[0:10] Streaming up. >> Oh, mine is a seven.

[0:12] » How is seven? >> Oh,

[0:14] yes, they're upstairs there. >> Okay, [clears throat] that's okay. All

[0:18] right, I will call the Wetlands and Conservation Commission meeting to

[0:21] order. Um, first agenda item is seating of

[0:25] alternates. Um, Allison, will you sit for our open seat?

[0:30] And Sue, will you sit for Marjorie or Joe Thickman?

[0:34] » Sure. >> Thank you.

[0:36] Um, approval of minutes from August 4th, 2026. Did anyone have any adjustments,

[0:41] notes, comments, questions?

[0:46] I will entertain a motion to approve those.

[0:48] » So moved, I approve. >> Second it.

[0:50] » All in favor? >> Aye.

[0:52] » Aye. >> Um, IWW applications for public hearing

[0:57] or vote, we have none. Conservation Commission business, um, we

[1:02] have the referral from Zoning Commission,

[1:04] » [snorts] >> uh, applications ZC 2618 and ZC 2619.

[1:10] Um,

[1:13] this was the car wash, um, that was referred to us for comment.

[1:18] » Yep. Yep, so, um, at the August 4th meeting,

[1:22] we discussed with the applicant present uh, the information.

[1:27] Um, this was originates with Zoning and Zoning Commission.

[1:32] They part as part of the approval process, they

[1:35] refer it to a number of land use agencies, Conservation Commission being

[1:39] one of them. So, at the last meeting, we we heard the application. Um, you asked

[1:43] at the end of the meeting for me to kind of memorialize the discussion into a

[1:47] draft letter, uh, referral letter, which you you have before you. Um, so,

[1:54] at this meeting, I would ask that you, you know, look through it, let me know

[1:57] if you want me to make any changes and then decide what

[2:01] you want to pass on to the zoning commission.

[2:05] » [snorts] >> Thank you for drafting that letter.

[2:06] » You're welcome. >> I think it summarized our discussion

[2:09] very well. >> I did let Marjorie review it. Didn't

[2:12] have any comments except the native plant comment, um, which I did I wanted

[2:17] to mention the applicant to change the plant species from to what you thought

[2:22] to native. >> Um, also I did want to note that we did

[2:25] receive a lot of correspondence from the public since [clears throat] the August

[2:28] 4th meeting and that is also up on your Dropbox.

[2:32] » So, can I just have a a question about procedures and operations?

[2:37] Well, we've gotten more comments from the

[2:40] public. It's not an open meeting. >> [clears throat]

[2:42] » So, how are those coming to us as a part of the procedures? Is anybody sending

[2:46] anything in that >> It's It's we're calling it

[2:48] correspondence. >> Okay.

[2:49] » Just for your information. It's It's not, you know, during public hearings we

[2:53] usually call them public comment. >> Okay.

[2:55] » And that's the official part of the record. This is kind of just for your

[2:58] for your information on what we received.

[3:00] » which which is fine. So, you know, but that's as a procedure we we should be

[3:05] you know, if people are sending things to us this way, we treat them as that as

[3:09] opposed to something in the public. So, I'm I'm fine with that.

[3:12] » Okay, thank you. >> Yep.

[3:16] » Did everybody get a chance to read the draft letter?

[3:19] » Yeah.

[3:23] » What are your guys' thoughts? >> Well, I I I I have a few I have a few

[3:27] concerns, but I would I would like to to start ask about sort of the final

[3:32] recommendation. You have three choices, positive,

[3:35] negative, and neutral. >> Mhm.

[3:37] » And I'm wondering if there are, um, strict definitions what falls into those

[3:42] three categories or is it a sense of, you know, the commission or how do we

[3:47] address that category? >> You know, you can even say we submit

[3:50] these recommendations for review. It doesn't have to be

[3:55] even pigeonholed into these three >> Okay.

[3:58] Okay. So so so there so there isn't a procedure

[4:01] » There's not a procedure. It's really just a referral to you that this is

[4:04] what's outlined in the zoning regulations for review. It doesn't say

[4:08] commission commission needs to provide X.

[4:11] » Right. But but and and [clears throat] so

[4:14] you know, the way the way the draft letter is referred to is that the answer

[4:17] is that the construction committee would like to

[4:19] submit a choose one of the three. >> Right.

[4:22] » Or we could or it could be something complete something completely different,

[4:25] but there's no particular set of requirements that makes it a

[4:29] positive or a negative. >> Yes.

[4:31] » All right. >> Yep.

[4:32] » Okay. >> Yep.

[4:34] » Um Well, I I have some I have some issues,

[4:38] but I do not want to dominate this conversation, so I will let other people

[4:41] talk.

[4:43] » I think we can start. >> Yeah.

[4:45] If you want to start, go ahead. >> Okay. So as per usual, I

[4:50] I don't like it when we don't have a summary of what some of the public

[4:54] concerns have been. You know, as a way to to

[4:57] state back what that we heard X. Um

[5:01] and and I and I was looking at the more the more recent ones that were coming in

[5:06] and and these are kind of echoed in um some of the preliminary ones. There was

[5:12] like three or four areas that the concerns touched on that I thought and

[5:17] they were also touched in the conversations at the last time, but I

[5:20] don't think we actually got some we finally answers on.

[5:24] One was there was a some concerns about the water coming from that local

[5:29] aquifer. And I thought that the water would come

[5:33] from Aquarium, and so I thought that there was um which I would have thought

[5:37] would have been a more um

[5:40] sort of agglomeration of all the water sources that act that Aquarium controls.

[5:45] But there was awful I was a lot of concern from the public that it was

[5:48] going to drain that particular surface aquifer. Has that Has that been

[5:52] addressed? >> No. So, if you'll notice on

[5:55] um the fourth the fourth uh subject line, the water

[6:00] usage information, I think since we left it the applicant

[6:04] does not have a final letter from Aquarian about this what they call a

[6:09] will serve letter. So, the recommendation would be for Zoning

[6:13] Commission to make sure you receive that [clears throat] information prior to

[6:16] approval. >> Right. But so So, I I I remember I

[6:20] remember seeing that, but the discussion's a little bit different,

[6:23] which is, at least in my mind, they we heard at the on a August 4th meeting

[6:29] that Aquarian was going had had the had the main pipes there. They're going to

[6:34] ratchet it down. The question was how much water do they really need? But if

[6:39] that's coming from Aquarian it I think the question that was some of

[6:43] the public had was was that particularly going to draw down that local aquifer or

[6:48] is it just drawing down the supplies for the for the town water system?

[6:52] » So, do you So, maybe we can add to this section information of well should also

[6:59] um should also require information

[7:02] regarding which which aquifer or >> and local and local drawdown cuz one of

[7:07] the second concerns that was voiced in some of these comments was that the

[7:12] areas close by have have wells and and they're kind of

[7:17] and some of them are really not that deep. They're fairly surface wells. I

[7:20] know the reason this is a protected area is because the aquifer's close to the

[7:24] surface. So, the question that some people raised

[7:28] is, you know, you know, what's you know, if if something goes wrong and

[7:33] your and your well's only X amount deep, what is that? What's the risk of that?

[7:37] And then what's the burden of that? Now, I'm not sure that that falls within our

[7:41] sphere of influence and regulatory, but that

[7:45] seems to be something that ought to be able to be addressed as to what's going

[7:48] on. >> Yep. Yep, I think we can bring that

[7:50] issue up to and make sure the zoning commission is aware of that.

[7:53] » Okay, yeah. Um

[7:56] the Uh

[7:58] there were there were three. I was just I was there were So there's the wire at

[8:02] that. Um

[8:08] Well, let the other people talk. I'm going to go I There's There's two other

[8:10] themes that keep coming keep kept coming up and I'll try to figure out those at

[8:13] some point. Those time.

[8:18] I I Oh, and I And I also did not see in in our in our documents

[8:25] the actual like MSDS sheets someplace. I saw pieces on them.

[8:30] Um but I didn't see all of them, and of course I couldn't read them anyways, but

[8:33] I was just wondering where do we have those as part of the record?

[8:37] » I believe they're in the application information.

[8:40] I Are there SDS sheets? >> Yes.

[8:42] » Yes, that's I thought I saw that, but um

[8:46] » Okay, okay. So the expert over here on >> Yes, yes, please, yeah.

[8:51] If you want to add anything to that, Allison.

[8:53] » I I didn't see them when I was looking. >> Oh, okay.

[8:56] » I read many many many things and then I would type

[8:59] » [snorts] >> didn't see those, so

[9:01] Um

[9:04] So those So the the zoning commission should

[9:06] ensure that that S Am I saying it right? SDS

[9:11] » Okay. >> SDS I'm not I'm not safety data sheet.

[9:15] » Yeah. >> Data sheet

[9:17] are included. >> And as I do remember what the third one

[9:21] was that was also sort of brought up. And we've [clears throat] had this And

[9:26] this issue has come up in other applications as well. Like if an

[9:30] applicant comes in and is doing, you know, a fantastic job and has made

[9:35] commitments to do X, Y, and Z. How do those transfer if like the

[9:41] business gets sold? And that was a problem we had in another

[9:45] application. So, if if people are, you know, making these kinds of commitments,

[9:51] they're essentially mitigations or whatever they are, how does that go from

[9:56] owner to owner? And I don't think we have a a particular process for that,

[10:02] but that does bring some of these sort of higher risk activities that are are

[10:08] um you know, that's one of the concerns I

[10:10] think people have raised, and we haven't been able to answer that.

[10:13] » So, um you know, one option is to request that

[10:18] the zoning commission condition their approval to ensure that the mitigation

[10:23] measures list out them, you know, what the

[10:25] applicant did. So, the it moves with the partial. So, if

[10:29] there's a new owner, then they will be conditioned.

[10:32] » I I think that's part of it, and I think I think, you know, again, it's a matter

[10:37] of reflecting this back that, you know, we heard these concerns coming in, and

[10:40] this is sort of what we're trying to do. Those weren't um

[10:45] enacted here, and and so, when I look at the letter, I'll I'll tell you what I

[10:50] I did I didn't write one up, but where I was headed with it was that there was a

[10:54] lot of great comments about um

[10:58] sort of what the applicant has done sort of, you know, to to mitigate this site

[11:01] that they've done it that they you can point to a lot of things they've done

[11:05] » [clears throat] >> in order to mitigate things within

[11:08] the regulatory environment that that they're under. Whatever they could do,

[11:12] they sort of done. The issue boils down to

[11:16] um and the public has pointed this out, it's been pointed out in other places,

[11:19] that it's it's a high-risk activity in these kinds of areas, but it's not a

[11:23] regulated one. So, if this came forward to us under the

[11:27] wetlands commission, we wouldn't necessarily have a way to deny that on

[11:32] under the regulation, but it doesn't mean that it's

[11:35] not a low risk. You can have the applicant doing everything legally they

[11:38] need to do and and and beyond to some degree, but it can still be recorded as

[11:42] a high risk activity. And [clears throat] I didn't see that as

[11:45] being balanced in the letter, and I still feel like both of those things are

[11:49] true at the same time. You know, you can point to both of them.

[11:52] » Right. Um so

[11:56] do you want to mention high risk in what specific

[11:59] » it So I So I So I think So I think the the the issue is is that it's you know,

[12:07] » [clears throat] >> it's not been studied. You know, it's

[12:09] one of the things that it's not regulated cuz it's not been studied.

[12:12] There's a lot of concerns about where the water is going inside

[12:15] » it's and like the residual water is just >> So So yeah, it sounds like you maybe

[12:19] this goes like in an introduction introductory

[12:23] » Right. >> paragraph.

[12:24] » Right. That That I think And And then I think that that's the that's why when

[12:28] you get to the end of why we're making this kind of of of of conclusion, it'd

[12:33] be like we've heard these things and these are the problem things that that

[12:37] zoning should be thinking about addressing. Maybe have some

[12:40] recommendations. I think the summaries of these two things are are right on,

[12:44] but I think that they are the the four points you have here. But the

[12:48] the sort of the discussion between you know, you know, how the applicant could

[12:54] have done, you know, things that are sort of I won't say standard cuz they've

[12:58] they've exceeded in some areas like planting and other things. But there's

[13:01] just other things that they that there's not best practices on, but everyone's

[13:05] concerned um about about these things. It's not regulated.

[13:10] » Yeah. >> [clears throat]

[13:10] » Okay. >> Does that make sense?

[13:12] » Yep. It does. It does.

[13:16] » So that was part of the Haldeman spiel, but I'm wondering what everybody else is

[13:19] thinking.

[13:23] » Um I'm kind of hunting for if they're going

[13:26] to have secondary containment in the equipment room. That's where I am right

[13:29] now. >> Okay.

[13:30] I'm sure there would be. I don't know if that's OSHA like OSHA

[13:33] that would or if it's like a building code that needs to be followed.

[13:37] But management of the chemicals that they keep on site in an

[13:42] appropriate [clears throat] way. >> Mhm.

[13:45] » And making sure that that's a transferable requirement.

[13:49] » What did you You called it secondary? >> Secondary containment.

[13:52] » Okay.

[13:56] » [snorts] >> So like the the chemicals are in a

[14:01] bin or a right? >> A

[14:03] » a drum. >> Yeah, the

[14:04] » The drum also inside of something. So if that spills or cracks or breaks or

[14:08] leaks, it doesn't go direct to the environment.

[14:12] » Okay.

[14:17] Do Do we have an idea on based on just [snorts] the the the water maps of

[14:23] that area, >> [clears throat]

[14:24] » where actually the aquifer science like how close is it to the surface? Like is

[14:29] there geological line that people have agreed on that

[14:32] » Yeah, I I'm not I don't know the the I don't know that answer.

[14:36] » So I I I would think that that would need to be something that we

[14:40] should be able to address and say, you know, we looked at this and this is to

[14:44] to get an evaluation for what the time scale is for you know,

[14:48] water regeneration of the aquifer. Cuz that's the concern, right?

[14:52] » Right. >> That there's some amount of as if the

[14:54] aquifer was 2,000 ft down, it might be a different discussion than if it's 20 ft

[14:58] down. >> Right. Right. And I hopefully I mean,

[15:00] it'd be helpful if Aquarian kind of addressed that in their letter.

[15:03] » It It It should, but somebody [clears throat] ought to be able to do

[15:06] it. >> Yeah.

[15:12] » And I'm sure zoning said that we ought to be able to do that. So that's

[15:15] probably what they're looking for. >> [snorts]

[15:17] » Yeah, the aquifer protection. >> Is that Right. But But But But what what

[15:21] does it mean? Yeah, what what does it what does it mean from a length scale,

[15:24] you know? Time scale.

[15:27] So, one of us is like, "Okay, that's that's what it was. Go figure it out."

[15:35] » Zoning is the aquifer protection agency, as well.

[15:38] » What Excuse me? >> Zoning commission [clears throat] is the

[15:40] aquifer protection agency. So, they can

[15:45] » Okay. >> Ask the aquafarian for that. But, again,

[15:47] I mean, it's in the Once if something's within an aquafer

[15:50] protection boundary >> Yeah.

[15:52] » that that is sent to us, it triggers all the aquafer protection

[15:56] » Right. And and And and and but I also think that this

[15:59] is just something So, I I can imagine something that's

[16:03] like right on the edge being the aquafer protection zone,

[16:06] and I imagine something that's like right up at the top, you know, you dig

[16:09] down 10 ft and you're there. >> Okay.

[16:11] » Um And and I I And I think

[16:15] since they're asking us to figure out these parts,

[16:18] then obviously something that goes back into the infrastructure.

[16:24] And And it's not just over the one site, but it's over where that drainage pond

[16:28] is and the and the and the rest of the uh

[16:32] storm water sewers, etc. That's expected areas.

[16:41] » Have you Have you Have you been able to make magic out of this?

[16:43] » No, because it's only showing me things from a month ago.

[16:46] » Okay. >> I was like, I don't know why I can't

[16:47] find anything here.

[16:50] Everything says from a month ago. I can't seem to update it.

[17:02] » What are you thinking, James?

[17:06] » I've been hunting for the SDS sheets, too.

[17:09] » Okay. >> Try now. I'm not sure.

[17:12] » I found a list of the chemicals they're using, but

[17:14] » Like, I This is just showing me stuff from a

[17:17] month ago. So it's not >> Okay, so updated us too.

[17:20] » Yeah.

[17:24] » Maybe able to pull it up here. It's hard to read on there.

[17:37] » [cough] >> So what are you thinking?

[17:39] » I'm just looking at protected aquifers in their town.

[17:41] » Okay. >> And see how deep

[17:46] It's a the it's the areas of final adopted aquifer protection area.

[17:56] It looks like there's two aquifers that overlap each other in that location.

[18:00] » So it sounds like So I can add these this information to

[18:05] the letter. It sounds like we're going towards a kind of

[18:09] neutral for your information type. >> [snorts]

[18:12] » Am I correct in >> That was where I was headed because I

[18:15] see I see it on both sides and I see them as having to make

[18:20] the final the final decision but I I do I think they are going to make a final

[18:25] decision but I do feel like our job is to put this information in context.

[18:29] » Right and I think yep. I think one of the most important parts

[18:32] of that is that adding that you know paragraph about you know the

[18:36] conservation commission understands this type of activity and there's not many

[18:40] best practices on it. These are our concerns and then kind of

[18:45] going to >> Mhm.

[18:46] » [clears throat] >> the other

[18:47] » And and and and I and what I can do is I can as I

[18:51] there were a few other public concerns like the you know

[18:56] things like you know just you know not allowing something

[19:00] like this but that that doesn't really fall in our in our purview but

[19:03] [clears throat] it's really if you go through the ones that sort of fall

[19:05] within our purview and stuff that breaks into like four categories. We ought to

[19:09] be able to say we've heard these. This is what we've heard. And this is what's

[19:14] going on for them. And I I can take it on myself to summarize

[19:17] those and send that to you. >> Okay.

[19:19] » And then you don't you don't have to figure that out. I'll send that.

[19:22] » Okay. That'd be helpful.

[19:30] » As far as what kind of referral, I'm comfortable

[19:33] with a neutral referral. And I don't think this is

[19:38] going to improve anything, but I also don't think it's going to

[19:42] » [snorts] >> necessarily detract from anything

[19:45] either. Um

[19:47] » No, raising our concerns is what we're supposed to be doing, right?

[19:52] » But I think there's a lot of valid concerns. I also think that they've been

[19:56] substantially addressed. Um but I mean there's always the what

[20:00] if. >> Mhm.

[20:01] » [clears throat] >> And then

[20:02] » Yeah, I think that's part of I mean the other part of the of the the plus side

[20:07] is that and it and it's also balances out with

[20:10] the number of car washes that are around here. But any car wash that's doing this

[20:15] and as well operating in a good in a in a in a as designed system is better than

[20:20] anybody washing their car on and going into the storm sewers.

[20:24] » Yeah, and it's better than a parking lot with dirty cars getting rained on ending

[20:29] up in there. >> Right. And so I think that's part of the

[20:31] plus side that needs to get at put in. So we we have we recognize this. You

[20:36] know, we recognize this part. And this is what's being pushed against.

[20:39] » [snorts] >> So that that's why I think it's kind of

[20:42] like out those two fields to it. And this is a good description of the

[20:45] discussion we had. But that's but that's that's where I

[20:48] thought thought it was it needed like one more tweak.

[20:57] » So we would need a motion for what we're going to pass on

[21:02] to the zoning commission.

[21:05] Um I mean it could be

[21:12] Um.

[21:14] You know, the draft reference this, the draft referral letter with the issue to

[21:19] end at the recommendations

[21:23] that were discussed during the meeting. Um.

[21:27] And provide a neutral

[21:31] recommendation to the zoning commission. >> Are we under Are we under timeline right

[21:34] now? >> I mean I would I think we should

[21:37] » Yeah. >> Cuz we want to wrap this up

[21:39] » for the next meeting. >> Okay, their next meeting which is

[21:43] » I think it's before our >> September

[21:45] » September 1st meeting. Yeah. [snorts] >> [clears throat]

[21:49] » I would I I would like to get this to them

[21:51] prior to their next to the meeting where they're

[21:55] » Oh, the zoning's meeting? >> Yes.

[21:57] » Okay. >> We have to.

[21:59] » [laughter]

[22:02] » So, okay. I I can understand that. That makes sense. It it doesn't do us very

[22:06] good if it doesn't get there. Um, what are our choices is to

[22:12] um is to [clears throat] essentially Can

[22:16] Can we basically do this update and then do this like over email?

[22:20] » So, you can send You could send me the information. I can update the letter and

[22:24] send it. Um,

[22:26] we're not going to change that it's a, you know, what type of motion you're

[22:30] doing like if it's neutral, positive, negative, or

[22:32] nothing. >> Okay.

[22:33] » Um, but we can reference, you know, saying that

[22:38] it's going to be this letter with the addition with the additional edits that

[22:42] were discussed in this meeting. >> And the ones that you're going to

[22:46] » Right. And And And but >> And then I will You'll see it I mean

[22:50] you'll see the final once we work on it and we see the final letter

[22:55] then I can I'll send it out. >> Okay.

[22:58] » Before >> Okay. So So

[23:01] » And this final line that says, "With this information, we would like to

[23:04] submit a neutral approval." >> Right. So, so the discussion right now

[23:10] is whether it's neutral, positive, or negative.

[23:15] » Right. >> Right.

[23:17] » And And >> Or would like word, again.

[23:19] » Or Or Or not. >> Just neutral. Just for your information.

[23:23] » what we found. So, so so Okay, so I would I would vote that the last one is

[23:28] not on the table. You would be You would be asked to give

[23:31] an opinion based on our stuff, and have it should be one of the other three, but

[23:34] not >> probably agree. I think we can

[23:36] come to a agreement

[23:39] on a positive, negative, or neutral. >> Right. Right. So, I think it's one of

[23:42] those three, and not the last option. Does anybody think it can be the last

[23:46] option? >> No, we should make a

[23:48] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> know, go on record, and you'll give it

[23:51] up. >> Yeah.

[23:52] » Okay. Then

[23:54] then then the question is, does anybody think

[23:57] it should be approved, you know, a positive endorsement?

[24:03] » I'm kind of comfortable with neutral, to be honest.

[24:05] » Yeah. Neutral. >> And neutral sounds

[24:09] Okay. >> You know, here are our concerns, and

[24:11] this is how they end. >> I I And I And I think that that's I

[24:14] think that's a fair one. You know, I I I don't I think it's also unreasonable

[24:19] when something is is an unregulated activity, and there's not a lot of

[24:23] scientific information to point at how somebody could do something better.

[24:27] » Mhm. Correct. >> And And you know, on the face of it, the

[24:31] applicant's done what, you know, has been

[24:35] the only question is more. So, I think that's the reason I would go for

[24:38] neutral, uh because of these other problems, some

[24:40] of them which are out of our control. >> Yes, when we

[24:44] you know, they when they go to the They have to go went to the state and said

[24:48] "What about the carryout?" And the state's like,

[24:52] "You You don't even know." So, it's hard to say

[24:55] » Right. >> a negative because no one's studied it.

[24:59] It's >> So that's

[25:03] Do we Do we need a formal motion now? >> So maybe it could be something moved

[25:08] with this information the Conservation Commission would like to submit a

[25:10] neutral referral to the Zoning Commission and provide um the the the

[25:15] the attached letter of concerns that were discussed.

[25:20] » So moved. >> Wait a second.

[25:24] » Second it. >> Any discussion?

[25:27] All in favor? Aye.

[25:31] » Okay. Thanks, Britney.

[25:34] So I will I'll I'll review the SCSs as well.

[25:38] » Okay. >> That can be just added to the

[25:41] consideration. >> Yeah.

[25:45] » It's not MSDS anymore. >> Not in a while.

[25:49] Yeah, they they tried to go to a more centralized

[25:52] universal because they were every country had completely different

[25:56] requirements. They tried to go to a more centralized

[25:58] » So this is more of an international type sort of

[26:01] » Yes. Compared to what it was, yes.

[26:04] Realistically >> Okay.

[26:07] » So >> only

[26:08] » It's been a while, so >> Yeah, you're dating yourself.

[26:14] » I date myself. >> It was It was like 15 years ago that it

[26:17] changed over to >> Yeah, it's about time.

[26:21] Um do we have any other conservation

[26:23] business?

[26:28] Um just for official purposes, can we if we're not busy super busy the next

[26:33] meeting, can we put on the agenda rodenticide discussion?

[26:36] » I have one of the directors' responses. I'm waiting for the other who said

[26:39] they'll get it to me and then we'll So I'll provide that information and that

[26:42] could be the starting off point. >> Thank you very much.

[26:47] Um designated agent actions and other reports?

[26:51] And adjournment. >> Motion to adjourn.

[26:55] » I think I hit

[26:56] all in favor. I.

[26:59] Thank you. >> For over 40 years, SCM has been the

[27:03] voice of our town. >> Bringing us together through local

[27:06] programming and >> education

[27:08] » and live broadcast. >> SCM isn't just about television.

[27:11] » It's about empowering our community. >> Ensuring our voices are heard during

[27:15] government meetings. >> And celebrating milestones. [music]

[27:17] » Like our high school graduations. >> But today, SCM faces a challenge.

[27:21] » Our funding structure is based on television subscriptions.

[27:24] » And it's no secret, people have been cutting the cord.

[27:27] » With a shift to internet-only subscriptions.

[27:29] » SCM receives less revenue. >> Even though all our programming [music]

[27:32] is freely available online. >> We need your support.

[27:36] » We need your support. >> your support.

[27:38] » We need your support. >> We need your support.

[27:40] » Your donation can make a difference. >> It will ensure that SCM remains open.

[27:45] » Continues to educate our youth and keeps our community informed.

[27:48] » Thanks to SCM, I've been honing my creative skills, helping me work towards

[27:52] my college degree. >> SCM is crucial for keeping our community

[27:55] connected. >> SCM isn't just here to broadcast local

[27:58] events. They're actually preserving [music] Simsbury's history.

[28:01] » Join us. >> Join us in preserving Simsbury's voice.

[28:04] » Simsbury's voice. >> Together we can ensure that SCM

[28:06] continues to thrive >> for generations to come.

[28:09] » Visit our website >> or scan the QR code on your screen to

[28:12] make your donation. >> Every contribution

[28:14] » counts. >> Thank you for supporting Simsbury

[28:16] Community Media. >> Where your town,

[28:18] » your schools, >> and your government come together.

Conservation Commission Meeting - August 18, 2026

Transcript