TOWN OF RUTLAND
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES: OCTOBER 20, 2015
MEETING OPENED: 7:13 PM
Attendance
Board Members Present: Joe Dell’Aquila, Chairman; Shawn Moore; Scott Landgren; Peter Craine; Eric Bigelow
Board Members Absent: Willard Cannon; Nancy Nichols
Guests
NONE
Application Submissions
NONE
Votes
Meeting Minutes from October 6, 2015 – Motion to approve minutes made by Peter, seconded by Scott; Minutes approved at 7:19 PM with Eric abstaining.
Motion to close meeting – Motion made by Peter, seconded by Shawn; vote unanimous at 8:44 PM.
Hearings
NONE
Discussions
Brice-Lemon Estates
We have drafted a letter to send to Attorney Kiritsy for the Army Corp of Engineers. The Army Corp has requested this letter as part of their MEPA filing. The letter is on whether we would prefer culverts or bridges. Last meeting we agreed to send the letter, so Joe would like to read the letter to everyone. (letter read)
Joe would prefer culverts and thinks that the Planning Board is of the same mind. He thinks we should show a united front with the Planning Board and as a town. Eric isn’t sure if we should make the statement either way. Joe said that this would not lock us into anything, and does not stop bridges from being built. Shawn agrees that he doesn’t feel a statement needs to be made. Joe explained that the Army Corp of Engineers wants to know why we agreed to the culverts over bridges because of us approving the culvert plan over the bridges. Eric asked if there was a formal letter sent. Scott said that the Blair had told them to talk to us about this and that is why. Eric isn’t sure he wants to align ourselves with Planning Board and we should just go with whatever
follows the Wetlands Protection Act, and doesn’t think we should do this. He asked if this is for Blair and Scott said that the Army Corp of Engineer’s wanted this as part of the MEPA filing, and the Army Corp wanted a letter. Planning Board has already sent their letter in. Eric doesn’t’ feel that the letter is site specific, and that the preference may not help us in the future.
Scott said that he isn’t too sure and might agree with Eric on part of the letter, specifically #1 on the letter. Scott said he would prefer culverts, but culverts may not always be feasible. Eric and Scott said this letter is not site specific and they both think the letter should specify the site. Joe doesn’t think we should make the letter site specific. Shawn agrees that the letter is misleading and thinks we might be trying to please too many people at once. Eric thinks the preference should be removed, and Scott and Shawn agree. Scott does not like the first sentence in paragraph 1, and Joe thinks that it passes it right back to Planning Board, where it belongs. Peter also agrees with removing some of the stuff from the letter, specifically moving #4 to #1 and is also
concerned with the word “voted” and thinks it should be changed to the word “agreed”; everyone agrees and this will be changed. Everyone agrees to move #4 to #1. The letter was edited to everyone’s satisfaction.
By-Law Discussion
Peter has been working on this and has a few questions. The first one is the like kind by-law seemed like it was something the Board was interested in and if it is Peter can write a separate by-law for that specifically. Scott thinks a separate by-law.
The second question was about the Earth Works Board or the Authority person on this. The soil removal by-law calls out Conservation Commission specifically a few times. We can amend the existing removal by-law to reference the proper authority, we can have one all encompassing by-law and rescind the current removal by-law or we can make a completely different by-law and leave the removal by-law alone. Joe thinks one all encompassing by-law.
The third question was what we do with existing situations. We will add something about this as well. Peter will keep working on this for next meeting.
Reviewed Mail
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen Wamback
Secretary
| 
