►
From YouTube: Groton Conservation Commission
Description
Groton, Connecticut municipal meeting - Conservation Commission July 6, 2020. Click on the link below to view the agenda.
https://www.agendasuite.org/iip/groton/meeting/Details/693
A
The
chairman
will
call
on
you
and
you
were
you
can
raise
your
hand.
The
chairman
will
call
on
you
and
you
can
speak
one
of
the
time
other
than
that
for
all
the
members.
Everyone
knows
the
drill
by
now,
but
you
know
to
everyone:
try
to
speak
one
of
the
time
identify
yourself
when
you
can
and
and
yeah
that's
it.
I
can
start
the
role.
B
C
E
B
B
F
B
B
That
the
problems
appear
to
be
enforcement
versus
any
new
determination
and
that
I
forwarded
it
to
deb
jones
for
the
handle
and
the
tree
warden
and
the
wetlands
commission
to
address-
and
I
asked
if
they
thought,
meeting
the
town
staff
that
there's
any
action
that
we
can
that
lead.
The
conservation
commission
could
support
them
on.
Please
let
me
know
I
did
not
receive
any
comment
back
so,
and
I
did
that
because
it
came
in
on
june
22nd.
B
D
D
I
think
she
was
just
following
up
as
us
as
the
tree
advisory
board,
more
than
anything
else
as
a
conservation
commission
that
the
enforcement
is
being
properly
held
by
the
public
works
folks
and
the
in
their
office
as
we've
talked
about
in
the
past-
and
I
did
I
could
see
where,
in
her
viewpoint,
that
there
was
some
area
that
she's
concerned
that
they've
gone
above
beyond
what
was
supposed
to
be
cut.
It
wasn't
obvious
I
did
not
get
physically
on
the
property
I
just
observed
from
a
distance.
D
It
does
look
like
they've
exceeded
somewhat
the
area.
That
was,
you
know,
but
it's
hard
to
physically
determine
without
actually
seeing
survey
lines
and
stuff
in
in
the
ground.
But
obviously
you
needed
to
take
some
area
out
just
to
be
able
to
put
this
retaining
wall
that
was
cited
in
the
in
the
drawing
and
that's
the
kind
of
you
know
you
could
see.
Some
extension
would
be
reasonable
into
the
into
the
area
beyond
the.
B
D
F
G
C
It's
kristin,
I
I'm
thinking
she
was
looking
anywhere.
She
could
find
to
help.
You
know
to
seek
help
and
also
just
to
document
what,
according
to
her,
according
to
everything,
she
wrote,
is
a
clear
violation
of
standards
that
have
been
set
up,
so
I
think
she
was
looking
to
document
it
and
also
to
try
and
find
a
way
to
stop.
You
know
maybe
just
trying
to
see
who
can
stop
this
from
going
on.
You
know.
G
B
B
They
should
take
care
of
it
if
they
needed
us
or
something,
let
us
know-
okay
sure
sure.
So,
I'm
not
I
mean
I'm
agreeing
or
supporting
what
you
just
said,
and
I
did
I
did
go
online.
I
went
looked
at
the
satellite
photos
and
other
things
we're
trying
to
see
if
there
was
something
there
that
you
know
might
trigger
our
support
and
I
couldn't
like
tom.
I
couldn't
find
anything
that
that
okay,
he
rose
to
the
roses.
C
Is
what
we
should
do
in
here?
Couldn't
it
be
said
it's
kristina
according
to
what's
her
name?
Well,
the
person
who
wrote
the
letter.
I
forgot
her
name
right
now,
his
camera,
her
allegation
is
that
they
have.
There
was
a
very
well
defined
clearing
line
and
they
cleared
that
plus.
They
went
well
over
the
clearing
line
into
wetlands
and
and
started
cutting
down
trees
there
and
are
threatening
to
actually
go
into
her
property
in
countries.
So
I
mean
to
say
that
it's
not
our
responsibility.
C
I
think,
as
the
people
who
are
supposed
to
be
like
guarding
the
conservation
of
groton
and
they're
taking
out
you
know,
they're
cutting
they're
they're
messing
up
a
stream
and
they're
taking
out
a
bunch
of
native
species
and
messing
with
the
wetland
I
mean.
While
it
might
not
be
our
responsibility
and
we
might
not
have
power
to
do
anything
about
it,
we
might
want
to
state
that
that
what's
going
on
seems
to
be
incorrect
at
least.
B
Well,
we
don't
know,
because
you
know
we're
not
there's
no
legal
justification
for
us
to
go
on
that
property
to
actually
evaluate
the
claim.
So
it's
a
claim
on
her
part
and
it
needs
to
be
investigated
by
the
appropriate
agencies
that
have
the
right
to
do
so.
That
was
where
I
was
coming
from.
I
mean
it,
you
know
it's
I
mean
bruce
could
correct
me
if
we
went
on
their
property
even
investigate
it,
we
could
be
arrested
because
no.
C
B
A
C
G
B
G
H
A
B
All
right,
so
the
next
three
items
kind
of
go
together
a
little
bit
for
me,
the
osu
grant
is
the
grant
that
is
supporting
parcel
id
that
ends
94-24
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
that
I
looked
at
was
applying
the
open
space
criteria,
which
hasn't
formally
been
supported
yet
right.
But
so
I
thought
maybe
the
way
to
kind
of
go
through
this
was
to
go
with.
The
criteria,
perhaps
use
the
example
with
24
to
see
how
it
works.
F
B
B
F
A
G
F
B
F
F
G
B
B
B
G
B
G
B
So
the
the
weighting
for
the
math
was
the
rating
scale
of
one
to
five
for
each
of
the
elements
and
then
to
normalize
it.
You
see
on
the
right
the
priority,
the
one
through
seven,
adding
the
economic
model,
and
then
there
was
a
the
special
multiple
that
multiplier.
I
think
that's
a
at
the
end
that
allows
us.
So
it's
really
an
80
factor.
B
Half
of
the
80
was
the
economic
model
and
the
balance
of
that,
and
then
there
was
a
do
what
you
want
with
it
of
20
right,
which
is
personal
preference.
I
guess
so.
That's
the
math
part.
So
that's
one
thing
you
know
that's
a
little
different,
which
I
think
is
is
a
little
better
and
easier
to
deal
with
on
on
how
you
rank
something
one
to
five,
and
so
you
have
the
seven.
B
I
said
that
five
points,
if
it's
in
the
top
twenty
percent
of
the
parcels
we
evaluate,
if
you
recall
michelle,
had
a
a
list
of
what
40
parcels.
So
I
think
so.
Yeah
I've
gone
through
and
done
it
analysis
of
that.
So
if
it
was
in
the
top
20
from
economic
value,
you
get
five
points
if
it's
at
one
point,
if
it's
the
lowest
twenty
percent
and
obviously
the
interpolation
between
so
that
was
kind
of
the
rating.
B
Of
that
I
mean
again,
this
is
pretty
rough,
but
it's
for
comparative
purposes
and
the
special
multiplier
is
just
add
some
numbers
to
add
some
numbers
based
upon
anything
else.
That
might
not
have
been
considered
so
going
back.
A
lot
of
these
you've
seen
before
so
complete
and
expand
the
proposed
green
belts.
B
B
And
a
one
to
five:
now
I'm
looking
at
that
going.
Why
did
I
do
that
only
as
a
one,
because
it
does
it
does
do
it
as
an
open
space
right
right,
so
so
that
that
that
I
think
is
is
more
of
a
fives
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
much
it
changes
it,
but
it's
just
out
of
curiosity,
took
it
from
76
to
77
overall.
B
So
what
was?
How
does
it
connect
to
other
open
spaces?
I
think
there's
another
there
we
go
and
trails
you
know
was
it.
You
know:
proximity
to
industrial
areas
which
it's
not
significant,
roadways,
proximity
which
it's
it's
all
below
95,
so
I
thought
that
was
low,
significant,
I'm
sorry,
access
to
neighborhoods
is
there
access
for
residential
neighborhoods
yeah.
There
is,
I
think
there
can
be
more
done,
but
that's
a
developmental
thing,
not
necessarily
that
exists.
B
So,
as
I
kind
of
went
through
this
criteria,
I
went
typically
there's
not
an
access
for
a
new
parcel,
but
is
there
the
opportunity
for
an
access?
So
that's
how
I
interpreted
it.
You
guys
can
raise
your
hand
if
you
have
any
any
objections
to
that
available
parking
access.
There's
none
today
and
it's
not
a
brownfield
site.
So
therefore,
that's
a
positive,
that's
kind
of
a
reverse
thought
process
there.
B
B
H
H
D
D
B
F
F
B
F
C
D
B
B
F
D
B
G
So
so
this
is
michelle:
what
what's
our
purpose
right
now?
Are
we
trying
to
to
work
with
this
part
of
the
plan?
Are
we
trying
to
just
give
an
answer
about
that
property
because
I
mean
honestly,
we've
got
the
whole
comments
on
our
plan
to
go
through
and,
and
I
could
see
us
spending
half
an
hour
just
on
this.
G
B
Which
requires
us
to
take
a
position
which
to
me
requires
us
to
utilize
the
criteria,
analysis
that
we
had
agreed.
We
would
do
so.
I
think
it
goes
in
that
and
that
fashion
and
yeah
there
are
a
lot
of
comments
to
go
through
and
we'll
get
to
that.
But
so
I
think
it's
important
that
this
is
that
we
need
to
get
knit
this
nail
down
and
be
able
to
look
at
the
the
actual
analysis.
That's
there
so.
G
D
I
would
agree
that
you
can
use
either
one
as
far
as
for
from
a
decision
perspective,
but
from
you
know,
from
a
long-term
perspective,
I
think
we
still
would
have
to
and
that
can
be
done
now
or
before
we
make
a
recommendation
on
the
osmo
grant
and
then
and
work
this
still
and
my
comments
in
as
for
as
far
as
other
comments
with
the
open
space
conservation
plan,
I
have
no
problem,
I'm
not
hard
over
that.
We
need
to
change
this
first.
I
I'm
perfectly
acceptable
to
use
the
other
criteria.
D
F
B
B
Well,
it's
it's
pretty
close.
I
mean
what
this
is
an
iteration
against
that
one
right.
So
the
differences
are
this
center,
one
which,
which
was
anne's
suggestion
about
what
you
know,
explaining
what
one
is
and
what
a
five
is
and
there's
some
modifications
here.
The
biggest
one
is
the
one
we
just
talked
about
of
getting
rid
of
the
brownfield
sites,
the
other
ones,
they're
kind
of
the
same
thing
that
verbiage
has
been
changed.
F
F
B
F
F
B
B
G
A
G
B
C
G
A
Yeah
I
can
answer
that
larry
bruce
offrin
planning
and
development
services.
Yes,
so,
what's
in
your
packet
is
a
portion
of
the
official
application
that
was
submitted.
Okay
for
the
ozone
grant,
that's
just
the
narrative.
I
didn't
provide
all
the
mapping
and
and
the
actual
application.
I
just
thought
you
know
the
narrative
can
give
you
guys
a
good
overview
of
what
the
property
is
and
what
the
grant
is
and
what
we're
asking
for
and
what
we're
asking
for
you
tonight
is
just
to
decide.
C
Well,
two
things:
one:
is
you
misspelled
walters
down
below
in
the
first
second
paragraph,
but
anyway
I
would
say
based
on
the
information
that
was
sent
to
us
in
the
packet
and
what
we
read.
I
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
discuss
this
a
lot.
I
think
it.
It
looks
to
me
like
a
really
excellent
property
to
support,
and
you
know
maybe
we
can
just
go
ahead
and
support
it
without.
B
A
E
Like
to
propose
that,
I
make
a
motion
that
we
support
the
town's
application
to
the
what
is
it
open
space
watershed
land
acquisition
grant
program
open
space
in
watershed?
Yes
right,
so
I
I
make
a
motion
that
we
send
a
letter
of
support
to
this
application
and
fill
out
in
on
the
the
motion
whomever
is
this
is
supposed
to
go
to.
C
I
B
G
B
F
B
B
G
B
C
B
B
F
B
All
right
that
brings
us.
Let
me
stop
sharing
there
all
right.
That
brings
us
to
the
2020
objectives.
Now
my
intent
is
to
stop
doing
the
2020
objectives
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
One
is
that
we've
moved
on
in
time.
A
number
of
them
have
been
accomplished,
but
more
to
the
point
that
in
the
open
space
plan,
there
are,
what
are
we
up
to
40
46
tom.
D
B
B
D
On
that,
it's
there's
two
factors
here:
one
is
that
you've
got
the
open
space
plan
that
has
a
number
of
actions
that
are
assigned
to
the
conservation
commission,
but
I
think
to
some
degree
you
also
kind
of
still
have
to
balance
this
that
we
have
other
administrative
roles
to
play
here
that
you
don't
want
to
forget
about
those.
I
think
I
I
just
caution
you
as
the
chair
that
you
you
know
just
not
everything
is
captured
in
the
in
the
in
the
plan.
B
B
Yeah
but
again
we
we
kind
of
been
tracking
that
as
a
separate
business
item
on
our
agenda
filling
the
vacancies,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
that
because
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
moot
point.
When
I
tell
you
the
status
of
that
and
all
the
other
ones
I
thought
actually
were
were
handled
by
the
objectives.
B
C
Just
wanted
to
say
that
I
kind
of
like
those
20
20
goals,
because
2020
has
been
a
very
unusual
year
with
the
with
the
covet
and
everything
so
that
some
of
these
things
we
have
not
gotten
to,
and
I
like
sort
of
having
a
little
reminder
like
this.
A
lot
of
the
2020
stuff.
Like
the
composting,
the
pollinators
initiation,
some
of
the
plastic
stuff,
is
going
to
roll
forward
to
2021.
G
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
It
wasn't
in
the
minutes
of
meeting
and
I
then
forwarded
a
letter
and
said:
hey
guys,
wait
a
minute.
I
thought
there
was
a
vote
and
you
said
it's
going
to
be
open
space,
there's
a
variety
of
things
that
could
be
used
and
now
there's
been
an
you
know,
an
effort
by
the
housing
authority
to
try
and
reopen
it
again.
B
A
F
F
H
B
F
B
B
B
Take
a
position
so
that's
kind
of
where
it's
at
so
I
thought
we
were
moving
forward.
Then
it
looks
like
two
step
forwards.
One
step
back,
I
guess,
is
my
nut
on
that
one.
So
that's
where
that's
where
that's!
Where
we're
at
on
the
building.
I
thought
I
thought
I'd
be
a
bit
more
positive
until
that
popped
up.
You
know
just
a
couple
of
days
ago.
B
The
the
yeah,
the
head
of
the
groton
housing
authority,
which
is
independent,
quasi
independent,
and
so
yes,
they
they've
been
proposing
that
and
obviously
the
set
of
folks
that
were
objecting
or
that
wanted
it
to
be
developed
rather
than
open
space,
latched
on
to
that
and
they're
kind
of
piling
on
to
that
recommendation.
You
know
that
push
so
so
you
know
at
this
point,
like
I
said
I
was
pushing
on
a
couple
of
fronts
to
see
if
we
can
get
that
nailed
down
and
be
able
to
move
forward.
B
D
I
also
listened
in
on
the
on
the
presentation
at
the
of
the
actual
meeting
of
the
council
committee
of
the
whole
of
the
town
council,
and
they
definitely
did
take
a
vote,
but
it
appears
to
me
looking
at
these
at
the
minutes.
I've
got
them
up
right
now
that
they
just
haven't
gotten
around
to
this.
They
just
said
disgust
and
they
didn't
put
anything
there's
a
bunch
of
other
stuff
that
got
postponed
because
they
ran
out
of
time.
You
know
they're
doing
this
at
11,
00
30
at
night
and
stuff.
B
B
B
B
B
Aha
kenneth
siegel
on
june
30th
of
repurposing
knowing
school.
There
was
again
that's
a
private
citizen.
You
know
pushing
the
gha
plan
and
was
you
know
trying
to
send
it
out
to
a
bunch
of
a
variety
of
folks
to
you
know,
put
some
pressure
through
the
gha
that
victor
villagra
got
a
hold
of
that
flag
is
also
eugenia,
send
it
to
me,
and
then
I
forwarded
that
to,
as
I
said,
to
the
no
inc
I
can.
D
They
didn't
want
to
take
on
the
knowing
school
issue,
so
that's
obviously
going
to
still
roll
around
in
the
committee
as
a
whole,
and
so
maybe
we
should
be.
Should
we
be
as
a
as
a
commission
here,
making
a
public
statement
or
or
letter
written
submittal
for
tomorrow's
meeting
would
be
my
question.
I
think
it'd
be
appropriate
that
we
at
least
have
somebody
from
the
commission
here
at
least
voicing
our
general
concurrence
that
that
we
that
the
council
took
the
right.
D
B
E
B
B
C
G
B
D
F
B
B
B
B
July
28th,
right
and
so
there's
actually
a
powerpoint.
That
tom
has,
I
think
I
I
did
a
whack.
Then
tom
made
it
a
lot
better.
So
we
do
have
something
to
share
with
you
right,
but
there's
that
presentation
then
there's
the
schedule
for
what's
called
draft
two
to
send
out
and
then
at
some
point
we
really
need
to
spend
some
time
on
the
objectives,
as
well
as
the
feedback
that
was
there.
So
I
think
we
should
start
with
the
feedback.
B
A
D
Okay,
you
should
be
seeing
the
open
space
plant
I'll
bring
us
up
to
the
to
the
beginning
here.
Comments
that
we
received
in
the
were
from
basically
from
groton,
open
space
association
from
avalonia
and
from
gca
and
they're
all
include
details
are
all
included
into
your
plan,
all
their
comments.
I've
basically
tried
to
incorporate
into
our
plan,
with
the
exception
of
those
that
I
weren't
uncompleted,
which
were
more
structurally.
D
C
D
D
That
was
an
acronym
in
the
document
and
we
consolidated
all
that
and
then
the
first
reference
to
it
is
listed
in
here.
So
people
could
have
a
reference
to.
That
was
a
common
comment
across
multiple
people
going
to
the
next
area,
which
is
the
executive
summary
we
got
some
people
loved
it.
Some
people
said
it's
not
long
enough
and
other
people
said
that
it.
The
whole
document
is
too
long
I'll
grant
you
that
the
document's
100
pages
now
and
trying
to
confront
that
down
to
two
pages.
D
D
That's
one
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
talk
about
as
a
commission
and
commission
here
is,
which
way
we
want
to
go
with
the
executive
summary
and
in
regard
to
do
we
just
want
to
have
the
the
things
you
know
as
leave
the
two-page
document
or
or
respond
to
some
of
the
folks
recommendations
to
have
it
more
extensive
anywhere
from
eight
to
nine
pages
to
just
and
or
else
have
the
whole
document
crunched
down
to
30
pages.
Those
are
the
two
areas
that
came
from
gca
and
from
the
task
force.
D
Other
areas
that
we
that
I
changed
in
in
the
document
there
were
corrections
was
in
the
open
space
history.
Here
I
take
it
back.
We
had
some
of
the
early
acquisitions.
There
were
some
typos
that
type
of
stuff
were
all
corrected
in
here
like
in
particular
like
the
avalonia.
They
corrected
their
stuff,
and
I
had
some
errors
like
the
leo
antonio
conserve
instead
of
just
antonio
property
that
type
of
stuff,
I
did
correct
all
all
those
type
of
errors
in
in
here.
D
Here
again,
those
are
more
specifics
that
I
couldn't
really
deal
with,
but
those
were
in
the
joe
smith
got
open
space
comments.
I
didn't
feel
that
they
there
was
nothing
actionable
for
me
to
take
in
those
and
then
the
only
other
area
that
we
we
saw.
There
was
some
in
regard
to
the
outdoor
recreation.
D
D
But
I'm
still
working
on
these
is
to
is
these
for
the
the
low
income
and
the
and
minority
percentages
to
update
these
maps
to
just
have
the
data
straight
data
without
anything
in
the
background,
so
they
can
see
be
seen
better,
but
I'm
still
kind
of
working
on
some.
I
haven't
come
up
with
any
issue,
any
better
solutions
to
that.
You
know,
as
far
as
from
a
comment,
because
that
was
another
comment
from
ghosa
that
they
couldn't
really
read.
D
This
and
bray
has
mentioned
this
before
also,
but
that's
all
I
had
in
regard
and
then
we
and
then
I
did
add
one
more
recommendation
in
was
in
the
the
plan.
I
think
it's
in
the
you
know
in
the
in
the
future
section
in
here.
I
did
comment
on
some
of
this
stuff
in
regard
to
the
on
the
different
greenways
relatives
to
comments
that
had
come
in
from
the
on
the
merit
school
on.
The
excuse
me
on
the
color
school
area
on
ghost
is
merit
property.
D
This
is
up
was
all
updated
in
here
in
regard
to
it,
which
is
including
the
2019
greenway
proposal.
So
that's
been
updated
to
reflect
the
changes
that
were
submitted
by
gosub
and
then
the
last
item,
as
we
discussed
earlier,
was,
is
in
the
economic
development
plan,
appendix
c
the
criteria
just
updating
that
which
we
talked
about
earlier
today
in
regards
to
the
what
was
the
section
that
was
in
here
so.
D
D
Executive
summary,
as
well
as
they
also
had
a
couple
of
other
things
in
there
in
their
thing
in
regard
to
tree
canopy
and
drinking
water
resources
that
I
I
was
not
able
to
readily
correct
or
anything
because
they
were
more
statements
of
policy
and
what
we
want
to
include
in
the
plan.
From
a
structural
perspective,
I
think
that's
really
outside
of
the
scope
of
tom
olsen
in
the
text
committee.
To
respond
to
these
that
we
really
need
everybody's
inputs
on
that's
all.
I
had.
B
So
what
I
net
out
of
that
is
one
is
the
structure
specifically
as
regards
to
the
you
know
the
overall
length,
as
well
as
what
one
does
with
executive
summary.
The
second
thing
would
be
the
last
thing
you
just
said,
which
was
in
terms
of
I
guess,
policies
in
regards
to
forest
cover.
Yeah,
I'm
sorry.
What
was
the
second
one.
B
Yep
yep.
No,
I
do
remember
that,
so
I
think
I
mean
the
a
lot
of
the
other
ones
were
corrections
which
tom
has
already
put
in
there.
So
I
don't
think
that's
pertinent
for
our
discussion,
because
if
they're
a
lot
of
them
was
this
is
our
property
and
stuff
should
be
identified,
but
I
do
think
we
should
discuss
those
other
two
major
items.
G
Really
quick
larry
before
you
go
there.
This
is
michelle.
I
just
wanted
to
also
point
out
that
one
of
the
comments
I
think
from
the
resiliency
people
was
about
the
maps
and
and
and
the
fact
that
we
are
going
to
I
mean
that's
the
next
step.
I
hadn't
updated
the
map,
but
now
I
can
so.
I
was
kind
of
waiting
till
we
got
to
this
stage
with
this
level
of
comments
and
corrections
and
then
the
the
parcel
subcommittee,
the
data
subcommittee.
G
B
Yeah,
but
we
need
to
agree
on
what
we
want
in
there
and
and
I
think
on
the
policy.
One
you're
right,
the
sustainability
committee
said
you're
missing
the
whole
point.
It
all
should
be
about
coastal
flooding,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
and
that's
not
quite
what
we
had
got
talked
about
that
and
we
have
a
section
in
there,
but
we
we
didn't
want
to
reorient
the
whole
thing
for
that.
B
C
Have
a
comment?
Listen!
Well,
you
know.
Now,
in
the
day
of
digital
documents,
there
has
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
that
went
into
this
document
to
make
it
thorough
and
all
encompassing,
and
we
really
really
worked
hard
to
put
everything
in
there.
It's
impossible
to
imagine
cutting
it
in
half
without
losing
all
that
information,
because,
especially
since
it's
a
digital
document,
the
fact
that
it's
long,
you
can
just
link
right
to
a
section.
C
G
This
is
michelle,
and
I
I
agree
with
that,
and
I
also
mean
especially
looking
at
the
the
executive
summary
now
granted.
We
might
make
it
a
little
more
thorough,
but
basically
the
executive
summary
has
the
links
to
the
document
to
so.
If
you
want
to
know,
if
you
know
this,
yeah
there's
only
a
sentence
about
a
thing,
but
you
could
link
to
that
whole
section.
The
document
so
so
yeah
there's
you
know
whether
it
should
be
a
little
bit
longer
is
fine,
but
but
it
doesn't
need
to
be
huge.
E
This
is
bright.
I
think
we
should
not
just
count
on
this
thing
as
being
a
digital
document,
but
also
at
some
point
someone's
going
to
print
it
out,
because
I
always
like
to
myself
I'm
a
hard
book
copy
kind
of
a
person
rather
than
trying
to
always
go
back
to
finding
the
computer
and
then
calling
it
up
and
going
from
there.
Whereas,
if
you
have
the
document,
you
can
take
it
with
you
and
refer
back
to
any
sort
of
any
section
of
it.
D
I
just
just
tell
olson
here:
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
original
you
know
the
1990
version
was
30
pages
so
or
just
for
32
pages,
but
I
think
the
light
you
know.
One
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
from
a
from
my
viewpoint,
and
it's
outlined
very
well
in
in
chapter
one
is
regarded.
D
We
really
don't
have
any
type
of
enforcement
responsibility
or
policy
statements,
but
we
we
owe
to
the
community
here's
our
vision
and
how
we're
making
recommendations
for
them,
and
so
this
is
to
me
it's
not
necessarily,
you
know
a
document
that
has
to
meet
with
everybody's
approval,
it's
really
to
document
how
we're
doing
things
and
we're
taking
inputs
in
from
everybody.
But
I
think
it's
still
important
for
us
to
you
know,
use
this
as
the
tool
that
we're
going
to
be
making
decisions
with
just
like
tonight.
D
D
If
we
want
to
have
some
other
documents
in
our
library
of
stuff,
you
know
whether
you
want
to
call
that,
like
a
decision
makers,
recommendations
or
whatever
process,
we
can,
we
can
develop
that
separately.
But
as
far
as
for
our
core
plan,
I
think
what
we've,
what
we've
developed
here
over
the
last
18
months,
is
pretty
substantial.
I
think
we
should
stick
with
it.
H
One
of
the
comments
was-
and
I
I
mean
I've
thomas
done
a
phenomenal
job
on
this
and
working
on
it
with
him.
I
would
hate
to
see
us
lose
anything
that
we've
put
in,
but
one
of
the
suggestions-
and
I
can't
remember
which
organization
made
the
suggestion
was
to
possibly
think
about
putting
things
in
appendices.
H
So
we
won't.
We
wouldn't
lose
anything
that
we've
done,
but
if
we
could
maybe
streamline
some
of
the
elements-
and
I
I
haven't
really
had
time
to
think
about
how
to
do
that
or
whether
that
makes
sense
or
not,
but
that
might
be
a
way
to
get
the
document
itself
at
a
more
readable
length
with
all
of
the
backup
material
still
available
in
appendices.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
maybe
we
ought
to
consider
just
throwing
that
out.
There.
C
We
have
access
to
a
lot
more
information
now
easily
and
there
are
many
many
more
agencies
and
there
there's
just
a
lot
more
involved
now
than
there
might
have
been
30
years
ago,
and
I
think
maybe
that's
partly
why
the
document
is
so
lengthy.
This
is
just
it's
a
more
complicated
and
intricate
kind
of
a
world
we're
living
in.
G
This
is
michelle
and
I
I
totally
agree
with
tom.
This
is
our
document
for
our
purposes
and
I
think
we
need
to
make
it
as
as
fact-filled
and
full
as
we
need,
and
I
and
and
I
when
I
do
other
documents
and
I
I
tend
to
go
with
the
policy
of
put
as
much
as
possible
appendices,
but
I'm
not
sure
that's
true
for
this
one.
I
think
the
the
information
needs
to
stay
with
where
it
is.
G
However,
the
other
thing
we
could
think
about
is
as
doing
kind
of
a
reader's
digest
version
for
people
for
other
purposes.
So
this
is
our
document
for
our
work,
but
if
someone,
if
we
want
to
do
something,
that's
more
of
just
letting
you
know
a
public
relations
thing
or
whatever
we
could
once
we
get
done
with
this
and
get
it
done,
we
could
think
about
having
a
condensed
version
for
the
average
reader.
B
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
my
turn,
so
I
I
think
you
know
so
I
thought
about
this
and
looked
at
all
and
I
I
kind
of
michelle
what
you
said.
What
tom
said
is
that
the
work
that's
there
is
a
resource
document,
that's
going
to
serve
a
lot
of
different
purposes
and
we
did
take
a
lot
of
stuff
out
and
put
in
the
appendixes
as
well.
I
mean
and,
for
example,
the
whole
economic
model
was
shrunk
and
there's
a
separate
document
called
the
you
know
the
you
know
the
the
user
manual.
B
For
for
that
I
would
point
out
that
every
time
we
create
a
sub
subsequent
document,
keeping
things
in
sync
become
more
and
more
difficult.
I
mean
I'm
sitting
here
trying
to
keep.
I
update
the
user
manual
and
I
go
back
and
I
have
to
update
right
the
other
one.
So
we
got
to
be
a
little
careful
about
that.
Having
said
that,.
B
Does
it
make
sense
for
us
to
provide
a
a
different
delivery
mechanism
to,
and
I
hate
to
use
the
word
sell
but
I'll
say
to
sell
the
concept
of
open
space
to
the
general
public
or
other
parties
right
by
using
taking
the
resource
document
and
doing
something
different
that
gets
out
there,
whether
it's
you
know
whether
it's
a
video,
whether
it's
a
you
know,
you
know
another
another
form
of
communication
that
builds
on
what
we
said
but
puts
it
in
a
way
that
says:
hey
guys.
This
is
your
town.
This
is
this.
B
B
That
then
provides
it
in
a
way
that
isn't
as
technical,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
technical
stuff
in
this
document
right,
and
I
would
expect
that
you
know
a
significant
amount
of
of
people
would
kind
of
thrive
with
glaze
over.
So
you
know
as
a
way
of
doing
it,
but
I
see
that
as
a
second
step
building
on
this
base,
because
I
think
it's
a
great
resource
document,
but
that's
just
kind
of
my
my
point
of
view
I
would
like
to.
B
B
D
A
D
I
think,
when
I
take
a
look
at
the
powerpoint
presentation,
we're
developing
for
the
town
council
and
and
and
expand
on
that
to
have
a
hard
copy
document
that
would
go
into
a
little
bit
next
level
of
detail
such
for
the
town
council
for
reading
background
reading
perspective,
as
far
as
on
what
which
I
think
could
be
easily
done
in
less
than
30
30
pages,
and
we,
and
that
would
be
something
that
the
text
committee
can
put
together
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
Here.
G
B
So
be
it
all
right
now
there
were
some
policy
questions
I
I
did
add
the
third
one.
The
third
one
was
the
the
sustainability
one
that
said
that
we
missed
the
whole
boat.
We
should
be
focused
more
on
the
the
s
essentials
threat
of
our
time,
which
is
rising
water,
except
when
we
looked
at
it.
We
went
well
that's
nice,
but
there's
really
very
little.
B
We
could
do
because
the
either
the
property
was
owned
right
or
it's
gonna
be
things
that
wouldn't
really
deal
with
conservation
per
se
other
than
land
behind
the
new
water
right
that
to
protect
that
that
second
layer
of
of
land-
but
I
think
we
should,
as
a
commission,
think
about
do
we
want
to
make
any
changes
to
those
three
policies
that
we
that
were
identified
so
tom.
You
want
to
lead
that
discussion,
I'm
putting
you
I'm
getting
you
to
do
work
today,.
D
D
D
They
were
commenting
on
in
generalities,
in
my
opinion,
in
regard
to,
and
also
having
a
different
way
of
measuring
trees
and
this
type
of
stuff,
I'm
not
going
to
argue
as
far
as
from
as
far
as
from
as
being
the
tree
advisory
board,
but
this
document
really
isn't
designed
to
address
tree
advisory
board
type
of
issues.
We
acknowledge
that
the
treaty
advisory
board
is
out
there
in
the
plan.
D
D
Much
I'm
gonna
go
into
into
details
and
evaluation
of
the
forest
canopy.
We
we
acknowledge
that
the
overall
town
is
at
about
63,
which
is
fairly
representative
of
what
the
state
is
today.
If
you
go
take
a
look
at
you
know
on
the
urban
there's
a
lot
of
information
in
regard
to
the
urban
forestry
program.
That's
set
up
by
dep
we're
in
line
with
that.
We
represent
that.
So
that's
what
come.
D
D
Yes,
there
are
things
that
can
be
done
to
help
minimize
the
the
loss
of
for
of
of
because
of
the
insect
infestation,
climate
change
that
type
of
stuff,
but
we
we're
smart
enough
to
put
this
in
there
that
we're
going
to
take
that
into
consideration
as
things
go
in
the
future,
but
I
think
to
go
into
making
you
know
these
are
almost
like
what
they're
proposing
here
a
policy
statements
for
the
town
which
really
isn't
something
we're
not
asking
the
town
council
to
go.
Make
approve
this
plan
as
a
town
ordinance
we.
D
Take
us
a
more
stronger
position
relative
to
protection
of
the
watershed
areas
that
we
have,
whether
it
be
eccleston
brook,
which
is
one
of
watro's
property
or
any
of
the
other
watershed
areas,
is
that
we
need
to
be
making
a
more
positive
statement,
but
in
regard
it
goes
back
to
what
areas
can
we
purchase
or
land
acquisition
or
take
positive
actions
relative
to
disposition
of
town
property
from
a
protection
perspective?
And
yes,
I
agree
that
those
are
all
good
things
that
the
gca
is
proposing,
but
from
an
evaluation
perspective
and
how
we
evaluate
things.
D
I
think
that
we've
already
got
enough
in
in
here
to
say
this.
We
recognize
the
watersheds
that
are
developed
by
crop
utilities
are
all
in
place.
We
take
that
into
consideration
when
we're
evaluating
properties,
but
as
far
as
making
a
policy
statement
is
that
thou
shalt
go
do
something.
I
think
it
is
again
pushing
the
envelope
a
little
too
far
and.
H
D
The
other
thing
that
I
I
failed
to
mention
earlier
in
the
gca
letter
was
that
their
def
they
wanted
us
to
be
more.
How
proactive
in
regard
to
how
do
we
define
protection,
and
I
think
that
you
know
there's
enough
words
in
our
in
in
our
discussion
on
the
action
items
that
we've
taken
relative
to
easements,
which
is
really
your
protective
mechanisms.
H
D
H
G
I
I
totally
agree
with
tom,
and
I
I
think
we
have
to
be
careful
of
making
this
a
document,
an
action
document
as
opposed
to
an
information
document.
This
is
this
is
saying:
here's
what
things
are:
here's
what
we
want
to
do,
but
but
but
making
those
kind
of
recommendations.
That
would
be.
You
know
another
action
thing
and
I
don't
know
I
honestly
didn't
look
at
all
what
the
43
things
are
that
are
we're
putting
on
our
plate.
But
if
those
things
aren't
on
there,
we
could
say:
okay.
G
Well,
here's
you
know
look
at
what
we
would
need
to
do
to
recommend
doing
a
better
job
of
protecting
the
waters,
but
that's
not
in
the
document
the
documents,
the
support
for
whatever
that
thing
is
going
forward.
So
so
don't
try
to
solve
all
the
problems
with
this.
This
is
the
document
that
that
supports
when
we
do
try
to
solve
the
problems
it
gives
the
the
background
for
why
that's
important
and
what
to
do
with
it.
B
E
Our
document
is
not
going
to
solve
anything.
This
has
been
a
a
an
issue,
that's
being
tossed
around.
The
town
now
has
a
special
committee
just
on
it,
you
do
not
have
direct
answers
to
it
and
our
document,
no
matter
what
we
do
to
it,
is
not
going
to
be
an
end-all
and
moving
forward.
This
is
where
we're
going.
There
are
other
experts
that
are
dealing
with
it,
but
it,
but,
as
larry
said,
we've
looked
at
a
lot
of
the
areas
for
sea
level
rise
that
are,
salt
marshes.
E
Areas
estuaries
and
we
have
limited
possibilities.
We
know
what's
going
to
get
flooded
out
and
the
reason
much
this
document
is
going
to
change
the
way
everything
is
so
well
developed
right
now,
it's
it's
very
difficult
to
move
forward.
I
think
about
the
tree
canopy
that
our
document
covers
what
is
necessary
and
the
tree
canopy
issue.
Carbon
sequester
issue
is
all
new.
E
E
We
have
we're
a
much
smaller
scale
on
that
and
in
our
document
we
are
not
prepared
that
if
we
get
whaled
on
by
a
huge
hurricane
and
takes
over
a
whole
bunch
of
large
mature
trees,
we
don't
have
an
unlimited
funds
or
nor
does
the
town
did.
You
know,
suddenly
we're
going
to
bring
in
huge
old
move
trees
in
from
somewhere
else.
E
E
E
So
this
is
our
document,
and
I
was
thinking
as
tom
was
talking
about
the
overall
direction
of
our
document,
that
when
you
look
at
other
open
based
towns
documents,
they
all
have
a
flavor
of
what
they
think
is
important
within
their
community
and
there's
no
one
open
space
document
that
carries
over
all
towns.
In
other
words,
one
size
does
not
fit
all
so
at
this
particular
point
in
time,
we
have
a
lot
of
such
great
talent
on
the
conservation
commission
that
have
brought
out
climate
change.
E
They've
brought
out
how
to
address
sea
level
rise.
Those
are
things
we
never
addressed
it
before.
So,
in
the
the
old
conservation
plan
in
1990,
climate
change
wasn't
even
on
the
anybody's
lips.
At
that
time.
The
change
on
it,
how
dramatic
it
could
be
because
the
changes
were
just
starting
and
nobody
really
had
the
data
to
show
what
is
actually
happening
and
and
then
being
able
to
project
out
from
there.
So
I
think
everyone
has
done
a
great
job
at
this
point.
E
There
might
be
a
little
tweaking
here
and
there
what's
in
there,
that's
what
we're
doing,
but
I
don't
think
we,
when
groups,
who
have
a
particular
agenda,
come
in
and
want
us
to
raise
the
level
of
information
in
our
document
to
suit
them.
I
agree
with
everyone
that
I
don't
think
we
have
to
go
down
that
path.
B
B
You
know
what
do
we
need
to
complete
in
order
to
whether
it's
a
better
picture
or
or
a
different
map?
So
I
think
it's
it's
left
michelle.
I
guess
michelle
bray
myself
with
the
data
guys.
We
need
to
kind
of
shore
up
and
finalize
whatever
that's
going
to
be,
and-
and
I
suggest
that
we
do
that
as
a
follow-on
meeting
michelle
right.
G
Right,
I
think
we
have
enough
information
now
and
the
capability
that
we
could
do
a
really
good,
a
really
good
next
step
of
getting
of
getting
those
sections
like
the
taking.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
we've
got
a
good
handle
on
all
the
parcel
ids
for
all
the
names,
because
that
was
one
of
the
big
pieces.
I
did
the
match
up,
wasn't
there.
G
G
G
B
E
D
That
sounds
great.
I
have
very
little.
You
know,
we've
gotten,
like
you
said,
95
of
us
up
here.
I
just
got
a
couple
of
those
little
tweaks
here
to
put
in.
I
appreciate
the
the
consensus
we
got
here
that
I'm
not
going
to
be
doing
a
restructure
and,
in
parallel,
we'll
be
developing
the
follow-on
plan,
which
is
part
with
the
presentation.
B
B
B
F
B
H
B
E
So
a
quick
question
on
michelle's
work
or
our
work.
Will
we
meet
next
week
if
you're
talking
about
and
then
having
another
week,
to
make
any
adjustments?
Let's
say
for
michelle:
are
we
pinching
her
to
try
to
get
everything
done
by
say
the
28th,
in
other
words,
is
it
on
the
28th,
since
that's
the
council
presentation,
I'm
assuming
that
we're
doing
an
overview,
obviously
yeah,
but
do
we
feel
that
the
all
the
eyes
and
the
t's
are
going
to
be
all
all
crossed
and
dotted
all
ready
to
go.
E
B
B
B
All
right
so
bruce
could
you
because
that
would
be
one
you
would
set
up
because
that's
a
full.
That's
a
commission
meeting,
not
a
subcommittee
meeting,
so
you'd
have
to
do
the
logistics
on
that
one.
On
the
22nd
yeah,
I
can
do
that
720.
Second,
a
special
meeting
and
that'll
be
on
the
plan
draft
I'll
call
it
draft
two.
I
guess
all
right
now.
My
other
comment
or
my
other
question
is:
does
the
commission
feel
we
owe
any
response
to
the
people
that
have
provided
input?
B
Yeah
b
is,
is
the
trails
of
input
that
that
came
in
and
jill
is,
is
a
is
interested
in
joining
the
commission
and
she's
a
I
don't
know.
I
think
she
we
have
a
remute
but
I'll
kind
of
say
she
has
volunteered
some
time
to
help
with
some
of
these
publicity,
whether
it's
a
multi-media
presentation
and
open
space
in
general,
so
so
she's
attending
the
meeting.
For
that
I
was
going
to
get
to
that
in
my
chairman's
comments,
but
no
the
other,
the
other
input
folks
are
not
here.
B
I
think
it's
an
interesting
idea
for
the
liaisons
to
kind
of
reach
out
and
say:
hey
thanks
for
your
input.
We
appreciate
it.
We,
you
know,
we've
had
long
discussions
on
each
of
your
input
and
our
draft
tool,
we'll
we'll
you
know,
address
what
we
what
we
can
address.
So
that's
not
a
bad.
That's
not
a
bad
thought.
Are
you
is
almost
each
one
of
us
has
a
different
organization
to
go
back
to
is
that?
Does
that
sound
like
a
reasonable
action
to
take.
B
G
Folks,
maybe
for
the
special
meeting
or
even
maybe
we
should
make
a
list
of
of
the
the
list
of
who
gave
comments
and
then
just
assign
you
know
either
sign
somebody
or
just
do
a
email
to
somehow
you
know
have
a
draft
of
here's,
what
you
want
to
say
to
them
and
whether
it's
one
person
or
whatever
but
but
be.
I
think
we
need
to
be
more
structured
on
it.
Not.
C
B
E
C
B
All
right
generic,
I
mean,
I
I
think,
that's
it.
I
think
a
note
of
appreciation
for
their
feedback
right,
we're
talking
about
paragraph
for
two
and
then
and
then
maybe
we
could
say,
there's
another
edition
coming
out.
You
know
you
know
towards
the
the
next
in
the
next
30
days,
or
so
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
that's
sufficient.
H
D
Just
you've
got
miss
reynolds
online
here
in
regard
you
I
didn't,
I
didn't,
we
don't
have
those
in
the
package
for
everybody
is,
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
have
her
discuss
what
she
wanted,
or
do
you
want
me
to,
or
at
least
read
what
the
summarize
it?
As
far
as
on
the
action
item
from
her
from
her
comments.
B
D
Okay,
well
b
center
is,
is,
from
the
tri-town
trail
board
members.
She
talked
a
little
bit
about
that.
You
know.
As
far
as
the
committee's
off
doing
things
I
noticed
in
today's
newspaper
recent
papers,
there's
been,
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
issues
of
going
starting
from
the
north
end
and
working
south
with
the
tri-town
trail.
If
they've
already
got
grants
in
place
with
the
state
they're
working
with
getting
easements
in
place
and
their
goal
is
to
get
all
the
way
down
to
bluff
point.
D
So
they've
asked
they've
made
a
recommendation
that,
in
addition,
that
additional
section
be
added
to
the
mentions
the
southern
section
of
the
tri-town
trail
with
the
endorsement
of
the
town
when
this
tritel
was
developed
and
the
recent
publication
of
the
c-cog
pedestrian
and
bike
master
plan
that
I
should
put
expand
on
what's
already
in
the
plan
because
they
are
mentioned
in
the
plan.
But
she
just
was
asking
for
more
expansion
and
she
volunteered
to
provide
work
with
me.
To
do
that.
E
G
E
I
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
when
you
look
at
the
south
end
of
the
tritone
trail,
it
connects
bluff
point
up
to
the
cop
property
as
a
first
leg
and
the
reason
I
highlighted
that,
because
how
often
can
you
have
a
trail
that
goes
from
bluff
point
past
your
town
hall,
past
your
new
community
center
to
the
library
to
the
senior
center
and
past
senior
center
and
off
up
route
117
and
then
across
the
property.
So
I
wasn't
just
important.
I
I
D
And
that's
where
we,
I
believe
it
was
in
3.7
that
we
talked
in
regards
to
the
the
recommendations
or
there's
a
three-point,
the
the
trail,
I'm
trying
to
look
it
up
right
now.
As
far
as
on
where
we
had
the
the
sections
with
the
with
the
tri-town
trail.
As
far
as
relative
to
our
master
plans
and
stuff.
I
And
that
3.1,
what
I
found
was
there
was
never
anything
any
mention
of
that
southern
part
of
the
the
trail
we
talked
about
the
cop
property
and
and
connecting
over
to
the
old
star
bridge
and
connecting
north,
but
that
southern
piece
would
be
connecting
you
know.
Senior
centers
and
library,
and
everyone
up
to
the
car
property
would
then
give
you
access
plus
there's
parking
there
as
well.
So
people
could
access
the
trail
and
you
already
had
parking
already
in
that
area.
Yeah.
D
D
Now
and
what
we
this
for,
for
your
information,
what
we
look
at
typically
in
regard
to
in
3.1
is
taking
a
look
at
the
the
established
pocd
approved
green
belt,
which
has
this
going
along
route
117
south
by,
but
not
through
the
senior
center
I
mean
through
through
the
senior
center
the
library
area
there
is.
That
would
be
a
re-route
to
to
basically
go
down
south
as
opposed
to
the
weight
that
that's
currently
in
here.
I
D
Yeah
and
that's
where
and
and
the
big
picture
from
our
perspective
as
the
conservation
commission
and
for
this
document
is
to
identify
these
areas
and
that's
to
come.
If
you
take
a
look,
you
know
we
kind
of
put
them
in
these
pink
zones
as
far
as
that,
we
need
better
explanation
and
that
these
are
targeted
areas
for
establishment
of
an
expansion,
and
this
is
in
likewise
the
pink
zone
probably
could
be
on
the
other
side
of
route,
one
into
the
area
that
you're
talking
about.
D
We
need
to
take
a
look
at
that,
and
that's
probably
that's
probably
the
best
comment
that
we've
had
relative,
that
I
need
to
expand
in
regards
to
the
pink
zone
in
regards
to
the
areas
that
we
we
talk
about,
and
so
I'm
more
than
willing
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
we
do
the
necessary
update
to
to
get
the
the
what's
already
been.
The
support
that's
been
put
in
place
from
the
town
council
and
and
in
regards
to
what
we're,
showing
and
demonstrating
here
to
make
sure
that
those
are
in
sync.
D
D
I
I
D
B
B
C
G
Michelle
yeah
in
general
larry-
and
this
is
like
the
third
thing
you've
given
us
that
isn't
in
our
packet-
and
it's
really
I
mean
the
hobby
for
the
packet
is
supposed
to
build
the
reason
I
look
at
it
ahead
of
time,
and
I
know
you
don't
have
stuff
to
the
last
minute
but
honestly
trying
to
to
read
this
and
think
about
it.
While
we're
at
the
meeting
is
really
difficult,
so
I'm
with
I'm
with
kristen,
it's
like
give
it
to
us.
G
Let
us
look
at
it
on
our
own
instead
of
trying
to
look
at
it
while
you're
going
through
it
and
reading
it
now,
because
that
this
is
just
it's
hard
for
me
to
you
know
to
to
wrap
my
head
around
what
you're
trying
to
say
when
it's
the
first
time
I'm
seeing
it
and
I'm
trying
to
think
about
what
it
says
so
so
the
whole
you
know
it's.
I
really
would
appreciate
it
if,
if
we
would
see
stuff
ahead
of
time
before
you're
asking
us
to
talk
about
it,.
B
B
F
B
E
If
you
want
to
hear
another
comment
for
bright,
I
agree
that,
as
michelle
said,
I
have
not
seen
this
before.
I
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
look
at
it
and
then
not
knowing
what
the
big
picture
is
and
then
how
each
slide
is
a
part
of
that,
but
just
trying
to
be
critical
review
of
this
without
seeing
the
whole
thing
and
then
going
back
to
it
right
now
is
not
that,
from
my
standpoint,
won't
be
very
productive.
B
G
B
B
B
B
B
It
it's
again
is
it's,
you
know,
part
of
it
is
what
we
were
trying,
what
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
and
and
it
the
fact
is
that
we
weren't
through
the
doc.
I
mean
we
weren't
through
our
process
yet
right.
So
the
end
result
just
to
remind
us
all
that
we
agreed
to
is
that
after
draft
two
goes
out,
then
we're
gonna
go
to
the
council
and
say
here's
what
we
did
and
here's
what
we
want
you
to
do,
which
is
basically
support
and
approve
the
actions
that
we
had
in
here.
B
Right,
I
mean
other
thing:
everything
else
is
background
right,
so
really
the
action
was
to
me
was
the
key
to
the
council.
So
the
purpose
of
this
I'm
just
teeing
it
up-
was
to
set
the
stage
for
that.
So
when
we
come
back
in
another
month
or
two,
I
guess
it
might
be
in
their
august
meeting
and
when
we're
we're
doing
an
ask
right.
So
this
wasn't
to
be
an
ask.
This
was
just
to
be
a
status
right,
fair
enough,
so
that's
the
that's
the
setting
the
stage
on
that
is.
D
I
would
definitely
agree
that
you
know
if
you
just
shift
to
the
agenda
that
slide
just
so
people
see
what's
in
the
package,
so
we
know
what
they're
talking
about.
I
think
that's
all
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
outline
what
we're
going
to
talk
about
at
the
at
the
presentation
we've
got
a
draft
here,
bruce
is
going
to
send
it
out
and
that
we're
going
to
take
out
comments
and
and
and
and
anything.
E
D
Can
get
in
advance
would
be
helpful
and
I
think
at
the
next
we
got
a
special
meeting
on
the
22nd
here
then
we'll
talk
and
we'll
get
this
thing
hammered
out,
but
it's
just
a
matter
of
it
was
at
the
request
of
the
council
at
that
lat.
On
that
june
23rd
meeting
the
committee
of
the
whole
that
they
asked
larry
to
say:
hey,
can
you
guys
explain
it
because
this
is
it?
D
It's
been
posted
on
the
town
website
and
everything
and
they
would
like
have
a
better
explanation
and
understanding,
because
I
was
shocked
on
the
23rd,
how
many
items
that
of
a
conservation
nature
were
on
the
agenda
and
we
basically
had
a
monopoly
that
that
that
was
a
five-hour
council
committee
of
the
whole.
I
would
say
probably
four
hours
of
it
was
all
on
conservation
type
of
issues.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Talked
about
you
know,
data's
all
over
the
place
and
that
I
need
to
know
all
the
assumptions
behind
the
assessment
stuff.
I
have
not
replied
to
that
because
I
don't
set
assessments
that
assessment
came
from
the
town,
so
I'm
letting
the
town
respond
to
that
if
they
are
or
not,
but
we
got
a
four-year
request,
so
I
thought
that
was
of
interest.
B
So
they're
going
through
their
process,
which
is
interesting,
so
I
guess
one
of
the
things
goes
along
with
what
tom
just
said
about
the
amount
of
conservation
topics.
Is
that
there's
a
greater
interest
out
there
and
that's
drumming
up
more
interest
in
joining
this
august
group?
So
I
thought
I
would
share
that
with
you,
so
it
does
look
like
we're
going
to
have
that
filled
at
some
point.
Well,
it
does
seem
to
take
a
lot
longer
than
I
would
think
on
a
related
note,
oh
let
me
get.
B
B
Quite
I'm,
assuming
is
correct,
they're,
both
quite
talented,
video
editors
and
storytellers,
and
would
like
to
see
if
the
conservation
committee
may
have
tax
footage
skills
that
they
would
like
to
contribute
to
assist
with
the
context
of
televisual
story
you
know
of
of
that
was
on
the
school
space,
but
I
kind
of
expanded
it.
On
my
I
that
said
about
something
about.
B
B
B
B
E
A
B
F
B
C
C
You
guys
see
this:
oh,
oh
yeah,
yeah!
This
is
the
logo
that
we
worked
with
lisa
hill
who's,
my
neighbor
she's,
really
great
at
graphics,
and
this
is
going
to
be.
As
you
recall,
we
were
going
to
do
a
sort
of
a
carrot
for
the
businesses
that
have
been
supportive
of
our
plastic
incentive,
and
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
dialogue
lately
about
who
is
and
is
not
going
to
be
included.
C
But
this
is
the
fundamental
logo
which
I
think
is
absolutely
spectacular,
we're
thrilled
with
it
and
across
the
top.
The
wording
is
going
to
be
well,
it's
going
to
stay
across
the
top
plastic
reduction
and
on
the
bottom
champion
in
bold
letters,
plastic
reduction
champion,
and
then
the
question
is:
who
is
the
sponsor
of
this
sort
of
award
or
thing
that
we're
going
to
give
out
to
to
businesses
who
are
willing
to
have
a
decal
on
their
window?
And
I
think
the
sponsorship
is
going
to
be.
C
It's
been
discussed
between
the
mystic
chamber
of
commerce,
the
conservation
commission.
That's
us
gca
and
the
one
that
we're
not
sure
of
is
the
economic
development,
commission
and
eugenie,
and
I
are
supposed
to
attend
their
meeting
in
about
two
or
three
days:
they're
deciding
whether
they
not
they
want
their
name
on
it.
There's
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
about
graphically.
How
can
we
include
that?
But
the
idea
is
the
big
words.
Plastic
reduction
champion
will
be
on
the
top
and
bottom
and
then
in
very
fine
font
like
around
the
edge.
C
C
And-
and
of
course,
you
know,
the
ideas
expand,
but
the
other
idea
we
had
ultimately
is
that
who's
to
say
that
we
couldn't
produce,
let's
say
t-shirts
or
cotton
shopping
bags
with
this
logo
on
it,
where
the
proceeds
go
to
support,
you
know
maybe
one
of
our
local
environmental
causes
or
whatever,
but
that
would
be
down
the
line
after
we
launched
the
sticker
initiative.
So
and,
as
I
recall,
mr
larry
dunn
had
offered
to
pay
for
the
production
of.
C
C
Well,
I've
been
fighting
for
that,
it's
going
to
say
the
the
groton
con
town
of
ground
conservation,
commission,
town
of
ground
economic
development,
council,
miss
chamber,
a
mystic
chamber
of
commerce
and
ground
conservation
advocates.
I
don't
know
whether
the
town
of
groton
also
wants
their.
I
think
they
are
on
there
via
us,
but
maybe
that's
something
to
check
on
what
do
you?
E
C
C
C
Okay,
come
on
I'll
see
about
that.
The
other
thing
that
I
thought
of
that
might
be
nice
would
be
ultimately
to
have
one,
maybe
where
in
both
face
letters
on
the
bottom,
it
says
mystic
or
in
bold,
face
letters
on
the
bottom.
It
says
gratin
or
you
know,
maybe
maybe
you
expand
it
and
then
ledger
gets
to
use
the
logo,
because
it's
a
really
great
it's
a
fabulous
logo.
I
think
we
could
get
some
mileage
with
it
somehow.
So
I
will
stop
sharing.