck Road.

Second, we have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our first public hearing is a continued public hearing on D file 15-2821 NOI 26-11. It's an after-the-act notice of intent for Rowan Drury proposing to install new updated central vacuum stalls, pavement kiosks, sight paving and buffer zone restoration work within the 200 ft riverfront area uh and the 100 ft buffer zone to an inland bank.

The regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 2, 10.54, 10.58, and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

I'm sorry, I didn't say what this was.

I'm sorry. Uh, this land is map 167, lot 101, otherwise known as 271 State Road.

Now, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously. Um, we have gotten a request from the applicant's engineer to continue this matter until our September 15 2026 hearing. uh either Jennifer or Eduardo, do you want to elaborate on the request and whether you believe in your opinion that granting such a request particular particularly where we have uh an after the fact with some restoration being

required should be continued until the September meeting and what that might do for any plantings that have to be installed.

Sure. Um, so we had a chance to meet with the applicant, uh, the property owner and their, um, attorney and I'm sorry, not their attorney, their engineer. Um, and it was a meeting with several other, uh, department heads. So that included um our town engineer um town planner, building commissioner um and a couple other folks um just to get a sense of kind of there are multiple issues at play for this project. Um, and

because of the changes that have taken place out at the site as an after the-act filing beyond the vegetation that was removed along the riverfront area um, right along the stream bank um is going to require a ZBA waiver request and it also will require planning board site plan review. Um, and because of that, they're looking at, you know, at least a couple of months before they get

through that process. Um, and that's why they're requesting to continue into September with us. Um, as far as the plantings, I actually think right now we're in a time frame where we wouldn't want to do the plantings right now because their survival rate is probably not going to be that great. Um and there's a lot of other landscaped areas that need to be considered where landscaping was removed and it's either

now paved or rock. So um that that all needs to get resolved jointly through the ZBA and conservation process and also planning board. Um so I think it makes sense for us to wait till then. We can certainly still do plantings in the fall.

Okay. So the time frame if we were to have a meeting as requested in the in September, assuming they don't ask for yet another continuence or the plans are not acceptable, um there would be ample time for them to put their plantings in and meet the requirements of any conditions. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions? Uh Liz, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the only question that I have for either the chair or Jennifer would be if the ZBA doesn't provide the waiver uh necessary to move forward in your experience, how would that affect how we move forward or not with the application? And the only reason I ask this is because this has been protracted out now for almost a year with this particular after the fact notice of intent. Um, and it's my

understanding that this is not the first offense of this particular location. So, I'm just kind of curious how that would play out if the waiver is not granted.

That's a good question, Liz. I mean, I'll speak to it and Jennifer, you certainly can amplify any comments I make or Eduardo. Um but the zoning issue will actually have an impact on what they can do. So we can approve or not any plans that are submitted but our approval doesn't give them any clearance from zoning. Okay?

And so if zoning doesn't give them the waiverss then they can't create the plan that was approved. So they got nothing from us. Okay. Um, and that's their choice. I mean, um, but they if you you really need to have this coordinated if you're the developer/applicant to be sure you don't end up having to come back to one of the original boards or commissions hatinand saying, "Hey,

look, can you amend what you approved a month and a half ago because I can't do what I said I can do. I didn't get what I thought I might get.

Understood.

At least that's my interpretation of it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I could just add to that. So, let's say in in the scenario you were asking about that the ZBA denied their request because basically that the ZBA request is they're already a non-conforming lot because their lot coverage greatly exceeds what's allowed in aquafer protection district. Um, you know, by quite a bit. It's 20% lot coverage. So, if that was a new undeveloped lot, they'd only be able to um develop 20% of

that lot. So, they're obviously way beyond that. They're probably like in the, you know, 75 to 80% range. They've added additional impervious by removing like a vegetated island and adding um a driveth through parking area and then a payment kiosk. Um and so that only increases their impervious cover. So, it's they're what they're really looking to do is get relief to make it a a non-conforming

um lot, even more non-conforming. Um, and so if the ZBA doesn't grant that, um, then they're going to have to kind of go back to the drawing board, to Mike's point, and come up with a different scenario, whether they're removing asphalt or whatever it might be, um, where they're still satisfying what's outstanding with us, um, as part of their restoration plan, um, but, you know, knowing that they don't have the

relief from zoning. Um, and then site plan approval has to do more with the conversion.

One of the ways they're trying to offset their impervious is by proposing to convert a couple of unused parking spaces um to a vegetated area. And so they need some uh site plan approval for that as well. So, they'll they'll go to zoning first shortly and they they'll probably file for planning board around the same time they apply for zoning um but get that ZBA approval first um or the ZBA

determination site plan review and then they can come back to us knowing um that there's other thresholds they need to meet with us um as far as storm water and riverfront area coverages for redevelopment, all those sort of things.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Good question.

Good question. Does anyone else have any questions or comments?

Um, at this juncture, uh, I think it's appropriate to take up the applicant's request. So, I'll entertain a motion to continue uh public hearing on D file 15-2821 um at applicant's request until September 15, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Moved. Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes. Richard.

Yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

We're moving now to the second public hearing and that's a continued public hearing on D file uh 15-2825 NOI 26-16.

That's on the notice of intent for Morgan Blum care of random fan uh for the construction of a commercial automobile dealership within the 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland um in the BBW. The regulations are 310 CMR 10.02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 53 uh lot uh 531 174 lot 2/24.

It's otherwise known as zero state road.

Um I will have to recuse myself. So um Liz, if you want to take over on this, please.

You're muted, Liz. There you go.

Yeah.

Uh let's see.

Hold please.

Let me get my notes.

So, this one is a continuence request as well, right?

Right. But you're going to have to ask about waving the reading and then after that find out if anyone has any comments and then Yeah. So, I just I recuse myself because I um full disclosure, I've done work for the owners of that property, not the applicant. But that's still I think it's too close to call. If anything, I think it is a putting me in a position of having a problem. So, I

choose to recuse myself.

Okay.

Okay. So, I will Did you I I apologize. Did you already read the the public?

I read it all in. All you have to do is start with asking of whether they want to wave the reading.

Yep. All right. So, commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So, moved.

Second.

Uh roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, at this time, uh, if there's anybody here, uh, well, obviously the applicant is not here as they are looking to continue into the next hearing. Um, so at this time, I will, um, turn to staff.

um for any comments on this particular hearing here.

Sure. So um the reason the applicant is requesting a continuence is we are in the process of peer review and um as we discussed at the last meeting our um usual peer reviewer um Mr. Reposo also recused himself from this filing um again because of doing work with the former property owners um previously and so we're working with CI for the peer review on this and um we just received the first round of

comments today and so those will be forwarded to the applicant um tomorrow and they knew they were going to need some time to review those comments and respond so they felt it would just made more sense to continue this evening to the next hearing which is uh July 7th.

Okay.

Um commissioners, do you have any questions in regards to this particular file?

And is there anyone from the audience who would like to be heard on this matter?

I'm not seeing anyone. So, at this juncture, I will entertain a motion to continue public hearing DP file 15-2825, notice of intent 26-16 to the next conservation commission meeting on July 7th, 2026.

So, move.

Do I have a motion?

Second motion on the floor. Roll call vote. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

And my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

All right. Good job. Thank you for taking over.

Of course.

Our third public hearing, excuse me, is a continued public hearing, D file 15-20 2826, NOI 26-15. It's on the notice of intent from Ray Young care of Tom Schultz uh for the construction of an above ground infiltration system with associated grading and chain link fence within the 100 ft buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland BVW uh with an interior intermittent stream. The regulations here are 310 CMR 10.02 2

10.53 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The proposed um storm water management system is associated with the construction of a new plus or minus 5,785 square ft convenience store parking lot gas station landscaping and additional storm water features not within a jurisdictional resource area uh including buffer zone.

on land described as map 63, lot 12, otherwise known as 411 Bon Corner Road.

I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

Move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

James, yes.

Liz, yes.

Megan, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, there anyone here this evening that wants to be heard on this? There is a request that we continue this as well, but I I don't want to cut anybody off who's here specifically for that purpose.

Okay, I don't see anybody um either Eduardo or Jennifer. What is the reason for this request?

So, for this one, the um similar to the last one, the peer review is ongoing. Um the applicant just submitted the revised plans uh last week and um Gus Reposo is in the process of re of reviewing those and providing his comments. Um and so the applicant has chosen to continue to allow time to respond to those. Um, so we should be I would think by the July 7th meeting at

least we should have some um like a response to the peerreview comments and um some revisions to the plans.

That makes some sense to me. Uh does anyone have any questions?

Not seeing any. I'll entertain a motion at uh to continue the public hearing on uh DP file 15-2826 in accordance with applicants request uh until our meeting of July 7, 2026 at 7 p.m. I have a motion to that effect, please move.

Second.

We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Liz, yes. Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Our final public hearing this evening is a public hearing on uh D file 15-28-27 NOI 26-17.

It's on the notice of intent from Kevin Madios care of Kevin Silva uh for the construction of a commercial apartment complex parking lot grading and associated storm water basin within the 100 excuse me buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland BVW. Uh the regulations involved are 310 CMR 10.02 02 10.55 and section 360-2 of the town of Dartmouth bylaws. The land is described as map 163, lot 31, 32, and 35. It's

otherwise known as 810 State Road. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

We have a seconded motion on the floor.

Roll call vote. Megan, yes.

Liz, yes.

James, yes. Richard, yes.

Donald, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Is there someone here this evening that wants to present on behalf of the applicant?

This one was a request to continue as well.

Okay.

So, just we're just opening and continuing.

Well, what what's the reason for the continuous?

Sure. So basically um it's similar to the last two except for the peerreview process hasn't even started for this yet because they're the applicants engineer met with um DPW engineering and went over their plans and storm water received quite a few comments on things they needed to change to meet our um local regulations.

Um so they're kind of going back to the drawing board. um they don't expect to have revised plans to um gus to start the peerreview process until late this week, early next week.

Um so that's why they're looking to continue to the 21st. So they're going to skip the 7th as well.

All righty. Well, that sort of makes sense, too, you know.

But um anyone here this evening that came specifically to speak about this particular application?

I don't see anyone. Um commissioners I'll entertain at this juncture unless somebody has strong objection. I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing on D file 15-2827 in accordance with applicants request until our July you said it was 23rd uh 21st 20 July 21 2026 at 7 p.m. So moved.

Second.

We have a seconded motion vote.

Megan, yes.

James, yes.

Ronald, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, we're now concluded with the public hearings. We're going to our discussion items. And the first discussion item had to do with um approving uh discussing and approving the uh proposed meeting schedule for July 2026 through January 2027.

In other words, uh to January 2027, excuse me. In other words, the next six months. Uh that was previously circulated. Does anyone have any comments regarding that schedule? Uh there Karen has raised her hand. Go right ahead Karen.

Hi. Can you hear me?

I can.

Excellent. So I think I may already know the answer to this. Um what I was listening for has not been heard yet. So I'm curious if it was not on the schedule or got changed from the schedule today. Um and if it did, I was curious if you could provide me with a new date. It was about a bike path that's supposed to be going through Dartmouth's old Fall River Road all the

way through Westport's Old Bedford Road.

Yes, she didn't hear wrong. It wasn't on the agenda. I don't know if they've made their filings with the commission.

I see I see Jennifer shaking her head now. So, there's not even been a filing with the commission. So, it hasn't been continued because there's been no filing.

I see. Okay. So, I should I should um check in with you guys periodically to see if there's a filing to see then if it would be scheduled for a meeting.

Yeah, we usually post our agendas. Um and those agendas are posted on the Town of Dartmouth Conservation Commission website. There's also, I believe, a subset for the town's website called agendas. And I would check those because if it's not on that agenda in writing, um, technically we can't we can't hear it unless it's an item for discussion, which it doesn't sound like that would be.

I understand. So, okay. Well, I will let you guys get on with your meeting and um I will leave the meeting.

So, thanks guys. Have a great night.

No, you're welcome. Take care.

Thanks. Um, so you're just you're also welcome to reach out to our office anytime or stop by if you're in town hall and we can kind of let you know if we have something on the horizon. Sometimes people will reach out to us ahead of time. Um Okay.

Okay.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Uh thank you for that input as well, Jen. because sometimes people I just you know what we're trying to do is make sure that anybody who's have who has an interest in something uh is able to participate and obviously uh Karen had an interest in it but unfortunately um the information she received was not completely accurate because there had been no filing. Um, in any event, we were talking about the

uh scheduling for the next 6 months. Uh, at this point, I would certainly entertain a motion to approve this uh meeting schedule that had been opposed in um email form for July 26th to January 2027.

Second.

There is seconded um motion. Roll call vote. James. Yes, Donald.

Yes, Megan.

Yes, Liz.

Yes, Richard.

Yes, my vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

Um, can I just make a quick quick note?

I'm sorry. Um, we had to we posted an another amended agenda to today um because we had an issue come up over the weekend. So, I don't know if you've seen the most recent version because again, it was sent today.

um that had another discussion and vote item added. Um if if you don't have it handy, I can read what it says.

Why don't you read what it says because I I don't have it handy unless I were to Okay.

notes, but I don't have that handy.

Um so the the discussion item reads, "Discussion and vote. adopt a policy limiting limiting public access at conservation parcels from sunrise to sunset. Um, and if you'd like, I can give some context to that.

Yeah, why don't you give context, but it doesn't sound like it's a bad idea.

Okay. Um, so we um the police chief uh Chief Lec reached out to me on Monday and let me know that they had an issue at one of the conservation parcels over the weekend um with a homeless couple um becoming agitated with some other visitors and it escalated and led to um uh no actual violence occurred but um it led to a knife being drawn and a gun being drawn. Um so it escalated pretty

quickly. Um and there what the police department is looking for is um there there's really not an avenue um for them to remove people who are there after hours. Um whether it be, you know, teenagers who are there um you know, want to have a drink uh in a isolated area um or whether it be um a homeless person or persons looking for a place um to camp out. um it just puts the police

department in a sticky situation as far as removing them from the property without having any type of policy or ordinance in place um that limits public access because these are public properties.

Um, so, uh, one way that I've dealt with this, um, you know, that we we also encountered similar problems, um, when I was managing park facilities in San Diego is, um, we would post the hours sunrise to sunset. Um, and that at least because it's posted and it's part of a policy, it gives um, officers a means to enforce that.

Think that's reasonable. I I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. I mean, after after sunset, there's really pretty much just liability waiting for us. But what do the rest of the commissioners think?

I concur wholeheartedly.

It's such an odd location, too, because it's pretty public.

Look, I'm surprised this continues to be an issue, but yes, I agree.

Yeah, it's a well, you know, it may not prevent, but what I'm hearing is the police are saying, "Hey, our hands are tied unless you have hours of operation." So, in other words, there has to be a restriction. If there's a restriction, then we can enforce it. Otherwise, we're hardressed to tell somebody they have to leave because there's no rule that says you have to. Um, and so, uh, I and I

really think though as a matter of a matter of policy, there probably should have been, okay, because there's really not much good that would happen.

Nobody's going to do uh, you know, a nature walk through any of the trails after sunset.

I mean, unless they're bats or vampires or something, they're just not likely to want to do it.

So, the likelihood is the people who are using those areas after sunset are probably doing things they wouldn't want to do in public.

Yeah, I agree. I I think it's um it it makes sense for a lot of reasons.

But what do you think a good time frame is? Sun. Well, does he want an actual hour like, you know, 6:00 in the morning until 8:30 at night or just sunrise to sunset?

I think hours become hard because of the seasonal variation. So, if we absolutely they do set it allows, you know, I mean, an officer can easily look at what is the, you know, besides the visual cues can look and see, okay, sunset was at 4:17. And it's dark in the winter time now and you know it's 6 o'clock at night. Somebody's here so it's well after sunset.

All right. I I think that's reasonable request. Um and I think it's probably overdue and overlooked um by us as certainly by the town too. So, uh, I would I would entertain a motion to establish, and I think we do it for all conservation properties, not just for one, that we establish uh hours of use for all conservation properties from sunrise to sunset. Um, any discussion on that,

Mike? Who's going to uh who's going to prepare these signs, make these signs, maintain these signs?

Well, yeah, that's a good question. But if we do the hours of operation, my guess is we probably ask DPW to make the signs like they normally would for other town properties. And uh then who maintains them? Probably as well maintained as most of the town signs.

Probably not at all. Okay. Just if you look around, you'll see most of the town signs are bent, um, defaced and/or faded due to exposure to the elements, and they haven't been replaced. They did a they did something a while ago where they replaced a lot of the street signs, which was very helpful for somebody who's driving and wasn't familiar with the area because then you could actually

read where where you were or where your intersection was. But I don't believe a lot of the town signs are in great shape. But that would be a DPW.

Let me ask you this question also. What is the procedure to get these signs made and posted and how long will it take?

I don't know that answer.

I I can kind of chime in if you want. Um yeah, please.

Typically, um we would have the signs fabricated. Um, so conservation would have them fabricated because it's for like conservation properties and we wouldn't necessarily post them at every single facility even though the vote is for all the facilities. We would post them in the areas where we currently need them. Um, and and any, you know, any problem areas that we've had problems in the past or currently have

problems. Um, and typically when I have placed these orders in the past, I have extras made so that in the case of vandalism or um, graffiti that can't be cleaned up u that we have a stockpile of them and then yes, we would work with DPW or the facility staff to have the signs installed. Um, so it's usually a joint effort.

Okay. Thank you. Liz, you were asking a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the only comment I wanted to make was, and I think I know the answer, but I just want to cross all tees and dot the eyes. I know DNRT sometimes will host events.

I'm not certain whether they're on town property or not, but they're certainly on conservation property where they'll do things like um taking brief little public walks to find particular bird varieties that might be displaying activity during sunset hours and and so on and so forth. How would this prohibit them from going forward with some of those educational events that might take place on conservation parcels?

Um, could if they don't get permission to do it might just be something to consider. I know we're looping in all the conservation parcels, but I just I don't know if that's pigeon holding us when they're going to do something on our property, just as I'm sure they would want us to let them know if we were going to host some event on DNRT property.

Yep. Okay.

Okay. Because you want to I mean for your insurance purposes, for liability purposes, you'd want to make sure Okay, guys. Do you have your insurance covering this? So, the town isn't going to be responsible if somebody walks into a tree or, you know, they they get they get stung by a bee and they got really the allergic reaction. I mean, those things can happen. I realize walking

into a tree sounds a little stupid, but I can tell you I've I've whacked my head on a low-lying limb, not paying attention. Um, maybe it's just I'm so stupid. I didn't look where I was going.

But, you know, to be honest with you, I just think, you know, from a town standpoint, I'm sure if we turned this over to town council, we'd probably have a billboard we have to put up. But, um, we, you know, I think we do need we do need to put up some signage on on hours of operation. I know it may mean that if organizations like a DNRT want to do a

bird watch and they want to get there before sunrise because the birds do something before sunrise and they want to see it. All they got to do is ask permission. They can get permission to do it. So it wouldn't preclude them, but they just can't do it on their own.

And frankly, they shouldn't be doing it on their own anyway without us knowing it because it's it has the appearance of a townsponsored event.

Well, Mike, those signs often have verbiage in there except as where allowed or and or permitted. Um I think town all you do is just say unauthorized uh you know unauthorized use before sunrise or after sunset is not allowed and it and you've done it you know um so enforcement is a whole different thing but I I don't think we're going to be out there monitoring. We're not going to

do like they do at Round Hill and have people at the gate so to speak. However, that isn't the purpose. The purpose here was our police department indicated that without something like that, they're not able to address a situation like was recently described because they can't kick somebody off. Okay. I mean, I suppose if somebody drew a knife or something, I guess that's a whole

different thing. You could arrest them for that, but let's just say it was a verbal altercation, you know, and whatnot. It didn't get to that point.

what would be their recourse? They'd have none, right?

They can't say, "You got to leave." Um, I guess it's just easier for them to do what they need to do to enforce or to prevent certain situations from getting out of hand. Um, and I and I do think it's, you know, even without that episode, it just seems to me it's always a good idea because after hours is when things like somebody said kids go to get a drink. Yeah, they

do. We were all kids and at least we can say, "Hey, we had it posted. We said you can't you shouldn't do it." All right.

Um, you know, just like when you look at some of the beach areas, it says no lifeguard on duty. You know, swim at your Well, we're not going to put a sign up that says drink at your own risk, but I mean, you know, we're basically saying you have no right to be here.

Anyway, that's my thought on it. But again, we'll do I think uh anyone have any better, more brilliant ideas than that?

Well, that's that's a first. Nobody's So, I'll entertain a motion. Did I already make the motion?

No, we didn't.

I'll entertain a motion to authorize uh Jennifer to have signage made for selected uh conservation commission properties indicating that the uh hours of use are from sunrise to sunset without previous or prior authorization.

Can I ask to to amend that motion? Um yeah, go ahead.

Because I think really what we we are looking for is a policy that limits the hours and then we'll take care of posting it. Um so just adopting a policy that limits public access on the conservation parcels from sunrise to sunset.

All right. So, uh, let me let me retract that motion and I will make the motion that the Dartmouth Conservation Commission establish a policy that the Dartmouth Conservation Properties have limits on hours of use from sunrise to sunset without prior written authorization.

So, move second. We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote. Liz, yes.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

My vote is yes. That motion passes unanimously.

I don't have anything new to add. Um, is there anything that staff or any commissioner wants to add to the meeting?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. We have a seconded motion. Roll call vote.

James, yes.

Megan, yes.

Donald, yes.

Richard, yes.

Liz, yes.

My vote is yes. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone for your attendance. I appreciate it.