public hearing is now called to order at 609. Uh this hearing is being held as a requirement by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of commonwealth in act relative to protection of wetlands as most recently
amended. Notice of the time and place of this hearing was published in the standard times on July 2nd 2025. It was also posted in the town's clerk's office. This meeting is being audio and v videotaped. Spec uh persons wishing to
be heard would be called in the following order. Um I'd like to enter a motion to open the public hearing. Motion to open the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? I. Okay. So, uh minute for approval.
Negative meeting mail. Um we also have resignation of Mark 8 uh Mark Mittton uh conservation agent. Previewers of matter is presented. Votes may be taken. Well, Mark, first of all, I'd like to
say thank you for the time you have put into this town for the work you have done. Um, agreed. You're going to vote to affirm my resignation. Is that is that I'm No, I don't I don't think we have to
vote on that. So, I'll make a motion to accept Mark's resignation. In light of that, I'd like to make a motion to move forward. Anything coming forward to the commission go before peer review.
Um, we really got to look at that, Mark. I mean, Doug, um, not everything can be just peer review. I think it's got to come before us and then we'll make a decision and see what happens with the new agent and go forward with that route. Um there's some things that I
think we can just handle on our own RDA stuff like that, but I feel if there is something that does need to be re get reviewed, I believe we should use the opportunity to do it. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. We got to take a vote, right? Um to accept the um
Well, he's saying everything gets peer reviewed. I mean, we do have to accept the resignation. It doesn't matter if he's going to take a vote. And you already approved the resignation of No, no, you have a second. Nobody second.
We have a second. I'm confused. No, no, no. You're doing it right. No. No second. So that means this cannot be put to vote. Correct. Okay. Okay. So now moving forward, that means the peer review is going to go to vote,
right? Okay. So I think we can handle it like I said and we'll go step by step. Okay. So now continue public hearing request for an amended order of conditioned applicants to Copper Pock Drive LLC owner Whites Farm Incorporated
off Pock Drive SE00001 0553. A request for an amendment to an existing order of conditions was filed by SAP Drive LLC for property located off P drive map 17 lot 22B13.
The applicant proposes to install a solar photoolvic array consisting of 4,999 KW and battery storage project within the 100t buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. Revisions include
wetland crossing areas and wetland flagging. The applicant is represented by Matthew Connors and of Wesson and Samson Engine. Plan name is Park Drive Solar PV. Development dated December 10th, 2020.
Revised plan dated March 20, 2025. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken continued to July 23rd, 2025 for more information. So, first thing I would like to do is entertain a m motion to open the continued public hearing.
Motion to open continue public hearing. Do I have a second? All those in favor? I I. Then I would like to entertain a motion to continue this to July 23rd, 2025 meeting. Motion to continue. Second. All those in favor?
I I All right. So, next we have new business. This is out of order. New business. Um, so am I putting this to the back? Are we
still doing that route? Okay. So, we have um public hearing NOI, NSTAR, Electric Company, DBA, Eversource Energy M 12, lot 22B.23B.23F.
23 half SE00001-0608. So, um I can't open this. The only thing I can do is request that this goes to the discussion area because we had a few issues. Um and I am going to take it out of order and put it in the discussion
category. Do I have a motion to allow it to be moved to the discussion area? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. Now, um, certificate of
compliance, uh, Lisa Ellis, CO Pervy Law Group, PC16 Lane, SE00001-0165. Application for a certificate of compliance was filed by Presley Log Group, PC, for property located at 16 A
Lane, map 3, lot 5P. The applicant constructed a common driveway to serve as two lots. This is a partial release for lot 5P. Project date October 1996. Review of matters presented. Votes may
be taken. So, just so you guys know, um I went out to this site um and I just want you guys to keep one thing in mind, 1996, so this is already 29 years old. Um they never put in a COC. the property has been
sold. Um, so I did do a site visit. I actually called Christian. Christian was tied up. He gonna go for the site visit. So I did a site visit. You can't tell what went on, what happened 29 years ago. Um, everything looks like it was
done properly. 29 years later is when I'm looking at it. Everything is fully grown in. you can't tell that these houses were recently built, that these drivers were put in. Um, I feel my own personal opinion, uh, since I did do a
site visit, I did look at it and that it's 29 years old. I think we should allow the certificate of compliance, but that's my own opinion and it's 100% up to you, but I will put it into a entertain a motion for a certificate of
compliance. Mark, did you have a uh chance to put an eye on this as well? No, I haven't. No, I'll make the motion. Yep. I'll second that. All those in favor? I I said with the certificate of compliance on that one.
Then we have this is like two properties. It is. Yep. Certificate of compliance. It was a shared driveway. Certificate of compliance. Lisa Ellis, Co Pervy Law Group, PC16 Austin Lane, SE00001-225.
Application for certificate of compliance was uh filed by PS Law Group PC for property located at 16 Austin Lane, map 3, lot 5P. The applicant constructed a single family dwelling with well, septic and associated grading
within the 100t buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. Uh project date was 1990 February of 1999. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. Once again guys, I was right at the site. Um I saw where they had to
cross the wetlands to do what they wanted. Um which was all approved. It was all okayed. Um everything is fully grown in. You can't tell what they did, how they did it, if they did it properly or not. At the time of construction, we
weren't involved. Once again, this one's 26 years old. Um, with that being said, I'd like to entertain a motion for a certificate of compliance for the property at 16 Austin Lane. So moved. Second. All those in favor?
I. Okay. With that all being said, I took um Eversource is out of order. We took them out of order and we're going to put them under discussion. Um, with this being
undis in discussion, this is not being opened. We cannot ask any questions, nor can the public ask any questions. All they are is giving us information. Um, and then we'll go from there. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your
time tonight as well as the commissioners. I'm Jack Vicaro. with Epsilon Associates. And um if you give me just a moment here, I'll bring up a presentation. I'm going to abbreviate more for tonight's purposes. The idea is just to give you you all
just a general introduction to the project so that when we do eventually get out to the site, you'll have a better understanding of what exactly is involved. All right, let's see. I'm going to um ask Jim James Clansancy
to come up from Eversource to uh provide the introduction here. We'll breeze through these few. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh James Clansancy with Eversource Energy environmental specialist for the project. Um, I understand there were some issues with
um butter notifications and we're we're okay with um continuing and just doing this informal to get you guys up to speed on the general um conditions of the site and the project so that you guys are aware well ahead of uh any future hearings for your
questions later on. Um so with me is as Jack said is Jack Vicar with Epsilon Associates and Danny Hagen in the blue Paulo from Burns and McDonald. um the engineer on uh on the project um and the project manager. Um so this project is
in an existing Eversource corridor. Um the portions that are in a Kushnet um run from Mendle Road. We have a Mendle Tapyard um that's just north of Mendle Road and then this runs um southeast um and then
over to Matapoet where it connects to that town. Um we are in um currently in in the public hearing for Metapo. We've had one hearing with them so far at a sidewalk with with them and their agents and um have another hearing with them
soon. Um the general idea of the project. So there's um one existing transmission line in an existing corridor, existing cleared corridor. Um so there's no clear cutting of trees for this project. Um
it's some side trimming of branches that have grown in over the past five or six years, I believe, is the last time we had a veg um project in that rightway. Um so there's one existing line. The rightway will accommodate two lines. So this project is to install the second
line on the other side of the rightway, the north side. Um right now the 114 line is in the south side of the rightway. This will be the 112 line. It's an existing circuit um that runs through the region. This is an extension that'll connect Crystal Springs substation in Metapoise to the Mendle
tap off of Mendle Road in Aushnet. Um this is part of a group of projects um in the region that are promoting reliability and connection to direct generation or distributed generation. Um I think the best example of that would
be like solar fields or um smaller wind development or battery storage facilities. Those are not projects that are directly with this project. We are only building the electrical infrastructure to connect those projects. Those projects are done by
separate private developers. Um, and this is a good view of what the rideway looks like out there. Um, heavily scrub shrub habitat um on the lower portion. And as you can see, the rightway is is cleared. that structure, the H-frame structure on the left
picture is existing structures from um line 114, the other line that's in that rightway. And this is essentially exactly what line 112 will look like as part of those structures. It's going to be an identical type of line structures mostly being essentially adjacent to the
existing 114 structures. Makes it easier for access and maintenance um for those types of structures. Um and these are the site's existing conditions. Most of the rideway looks just like this. And then once we get up to Matapoet, it gets a little sier, less vegetated. Um this
is a photo sim facing from the Matapoet side. So this is not in a cushion, but this is a nice photo simulation of what the two lines might look like in the rightway. On the left is the existing 114 line. On the right is a modeled 112 line. Um,
and then I'll bring Jack up to do the the nitty-gritty in the map set. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, James. Um, so, as James mentioned, it's a this is a cross country transmission line project
within an existing cleared rightway. And because it's cross country, um, we are crossing a number of wetlands along this along this route. And because of that, there will be some wetland impacts, both temporary and permanent, along the way. So, I'm going
to um just quickly bring you through um map set that was provided as appendix C in the notice of intent. There's a lot of information on these and I would encourage the commissioners to take a look at them when you have the opportunity uh hopefully prior to the site visit. But I want to just take a
moment to explain the symbology here because there is a lot of information that you can pick off of these. Um, first the two black horizontal lines, the darker lines that represents the limits of the existing Eversource rightway. Um, as James mentioned, the
new project is going to be located along the north or the upper uh side of the of the rightway. The green shapes that you see within the easement um those are the wetlands that have been delineated along this route.
And you can see towards the right of the uh of this particular sheet, there's a heavy blue line that represents a a perennial stream that has an associated riverfront area. And also in this case, there's also a uh a 100-year flood plane
associated with it that's represented by the blue shaded lines. I didn't mention it, but the wetland these sheets also uh show the 100 foot wetland boundary for any of the watering vegetative wetlands that the project happens to cross. Um, in terms of how the proposed project is
depicted on these sheets, if you look closely, you'll see uh along the north side of the ride ofway, every so often there's a a pair of red dots. Those represent the poles that'll be installed at each of these structures. Um, the red dots have a corresponding number that
identifies uh gives it just a unique identifier uh that I'll be referring to as I walk you through these plans. Um, oh, I didn't mention there's there is an existing access road that runs almost the entire length of the ride ofway. Uh, that's represented by the dash black
line that you see on on these plans. Um, maybe kind of hard to see at distance, but if you look closely, you'll also notice the yellow cross-hatched areas uh on on these plans. uh those represent areas where construction mats will be used basically
in softer wetland areas where uh they're intended to minimize the impact to the wetlands by construction equipment accessing through the area. Um also uh you might notice a a solid black line along the north edge that represents
areas where some limited vegetation management is required in order to provide the the necessary uh separation from vegetation to the new line. So all of those areas are called out. Now as I mentioned um the project does involve
both temporary and permanent impacts and we'll talk about that. the temporary impacts involve the vegetation management. Um, basically going to be where the the project will require the removal of uh branches, limbs, some trees that are along the edge of the
rightway, but it's very limited um in specific areas. And uh also the construction mats are regarded as temporary. They're just there for the duration of construction. at the end of the once the project is completely completed those will be pulled out and
the wetlands we expect will be uh quickly restored uh within one or two growing seasons. The um u permanent impacts for the project are very limited permanent wetland impacts
and those are just the um poles at the structures three and four which are on this sheet. So I want to just advance to the next slide to zoom in on that area. So you can see here that um yeah
you can see better now the cross-hatched areas. I I think those yellow cross-hatched areas which again represent the temporary construction mats. So in this case uh there'll be matting placed around both structures three and
four uh again to to uh provide the support for the construction equipment and also along the north side of the rightway where construction equipment will be accessing. Uh there's a row of construction mats proposed there as well. So you can see um structure three of
both structures each structure I should say uh represent about 60 square ft of permanent wetland wetland impact and a total replication area two separate replication areas are proposed and they'll provide about 410 square ft of
of uh compensation. So going back to the wider view here for the remainder of a Kushnet um we can see that structure uh six is located in uplands but just inside the 100t wetland
buffer. Uh structure 7 is located uh within the buffer zone and some of the construction matting is also located in the wetland. Hope you all can follow this. But um structure 8 similarly is located in the
buffer zone with construction mats extending into the adjacent wetland area. And then we're into Matapoet and structure 9 which is actually in the town of Matapoet and you can see that just a small piece of that construction
mat extends back into Matt back into a push rather. So just a summary of the resource area impacts. Uh the slide says Matapoet. Sorry about that, but we're talking about a Kushnet here. Um bordering vegetated wetland. Um you can see it's
mostly uh temporary impacts in in all cases. Uh the three resource areas that we encounter are bordering vegetative wetland, bordering land subject to flooding and riverfront area and only 300 square ft of impact is
permanent. The remainder is all temporary either for the construction matting or the vegetation removal. Uh what's what sort of mitigation is being offered? While the wetland replication
areas at wetlands three and four that I uh at structures three and four rather that I just mentioned, construction mapping is also we proposed to to minimize the disturbance of the wetlands. Any fel trees that occur in wetlands will be cut close to the ground. The the idea is to preserve the
root structure and um you know allow for the uh vegetation to come back will be maintained at a lower height but it would be allowed to come back from from shootute growth. Um the two H frame structures that will be
installed in the wetlands, those will be installed using a specialized construction methodology that reduces the amount of impact that would occur in the wetland. And uh of course obviously use of appropriate sediment and erosion controls uh around the wetlands.
And lastly, uh, all the work will be monitored by a qualified environmental inspector throughout the course of construction to make sure that everything is being done in compliance with all applicable permits and regulations. Uh just to brief briefly to state that
you know the project does qualify as as limited uh limited project status means that if it was unable to meet any of the performance standards that applied to work in these resource areas um it's understood that the conservation commission has discretion to allow the
project regardless because it's it's in a unique category basically a cross country transmission line is recognized it's going to have to cross wetlands sooner or later. So this is the the provision for that. Uh but having said all that um we're happy to say that this
project does in fact satisfy all the performance standards for all the resource areas. And the next time I'm not going to prolong this discussion this evening, but the next time we get together, we'll go into detail about how the project satisfies those performance standards. And I think that's probably a good place
to end this informal presentation. Okay. So, that being said, we are putting you on the August 13th meeting. And um the what's the Saturday date before it? 9th.
August 9th. Okay. So, August 9th is when we'd be looking for the site visit. Great. And I'm sure we'll be talking before then. Oh, yes. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next on discussion is 185
mapper road update. Review of matters presented. Vote may be taken. I will be recusing myself. I have reduced myself. podium is yours, Mr. Fet. Good evening. My name is David Fet. I'm here on behalf of Tra the Tracy's
community Courtney Tracy and Maria Fet. I I spent a lot of time on this formal response. I trust that it's answered all the questions uh that I thought would be brought up. I trust that you've all had
a chance to look at it, including the handouts. Um I just I thought maybe it would be best if I just remain brief and ask if there's any questions. They were Morning.
The only question I would have is that um you just feel that the um changes are common that that took place in terms
of uh grading and so forth. Um is that correct that that's you're of that opinion? Well, I mean the I mean there were some grading changes that were required as a result of the changes in the dwelling
and for example we did extend the wall 18 ft in order to accommodate some of the grade change. Um, I don't know if you have questions on the reetment itself, but those faint lines that you
see from 100 down to 96, right? That's all existing material. And you know, I don't know how that question came up with being out of compliance with additional fill. That
fill was already there. The revetment that would propose we were proposing was to go from the bottom of the stone wall up to that 100 ft contour. And if you look at the handout number four that shows the actual asbuilt reventment
the 100t contour is it's a little further east than what it's shown to be as far as connecting to the existing 100t contour. But we also needed to uh make sure that we had sufficient breakout
protection. But none of the as far as I'm concerned, none of these changes that we've made were not in not in compliance. I think that they're they're in compliance, but this we have
to take a certain amount of liberty to be able to put in the reventment wall. And you can look at how it's been changed. And I'm not so sure that there's any any real issue here with respect to non-compliance
except maybe the addition of the roof leaders. So, have you um developed an asbuilt as of yet? In the process, I mean, I had to provide an asbuilt for the board of health. I mean, this this notice of intent was primarily for that
septic system. Mhm. And if you consider that now the dwelling is completely outside the jurisdiction from the original one that they had in mind. Uh basically this is a notice of intent to put the septic
system in Mr. Vice Chair. Yeah. Question. Mark. So So Dave, I know there's been discussion about discharge of roof runoff into a wetland. Um, and I don't know, maybe you could speak to that.
Well, I did not I did not anticipate that the client was going to connect all the roof leads up into the except the um the drain that's shown there from the sump. That was his choice working with the contractor. It was unbeknownst to me that he did that.
However, if you consider that the roof leaders, if they take those out, he will be allowed to drain them on the lawn. And guess what? All that water and runoff is going to go back into the wetlands.
And in the process of doing that, it's going to pick up the dog poop and any agricultural fertilizers and things like that before it gets into the wetlands. At least right now, the roof leaders are clean water from the
let's let's put it this way. When asphalt shingles are brand new, I understand there's a little bit of oil discharge and all that, but all that water is relatively clean after a few months compared to running across the lawn and it's going out and it's
dropping into a stone basin that's acting as a forbay at the point where it's being discharged where roughly roughly where that flare is. I personally I think there's more protection in that than let letting the
water go out on the lawn, but that's my opinion. So, it's all ending up in the same place. Say again. It's all ending up in the same place. It's going to go into the wetlands no matter what. Yeah. and the roof leaders on the front of the house would be going to the
street ending up in wetlands maybe probably not across the street but the drainage is there in the in the road and it would I don't know if it goes across the street into the wetlands or to the east side but it would end up in the wetlands no
matter what Mr. question. I I don't know if you want to take questions from the public now or you want to let there's a couple hands out here, but yeah. Um when the when the moment's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Mr. This isn't
the only issue with this project. Correct. We We all know that the facts, the facts. This isn't the only issue on this project. What other issue? Roof drains. It's the stone wall. Yeah.
There's there's a list, correct? There was six. No, there were six items. Six items that were in the Schneider letter, right? And I've been saying from the get-go, this isn't built according to plan and I understand there's a little bit of
wiggle room. There's always that little bit of room for error. In my opinion, these changes aren't minor. These are significant changes and and I feel
that this should fall under a new NOI because of these significant changes. I've been saying this from day one. In what way, sir, are they significant changes from what I'm showing you? The length of the wall, the height of
the wall, the grade, the the the site in general. Are you talking about the concrete block wall or the stone wall? Both the concrete wall and the stone wall. Okay. We did add 18 ft of block wall. It's not even on the plan.
Well, it's it's it's not built. It wasn't shown on the plan because we didn't know how much length we would need to extend. But this is this is what an engineer does, right? It's a benchmark that you work from, right?
Am I right or am I wrong? We try and get everything identified as we need to. But the reason why I put the existing note on the plan for the existing block wall to be completed was because we weren't sure exactly how all this grading was
going to end up working out. And I I estimated we were probably going to add a few feet of of wall. It ended up being 18. And now because of the changes on where the propane tank are located next to the house, the grading plan is going to be we're going to have to extend the
wall even further in order to make the grading plan work and try and separate Shane and Tra Shane Tracy's dwelling in terms of runoff from 183 Matapo Road. So that was the trigger. So, you're
telling me that prop uh that that tank was the trigger to all of these significant changes to this project? No. Not Not alone. Not alone. Not alone. See, and that's what I'm driving at there. There's contributing
factors. There's the tank. There's the roof runoffs. There's the height of the wall, the length of the wall, the amount of fill that was brought in. All of these are significant. What fill are we talking about? Right. To the grading. The grading to
make everything, you know, um to the eye appearance-wise to to look like it's been naturally placed there. We'll say, right, you're talking about the So, in instead of the wall being 3 ft high, it's I'm just imagining this is
imaginary numbers. Instead of the wall 3 ft high, it's actually 6 feet high, right? I don't reme recall the numbers in fact on on the significant change but again I've sat down I've looked at
this at time and time and time again these changes aren't on these plans and it's not built to the plan to specification. I'm not so sure that I understand what you're getting at here. Are we talking
about the concrete block wall or the stone wall and the reetment? The the concrete wall. We'll start there, right? The concrete wall that's shown there with proposed and existing that ends where it says uh
there's a there's a highlight there at proposed 101.5 existing 98.5. M that that was the end of the existing concrete wall there that was there already. Okay. Are you talking are you saying that that
what that So where did the additional footage go come from? The additional footage of 18 ft three blocks came from the need to provide additional retainage of the grading in
the backyard. And that's why that note is on there to be completed. Now, granted, maybe I should have specified that we would probably need to extend the wall and but I wasn't sure exactly how much wall we were going to have to extend. We may we may have been able to
get away with not doing it. However, when we put the the block wall, we didn't we didn't put in uh additional height. We we basically put in two courses and it just is a continuation of the
existing and and the the the grades on what was there already are there existing and proposed with the caps. So I don't know what you're saying is a substantial change from what is shown on the plan. Is that 18t of wall that we
had to add is that a substantial change? Does that require another notice of intent and being able to handle I just think that's just a small portion of what was what's the next issue then? Are you talking about the fill in the ray yard? Correct. Yeah.
Well, if you look at handout number one, those faint lines that you see there that go from the stone wall west up to the 100t corn, those are existing lines. All that material was already there.
So I we didn't bring additional fill to make that happen. That was already there. The revetment was intended to strengthen and provide structural integrity to that embankment because it was a very ragged and very loose placed
embankment. I I'm assuming that you all had the chance to go in out out there and look at that. Yeah. Several times. So when you look at the reventment on handout 4, you'll see that the revetment is a is more it's
steeper than what we anticipated, but it's essentially trying to accomplish the same thing as strengthening that embankment that we didn't add. Now granted, uh Kyle uh is not an expert
with revetments. Um, if Norman was still alive, he would have done a better job than this. But that revampment is just basically adding strength to that embankment so that there is a less of a chance of erosion into the wetlands of
material. So I what I'm get I guess what I'm not seeing here is how that's not in compliance and then whatever other issue. I think the only issue that I probably would agree with you on is the roof leaders.
And if you really, you know, think about it, the the the water that's coming out of in those roof leaders from the roof is a lot cleaner than what it's going to look like when it goes through the lawn and then, you know, ends up in the wetlands. That's just my opinion. I just don't understand how we have so many
issues with non-compliance. So, one of the things as a result of the tank, the propane tank being in the location where we didn't expect it to be and buried, we don't have the option of grading this the way that the plan showed. In fact,
there's there's no way that this this is going to work. And what we would like to do is extend the wall again as within within the jurisdiction of the wetlands. It's an additional 30 ft. And I show that on handout three, I think. Yeah,
handout three. If I'm going to provide you with an NOI looking for an amended order of conditions, that's the only thing that I would change. I I don't know. I don't know what else to say here other than I tried to
address every single issue here with what is already there. A lot of this stuff is existing that we're working with. Yes, Heidi, please. I just feel like a lot of this is really in the building departments. It's not
really the conservation if you consider where the 100 foot buffer line is on except for the water going into the in the what? Except for the water drain into the into the wetlands on the back. And I just feel that seems better to go the other
way than through your yard through the you know you see well that again that's you know you're expressing an opinion there and I guess the the co the wetland act states that it shouldn't be going in but I I just well that's something that we need to to look at then
correct me if I'm wrong but this is supposed to only be a discussion where are you acting on anything tonight. I don't Well, we haven't had the opportunity to hear from um your butter's uh peer review yet. Yeah.
Oh, okay. Yeah, we're going to have further discussion. So, Mr. Fet, is there a contingency plan for the for these these gutter drains? If if to take them out, take them out and put them on the lawn.
That may be something that the board would consider. I I I don't know. I I can't speak for the whole board. Uh it was just a question. Basically, Shane has already said that he would remove the the roof leaders from the the actual drain that's going
into that um clear at the end of the pipe. But he's going to put it basically the way everybody else is doing it, right on the lawn and and let it drain across the grass. And it's going to, like I said, it's going to drain into the wetlands on
the east side of the house, into the street, and into the wetlands on the west side. He did, he did this whole thing as a convenience, but I understand where you're coming from. I just But that's really the only issue that I'm in
agreement with. Everything else, I believe we are in compliance. We I mean if you look at handout number four, I show where the minimum breakout line would have to be to protect the system.
And the breakout line, I'm assuming you understand what that is. It's it's the height of the fill um 15 ft away from the septic system at the same elevation as the top of the septic system. Otherwise, there's the
chance that septage would be breaking out along that slope and going in basically here in the wetlands. So, the more conservative that I remain in putting that breakout line at elevation 100.4, the further out I go,
the more protection it offers. And I just for starters, the sanitary code says it has to be from the edge of the actual system, the soil absorption system, but the material that's in the in the septic system
underneath the septic system is the same material in the overdig, which is 5 ft further. So, I generally use the edge of the overdig because the material is the same. If it's going to break out here at the edge of the septic system, it's going to float quite easily through
the sand that's in the overd. So the overdig should be the same under the same protection rule. So that's and that's what I'm showing. And if you look at where the minimum 100t contour is, it's not much more than 5 ft from what's
shown on the revetment. Yeah. I I remember when the first hearing came up, I said all we did was stretch out the the three or four contours behind the house to stretch it out because we had to achieve the 100 ft contour or
elevation with the revetment wall. One way one way or the other, we had to go from 95 up to 100 in order to protect that embankment. And that's what we did. If you if you look at and I I I suggest that we we took some liberty to show uh
where it went around the drain. I mean the vent there that's shown that pipe shows the where the vent is. And if you consider that we my my to my tower reetment shots may be a little bit inaccurate in terms of
where the wetland flags were or are. But the whole point is you're not we're not building a precise retaining wall when you're doing a revetment. It's very var variable. It has, you know, boulders the size of, you
know, 3x3 upwards of, you know, in fact, I think there was a boulder that was actually in the position there where that um vent pipe is. And that's one of the reasons why it's it's kind of sharp around that corner. But that whole that
whole reventment is was an unknown. And I I had clear clear notes on every single one of the plans that we submitted. We submitted the first one in a in August 23. Uh 20. Yeah. 24. Yeah. 24. The second
one was in December of 24 when we had the first conce the first um desired dwelling and the second one was May 20. Now I I correct
it was 23 August 23, December 23 and May 24. And and the reason why I did that was because we we had some changes, especially the first dwelling because of all the different things that we were raising the the concrete foundation was
going up 3 ft. That's the one of the reasons why the grading had to be really well addressed. Otherwise, we would have been we would have been stuck, especially where the the house is only about 30 ft off the the sideline. So, I don't know. I don't know how you want to
handle this, but I'm I'll I'll be seated right now and let um Deinion, Mr. Deinion talk. Thank you. Uh I'm just going to speak quick just to follow up. Oh, yeah. Okay. Uh Jamar, uh I just have
a question. Mr. Thomas, you keep bringing up that you know there were significant changes and I know you listed at least two of them. the height of the concrete wall and the extension of the concrete wall that 18 ft that's on the side of the uh
property that's towards the street. So, it's not an extension of 18 ft towards the wetland, right? Mhm. All right. So, I'm sure you've you know I I think Mark went through it last meeting. Um there's a policy in effect that D talks about how an amendment
right to a existing order of conditions. what you review what you're supposed to review. You keep using this work significant changes. Now look, if if there are changes where the order of what's required to be done under the order because the order will reference a plan that you guys reviewed and and
approved and the ASB bill doesn't meet it sometimes, right? That's an issue. But that doesn't mean a full notice of intent has to be filed for the those changes or deviations
from what was approved that proved plan and the ASB bill. When you think about significant amendments are appropriate where you know there were things done like in this case existing 18 ft away from the
wetland but that's not going to change uh impacts to the interests of the act that you guys here to protect. That's what you got to consider, right? The performance standards. Are there now issues with the performance standards for BVW? Is there are you seeing that
there's now because of that 18 ft that's a way towards the street there's impairment or destruction of the BVW? Do you see that? I don't I don't think the engineer is going to say that significant when you when you're
thinking significant and tell me if I'm wrong. You're seeing a very big to tell you you think you're right or wrong first off, right? But your deviation, you're thinking, well, hey, you said red and we approved red and now it's blue, so you
got to come in front with a brand new notice with no, you got to consider what you guys are supposed to be doing when you review a project, is that activity, does it meet the performance standards? If that change from what was approved to
now is in there, that activity doesn't meet the performance standards, fine. Require a full new notice of intent. You have interest. You're supposed to protect your your interest due to the resource area that's shown on the property, shown
in the plan, which is BBW. Do you see an impairment? Do you see do you see any destruction to that BBW? Of course you don't. This is a proper, if need be, uh, a minor modification request to an
order of conditions that you guys issued. That's the appropriate way to handle this. Um, we can do that. We can submit that. We can try to get this case, this
discussion that keeps being on the, you know, every single meeting. We can move the ball forward here by providing an amendment request and we can include not just the 18 feet but the 30 that Mr. Fredet is proposing and if
and if we have to we can include the you know what you know essentially the the roof rooftop runoff into the into the drainage um as part of that amendment. That's we got to move this along. I I
hear I agree with you. So the the proper way to handle this is to do it by way of an amendment. It's not a nose for 10. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Mickey, please. Thank you. I may not be as short as
Mr. Marsh or Mr. for debt because it I'm going to try to um Dave, introduce yourself, please. I'm sorry. For the record, I'm Dave Devigan. I'm a registered professional engineer, state of Massachusetts. Um employed by Schneider Leone. We're
located at 81A County Road in Mount Poison. So, in early June, um Mr. Souzer asked me to uh evaluate uh his site, specifically the Buddock site. the plans on record. I I I asked
them for a copy of the order of conditions. He wanted to know what I saw. And so, you know, I put together a letter dated June 12th and I cite six things that I feel are not in compliance with the plan. Now, I think that, you know, some
of them are are up to you, but I know that the crux of the matter is I cited everything I saw because I think it's black and white. I'm an engineer. I don't there's no middle ground, you know. Um, as a matter of fact, in Mr. Fet's letter, he agrees with what I say.
He doesn't dispute any of the six items. What he does is provides a rationale as to why they're not in compliant, but he doesn't really dispute it. If anything, the first statement was yes, the wall is 18 ft longer. The wall is sitting on the
property line. I question on top of, you know, the issues with violations which are clear to me, the procedures that have been followed through in this whole case, um, where revised plan after revised plan
after revised plan came back to the commission and my client was never notified. I mean, there's something inherently wrong with that. Whether some of it's outside the buffer or not, it the site before it was constructed in
its current form flows west to east from Madapo Road to the wetlands. Well, now it doesn't. Now we have Phil brought in and it flows south to north towards my client's property. That's the crux of the matter. I'm not, you know, as far as
like the pipe in the wellness, it's not a good engineering practice. Usually it's a roof runoff system that you see put into the ground. But I'm not here to dispute that. The as far as the fill in the back, it's it's clearly they just blew out the lawn. They wanted a more level area and
they just went further in the back. They went further to the left and they got a bigger yard. It's nicer. I don't disagree with that. Except for they have a permit that they're following. They're they're under an active order conditions. As a matter of fact, if you look at the uh handout four, there's a
well in violation. That revenant is in the wetlands. It's shown on the Asville plant. What the Asville plant doesn't show is as grades starting from the north side of that house to my client's property and how the runoff is directed
right towards the property. And what I've heard and witnessed by watching the last meeting is that well, you know, things happen. The propane tank went in. We now the Aswell plant doesn't show the propane tank. doesn't tell me where it is. It's got to be 10 ft from the
building and 10 ft from a property line. They got 38.7 ft. So, it's somewhere in that 18t part. Now, is it such that they put it 10 ft off the lot line and they had to put a bump over it? I doubt it, but it's here or there. I mean, the tank
went in. I don't know what depth it is. I don't know what it needs for cover. And that's the excuse for why the grade goes continually down to my plant's property. And if you look at it now, it's almost like a vertical cut when you walk and go out there and look at it. Now, here's my here's my biggest uh
point here. Okay, it's clear that the wall was longer. I don't know what the point of the wall is to begin with. Mr. Fet said it was on and I don't doubt it was on the original septic plan going back to 08, 06, whatever it was, right?
The one thing that never changes throughout all the sketches that I've provided to you and all the plans that were submitted is that what's supposed to happen between my client's property heading into the property next door. There's supposed to be like a 7 to 8ft
swath of natural grade that they would create a swale carved into the ground, not filling it and then trying to put a swale on top of this much fill, which is what they're trying to accomplish. out. We want to extend the wall and then we'll create a swale on the inside. And
my client's stuck with a wall this high going all the way across his whole yard. That's not what any of the plants, including the May 2024 plan. They all were consistent. And the plan was drawn properly by Mr. Verette. It shows a natural cut swale
going past the house out of the buffer zone and traveling the water past the wall to the wetlands. That didn't happen. Anybody can go there and see the fill. The gas is just blowing right out. And it does slow it down, but it goes right to the wall. Wall's a vertical, you know, impediment right on my client's property. The wall bleeds water
right through it. It's got huge cracks. And putting a swale on the inside, unless there's a poly barrier on the inside, the water is still going to go through, especially the storms we got like last night, this past week. I mean, nobody should have to have water just
dumped directly on their property. And now they're trying to come up with a solution that makes it worse for my client to fix it. And he's trying to stand here and say that it's in compliance. I tell you it's not. And I I'm telling you, if you really study the answers that he put, there's rationale
for why things kind of kept growing and growing. Well, I'm accustomed to drawing a plan and contractors call me up and saying, "Can I do this thing? Can I do that?" First thing I think of is got to go for COC at the end. Is that something
Kong would would allow? Is it in their jurisdiction? Is it too close? Are you putting too much? Oh, we might have to go back and ask. They did. They They came back and asked for changes, and changes do happen. I I don't dispute that. But they never asked for the fill
from the north side of that house to be changed right to my client's property. So that he's got all of this mountain coming at him. And what you know the rest of it you know I don't think you know does it really impact this property that the reventments in the wetlands and you got a wetland violation. No the you
know the roof runoff goes right into the directly discharges in like a fire hose during storms we just get. No it doesn't impact survance you know. Um, but items, you know, number three on my list of the utmost importance and that's
a violation that needs to be corrected under an enforcement action. There's no other way to do it. Items number five, you know, like I said, you know, but three and four site what the main issue is and what's the crux of why I'm here tonight.
Otherwise, I personally, you know, the other items, they don't impact my client, but this those two items do. They have a direct imp impact on his property. They were damaging his property. I mean, he hired an attorney, stopped them from continuing work right along the property line and using his
property to do it because he was so concerned about it. And I think an enforcement I don't think a new notice of intent needs to be filed for the items that I'm talking about, which is the property line issue because it could be addressed under an enforcement action
for the that bill and that side to be brought back to the all plans. Every single plant shows the same thing. It's indisputable. And now they're trying to take that swale and instead of natural grade car out, well, we're going to build a wall and we're going to put it on the top. You know, we're the water around. There's no assurance that's
going to go over the wall, not go over the wall, not go through the wall, and my clients still got to stare at the wall because that's their solution. I I just don't think it's right. It's it's not fair. Uh it's a non-compliance. And I respectfully ask you to issue an
enforcement order asking for all of the grading to be pulled off the property line 7 8 ft just like the plan shows and a natural great graded swale right back to natural grade and then create a swale going right to the wells and then you'll see if they actually do that. Will the
wall be even needed? Not really. I don't think so. It won't because right now it's retaining fill and they filled more up to the top and they want to continue it all the way up to the road. I just don't think it's right. Thank you, Mr. Deinian. Thank you for the clarification. Um
I I I state with what I've been saying all along. I I think you've made it a little bit more clearer as an engineer uh for me to get this across to what's going on on this site. Thank you. You're welcome.
Uh Mr. I so after Friday I'm no longer the conservation agent. Uh I don't vote on this commission but I shared at last last meeting trying to get some guidance
from DP on this situation and my question pertain to issuing an enforcement order and or not what would be you know and providing some of the details of of this
situation. Um the feedback I got and I believe I shared it with the commission was first step should be requesting an amended order of conditions. If if if the commission felt that these reviewing all
the material that it was a significant change that that would be the first step um and an asbuilt I guess basically you'd see that and and you could determine if
it needs an NOI a new NOI if they if that wasn't forthcoming um you could you would then request um an enforcement order that that's what I got. And of course, there's some generic, you know,
um guidance in there. It was more general guidance. I I um you know, I my my personal approach would be to try to work together. I I know there's there's
this situation just seems to have spiraled. I um I I don't want to say too much, but I I I was out there when Kyle was working on that wall. There was an existing wall there. I'm looking at the plans, the
site plans. There's a former wetland line that's further back. I don't know the genesis of when it was refl. So, I mean, just going step by step by the points through this. So, um, and I'm
not, again, um, I don't want to make too many any more comments than that. Um, I I I Yeah, I I guess that's pretty much it. I would, you know, Yeah, I'll just leave it
there. I don't know if it's Well, I I just like to make a few more points, too, is that in Mr. Vidat's letter, he mentions quite often this note that he has on the plan that things may change that doesn't give them carblank approval, do whatever they want on the
site. Um the the it does not supersede the order of conditions itself, which says plan changes shall come before the commission, which they did. They've never shown never shown the change where the fill comes down my client's property
and they got a vertical barrier now. That was it's not shown in any of the plants. That's the problem I have with the whole thing. And I respectfully request you it can be handled on an enforcement order so that they don't have to file a new
notice of intent to pull the fill back because they're still working under an order. You know, in my opinion, I I I don't even want to go where the back I'll leave that to you guys. The the roof drain, you know, I'm here to protect my client's interest. And if I
was living there, I'd be I rate also. I would. And so, thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Fat would like to speak. Mr. Fat like a redirect. Yes, please.
I understand where Dominion's coming from. However, you have to understand first of all, this is not an asbuilt. That is asbuilt information only because I needed to do that for the board of health. This is not an asbuilt. This is
an open order of conditions. And yes, we we've got a difference of opinion on what's in compliance and what's not. The existing wall
on sheet handout one. If you look at the existing wall, the fill, I show it terminating there, but the fill actually goes to that wall. That fill that's in that embankment. The the wall was filled up to about 100
elevation. Anyway, when this when I started doing this notice of intent, the septic system was already there. The uh embankment material on the east side of the septic system was already there.
The existing wall was there, granted, but not not including the 18 ft, but there was blocks there that Norman was intent on putting in to extend the wall. That's why that note is on there. And the fill was right up to where the wall is. So
he's Mr. Devenian is saying that it's a complete shambles in the backyard and we've filled it completely. That's not true. It is not true. I disagree with that, Mr. Fet. And I'm going to and I'm going to say this once hopefully final
for all. Just because the wall was existing and it's there doesn't mean it's right. Correct. What do you mean not right? Just because it it the wall was there. It doesn't make it right to to to grade that backyard as far as
that backyard was graded. It doesn't make that right. We should have stepped back and said, "Is that wall where it should be?" It's it's on the property line. That's a problem. Well, I was not planning to move the wall. I Are you saying that that wall
needed to I needed to have that wall? I didn't say you needed to move the wall. I'm not sure I understand that. Because the wall existed, wouldn't that put a question mark? Well, should that be there? Where is the property line? No. Should I be doing this?
When Norman put that in, he knew where the property line was. But that doesn't make it right is what I'm saying. in am all right I I guess I'm at a loss here because I don't understand why I'm
I I don't understand first of all why that wall can't be there it's on the property line number one it's 6 in south of the property line what's the setback Mark what's the
setback what's the setback back. I I'm not answering that. I'm not sure. It's not for you guys anyways. It's a building issue. Right. Right. So whether it's right or wrong and I don't even understand what you're
really talking about, but if it was there and you guys approved a plan and it was shown on the plan, you approved something that existed. Same thing with the Phil. The Phil was in place and you approved a plan as part of an order of issuing an order of conditions. You
approved that fill in that location. Well, I I'll agree with Mr. Marsh on the wall that was there, but the 18 ft that was added was never permitted. And this plan doesn't show fill going up against the wall. It shows a swale between the
edge of the fill and the wall. So either, you know, this plan was incorrectly drawn or or right. I don't know. I drive because the wall was there. that we came across with a grade to make it look good to extend the backyard.
That's what it appears in the field to me. But that's new Phil. But if there was Phil already there and existing conditions or a plan was submitted as part of a notice of intent and you approved it, you approved those conditions that were in place at the time
and we would love for it to go back to that those conditions that are shown. That's the point. And I just want to say the enforcement request, my understanding from what Mr. Digman just said, really it comes down to
impacts of storm water onto his client's property. Yeah, that's correct. That's not impacts to any resource area that you guys are obligated to protect. That's a civil matter. If you issue an enforcement, you have no support for issuing a
supportment enforcement. If it's simply because of something that was done and it's creating a storm water flow onto a neighbor's lot, it has to be impacting what you're supposed to protect. You guys don't have a town bylaw that says something different than wetlands
protection act. So, if you can find something in the wetlands protection act, fine. Storm water bylaw. Yeah. Salt water bylaw does not apply in the situation. It doesn't. Don't try to find something in that bylaw. It doesn't. But if there's a
drainage issue in town, somebody would take it to the stormwater board. This is the stormwater board. It is and there's a drainage issue going on between these two properties. Whether it falls under the threshold um based on, you know, having to get a permit, that's not the dispute here.
There's clearly a drainage issue. I got the B right here. If you guys can find it, go ahead. I mean, I didn't I looked through it. I know Mark had looked through it. There's nothing in there that's going to deal with this situation. This is a civil matter. He's got to file a lawsuit for a nuisance claim or a trespass claim for storm
water coming onto his property, which we'd love to work with him. We don't think there's an issue here, but we'd be work willing to work with Jim to eliminate whatever this is. There's something that has to be constructed to be in
You know there's well Dave you can you can talk about what was constructed or proposed. We were close to it. First of all, there was a time when Jim Susa was in agreement with what we were doing
with respect to the drain that we put in and that would have worked, but when the propane tank are put in, we recognize that really could not regrade the the side of the house. Now granted that's
outside the buffer, but a certain amount of it is within the buffer. We wanted to extend the wall even further because we figured that if we could raise the the wall away from the wetlands, it would only help the situation. And frankly,
there's only two options. is to regrade this uh to the point where we'd have to take the propane tank out and relocate it or we put the additional wall length in that's necessary. And I'm I'm suggesting we're going to need about 120
ft because I got 72 ft beyond the the uh the 30 beyond the 30. Yeah. Added inside. Yeah. And the idea behind that is to isolate Shane's lot from Jim's lot in a distinct manner with a retaining wall. And one of the reasons
why that's necessary, if you look at how the thing is separated where the existing wall is, Jim's lot is down 3 and 4 ft below Shane's lot. And yeah, it does go down at a pretty steep slope along the side
of the house. And all we needed to do, we were getting ready to extend that wall and then Jim hired the attorney based on Devenian's suggestion, I guess, and stopped us from doing any work. Frankly, the solution
here, you you say it's regrading. I say it's extending the wall so that we can regrade and making sure that we're able to have no no higher a wall than what's shown anywhere else. And that's less
than 4 ft. and making sure that the grading that's going to be from the side of the house to the wall that we're proposing is going to be a swale to the back from maybe the the uh the back uh range line of the house
to go to the back and then we're going to swail it to the street from the front because that's right right now that's the only way we can handle it. and he keeps harping on the fact that I'm not we're not in compliance here. But I
don't like I said, I don't understand how your argument that wall shouldn't be there. Well, that that plane got approved with that wall there and I'm we're not going to move the wall.
Jim wanted us to move it. He made a claim that we had a higher wall than 4T and it should be 2 ft set back. And the last block the last block towards the corner happens to be 4 ft and a half to
one inch higher. And you're I'm going to you're going to give us a hard time for a half to one inch being higher. That's within construction tolerance as far as I'm concerned. So again, I'm I'm not sure how this is all
going to play out. If an amended order of conditions is necessary and you need another plan for me, good. I I can do that. I can show the wall that we really need because that's something that we're going to need. The revetment is done. I
mean, that that is an asbuilt of of the revetment. Yes, I I see that it extends into the wetland a little bit, but this is the kind of work that happens with preventance. You can't you can't be precise with moving boulders around with
a machine and trying to set it so that it's an even um even surface from elevation 100 down to 95. But that all of that material was there. We didn't fill anything. We didn't bring any fill in there except for the final grading
around the septic system and the and the lawn. That's the only fill that we brought in. Everything else is already there including what was up against the wall. We didn't change that. We we basically put the caps on the wall and we graded the final grading the lawn basically.
Um Mr. Freda, is is it was it not your intent to create a swale in that area? Uh well, the original the original plan was to uh create a swale and it may not look like very much
of a swale, but the the general drainage towards the back is on that lawn. It goes right to the back. And I think the seepage problem was because Kyle had terminated the drain that's shown there. He had raised it 3 ft, but he had
terminated the drain before the re that meant into a bed of stone and it didn't have any way to get out and I told him we needed to have it going through just like it's shown on the approved plan with the flare and that's what we accomplished. Now I have not been back
yet to see what kind of seepage is happening on that outside of the wall but I'm assuming that it's a lot less than what we had before. I don't know if it's any other question, but um Mr. So um
I I have a question and I don't have an answer. So I'm not a lawyer. I can ask a question I don't know the answer to. But one of one of the things and and I've tried to look in reading the bylaw, couple other things.
If it's a single family house, does storm water apply? the single family dwelling and I I think that's gets to the issue of jurisdiction but I don't have the answer to that question too ashamedly.
So but I I think not to throw more things into the mix but I I just I this there's two exemptions. The wetland act exemption is for all single family dwellings. storm water is not applicable in terms of providing a storm water
management plan and all that stuff. Not to say that you don't do you know uh you don't tend tend to make sure that you make uh accommodations for whatever storm water you have. In this case, the roof leaders being tied into the drain.
Okay. Yeah, that might not be a a really good solution. But I I think I expressed my opinion already that if it went over the lawn, it's going to be a lot dirtier going into the wetlands than the way it is now. Second thing, there is an exemption in the bylaw of 40,000 square
ft. This site has not had any greater disturbance than 31,500. I put that in my my letter. So we're tech technically exempt from handling storm water and we're trying contrary to what he thinks is happening. We are
trying to resolve this. Yes, the grading looks terrible right now but one of the reasons why is because we haven't finished the work. We're still in the process and we're trying to get this resolved. It's Jim Susa that is
obstructing us and I I don't know what to do about that because frankly in order for us to do this to put that wall in which he had our client has the right to do and it's outside the buffer and all that except for the 30 ft.
I we can't put that wall in unless we have his cooperation. There's a se section of fence there about 25 ft long that has to come down because the machine won't fit in there. That's the reason why the drain is not as good is in the the drain that we put in is not
as well installed in that one spot. So, I don't know what's going to happen here, but Jim has been an obstructionist right from the beginning and has been a aggressive non-professional and frankly just the I the takeaway here is this has
been nitpicking right from the beginning. But that's my opinion. I'm I'm I'm all set for now. But I I don't know what the commission's going to do here. If if an amendment is required, I can provide that.
Go ahead. Uh just could we get some clarification as to where that propane tank is off the house, what size it is, and what the depth is because that seems to be the argument as to why they can run the uh great fill towards my prop my property.
um uh regarding his uh solution in terms of extending the wall. What is what is the opinion on Mr. Dominion uh you know Mr. Dominion on
that? I wouldn't want it. No. And I wouldn't recommend it. I recommend pulling the field back per the plan. It's real simple to me. It's straightforward. Tony Marsha said it's a civil matter. You guys have an active order conditions.
Do you see this as a drainage storm water issue as a storm water board with an active order condition on the property? It's it's black and white, straightforward, yes or no. If you do, then you issue an enforcement order and ask them to bring the fill 7 ft off the property line and create a natural swale
the way the original plan showed. a second plan, a third plan, a fourth plan. Every submitt that he's given you on has handouts. I agree with you. I mean, I don't I don't know what the argument is here really. It's just they want what they want. They sound like kids playing in a sandbox take, you know, and they want all the toys. I want
to put the wall up there and he's going to live with it. That's crazy. Doesn't make any sense. I I fully agree fully agree on this enforcement. Yeah. Is there a quorum here? No.
That's so in terms of how to proceed this evening, it would seem I I I'm not quite sure. worth we're stying in that. Yeah.
And it doesn't seem it doesn't seem wise to perpetuate this, but I don't I don't actually really have a good sense um how to how to how to proceed. I I mean you you can't
commission can't vote I can't right. Can you even handle matter of procedure, too? Um, go ahead. You can you could come up and speak on behalf of the public.
Uh, Eric 21 way. So, I believe you would have to have a vote out of necessity if it was a certain matter. Um what I would probably strongly reserve uh say is to go over to it with town council first
but there is a way in a manner to present a vote out of I don't know who would have to step in um in what proper manner and wording as a board would have to be used but there is a way of proceeding that
is it a select board member that steps sorry to cut your yeah that's a good And this project has happened uh this project was permitted under the old storm water permit. So I am pretty sure that you would have to use the old storm water bylaw, not
the current one that was stated. It's true. Yeah, good point. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I mean my point was going to be even if we were going to do a u u an amendment request,
we couldn't do anything. There's no action that could be made without without the issue of necessity there and bringing a select board member. I think it is a select board member. I thought we had five members on. So if we if we
if they're not going to take a vote tonight, then we have to go back and revisit something that we didn't correct. don't know what Mr. Chairman, I'd like to I really didn't want to come to the podium tonight, but I do want to say a couple things. Um, for one, I live right next door. I watched the contractor back fill
where that propane tanic is to get the trucks in the back and back fill that backyard. I watched the trucks go through there. I watched the trucks go through the other side 8 9:00 at night coming through cuz they were getting free filled. Shane and I discussed it. Um, and then I watch them take and just
dig a hole instead of the propane tank before any of the grades were done. So for them to fill that to allow trucks to the backyard and then say, "Okay, let's put the propane tank in." They should have graded it first, period. To the grades. I know that Dave is saying that
I have storm water issues or drainage issues and Jim thinks it's civil. This is not civil because that print surely clearly shows the swale going in. And as far as to say that all the grades were at that elevation in the back, it
wasn't. There was a pile of loom scrap that Norman put there right up against the stone wall. The rest was pitched to the original grades. And I watched Kyle Fernandees bring in loads and loads of fill and flatten that backyard. That
reventment was moved from the one that Norman had. Kyle pushed it further back into the wetlands. Exactly what Dave was saying. It's a wetland violation. I'm here to say, "Hey, listen guys, you have to raise your right hand and do the right thing because that's what we did, right?" And as a resident, I'm kind of
mad about the drainage, but I'm also mad that they slapped the Conservation Commission in the face and did whatever they wanted. Them plans clearly show elevation 96 right up against the wall. So what Dave is saying that since there was fill there at 101, we just left it and we continued that grade across. No
matter how you look at it, that drawing clearly shows a swale. It clearly shows 25 ft from the wetland that it slopes. And that's all I'm going to say. And Mark went there when they were working on the revampment wall. That's all I'm going to say as a resident that this is
just more than leakage into my property. It is a slap in the face to this commission. what they did. And the reason I did put a trespass on because when I came home, everybody that was asked falling in the driveway, his driveway was in my yard, trucks,
everything else. And I had enough of it. And that's why I called the attorney, not under his recommendation. I did it myself, saying, "Why is this going on?" Then I look at number three on the construction sites. We need the neighbors property to do the work. Have
anyone ever seen that on a plan? Yeah. Thank you. The the material that he's saying saying was brought in is not fill that was brought in down to elevation 95.
Most of the fill was there down to 95 from 100. It's it's clearly shown on handout one and it's been clearly shown from day one that the this whole backyard was filled with material that went back down to
that stone wall that's there. And granted, the stonewall line that I'm showing is not as clean and and orderly as that. That was a ragged ba basically disassembled stone wall. However, the grades shown are correct.
So, Jim's wrong in saying that we brought Phil in all the way down to the uh to elevation 95. The po the whole point of the revetment was to put an a revetment in from elevation 95 up to
100. And that's what was accomplished. Yes, it's not exactly the way we would have liked to have seen it, but it's it's close. And I don't know how else I I I'm not I'm not even going to try and address this anymore. This is crazy. This is absolutely crazy.
I taking everything into consideration at this point because we have shortage commission on this. I think we need to get some clarity from town
council before before we proceed with any action at this point. Um, is that you guys agree on that? I mean, I I'm not knowledgeable enough to,
you know, make that ultimate decision right now. This should be a hasty decision made. We don't have enough as far as to cast. Well, again, yes, as far as being able to take any action,
and so again, I think, you know, pending some clarity from town council. Yeah. Uh before we proceed. So that's that I mean that would be my suggestion for a motion.
Continue it. Yeah. for a motion at this point. So, I'll make a motion to continue this uh to allow us further time to speak with town council. Have to get some clarity on further clarity. I don't think we can vote. We have no four eligible voters to make
a quorum. We can just instruct M. You can't make a motion without quum, but they can just instruct him to call. I guess it doesn't have to be a motion. It would just go to continue. I thought Mark, you had talked to attorney Weight about the votes. Didn't you send a letter to them?
Yes, actually it's in my briefcase. Since there's two resigned, this becomes a five member board. With a five member board, three have the right to vote. I have it in the book. Um, I went forward to the clerk with it. I went forward with the selectman with it. And I went
forward with Jamie with it. Since two have resigned and we don't have chairs filled, it becomes a five member board. After a five member vote, two recuses, three can still vote on it. Okay. And I will pull out the paper if you like. Okay. So, so be it.
Well, I guess that being said, again, I will make the motion to continue this to be able to have time to to to speak with town council regarding this case for a decision on how we move forward.
Right. I'll second. Yep. All those in favor? I I think that's Thank you for your time. Yeah, right now. Thank you guys.
All right. Just going to look real quick here, guys. I believe I told Let's get this me. No, we got one more thing to talk about. Okay, so any other business that may um agent
updates? This is an agent update. Okay. So, I sent uh a couple memos to the commission via email um earlier this week. I believe it was Monday. And also attached is there's a
Department of Environmental Protection policy um related to using um asphalt pavement, brick and concrete rubble or ABC rubble. this has come up. Uh I had inquiries. Um
Mr. Costello is is here um and I've spoken and as several of us have on site uh about the use of of this ABC rubble um on that
project. uh it's I separated I I I wrote two memos because one of the questions uh that has come up is using that material in in the foundation
of the roadways um in that development. I um for me personally given um and and it's again ABC rubble is is inert meaning it doesn't leech materials
um is my understanding but I'm presenting this to you all. I uh I wanted to get this uh unfortunately I didn't get where a vote could be taken, but I'm raising it tonight with the idea that to to assist or to respond to to
the Castello's um on on this matter so they can move forward with that project. So one one of the uses so one of the me memos relates to using that material on roadways in within the development um
and whether anyhow I'll leave it there. The second memo it's also the inquiry was it's retention basin number three and I'm not advocating one way or the other that one you can read the memo
um but the the question um as I understand it is can that material be made uh uh used again in the foundation on top of these retention um ponds Um, we have issues. This has
been a long-standing issue on this this project as all of you know better than I. But so I raised a couple I raised that as as a question that I received and if I was trying to make the decision, you know, um, could you really
could that material really be sequestered? The concern is right leeching into the the retention basins and the groundwater etc. Right. So in essence what we're talking about. Can I comment on this real quick?
Yeah. You can comment but we can't vote enough to discuss. Have you guys gone down Percher Street at all lately down near the waterfront? No. So, if you take a ride down there on
the side of Perch Street with Charlie Quinn's redoing the dock and everything, they took those buildings down. They crushed them buildings and that's what they're using to fill that. They are in active construction doing it right now
on the side of the river. Okay. So, Eric, just so you know, um, so no, I'm just trying to Well, I know, but I just want you to know something and this is why I'm just going to say this real quick. So the DP using a processed al asphalt pavement
breaking concrete rubble, right? They don't mind it in the roadways. They don't. And that's right from them. The only thing you got to make sure is that it has no paint, no plaster, no nothing else, right? So they in this and I got this from Mark Mark who gave me this.
It's right from the D. They enforce using that for roadways, right? Because it is a good base. It does cut down. Um, I think one of the only concerns when we walked it was around the basin and up against the concrete structures. So,
we're not voting on it. We're not doing nothing with it. I'm just trying to spread some knowledge just to go look and see it firsthand cuz we all respectively respect DS PreS. Correct. Correct. Like I said, we got the note from the D and he's overseeing it and also D is
putting on the project. So if they are using it to fill the area then I would strongly suggest we follow. I'm not going to say what we do or not but if they are allowing it the chairman must be but that's a
construction site that's going to be completely developed. It's going to be capsulated. It's going to be impermeable and that's not what we're talking about. This material that's being used on the site is going to be exposed to runoff
elements. It's not an impermeable surface. What we're talking about is not an impermeable surface. It's not a roadway. It's not a construction site. And what you're referring to is and what the D ex uh accepts is that you can demolish a
site, you can you can crush that site, you can use it for the site, but it has to be redeveloped. It's going to be covered back up again. That's the purpose. This material in a in a very in a watershed sensitive area is not going
to be covered by an impermeable surface. And that's the that's the major difference. Are you sure about it? Oh, I'm positive. So, so it's just going to be they're going to use it for what? It's not going to be an impermeable surface. I didn't know we were talking about a project for one. I thought we were
talking about the usage of fill. No, this this pertains to saying is this is to this is to border a a basin. So, in a in a in a watershed sensitive area. So, they're saying they're going to
crush it down to No, no, no. The material is being brought in already. Yeah, that's fine. It's crushed. It's just because the material is brought in is manufactured somewhere and they manufacture it to certain criteria. You
can order it uh 3/4 minus, you can order it quarter minus, you can order it 3in minus. All depending on what different use you're using it for, you get a different size, but it's not going to be encapsulated. It's going to be exposed to the You're
referring for example is a construction. You can also use I'm saying they use it for the discussion. You can use it on the roadway which you can use it for a topping on a roadway too. So hold on. Go ahead.
So So I'm bringing this up. We can't take a vote on it. Um but I wanted this to present this to the commission. I think um for the next meeting if that's where we can get it on the agenda and and there can be more of a a deliberation about it.
Okay, Joanne, the um five IDAS we got coming up for Deep Brook. Yep. We're going to do five RDAs in one day. Um when is that date? I I just don't remember it. That's why I'm asking. Did we determine we said we were trying for the 13th?
August 13th. Yeah. Okay. So before then we will do a site visit, right? We're going to do a site visit because of the five RDAs. Um when we do the site visit, I think we should look at the basin. We should look at the concrete structures and really get an eye on it. Um I know that we can't
deliberate at the meeting uh at the site visits, but it'll really give us what we're looking for, right? Um I know that um I had them do some test pits with the backo to look at things, get grades and everything else. And I feel that if this
is coming up August 13th, we're going to do a site visit on the 11th, I guess, somewhere around there. I suggest we take a a walk around the basin on the 11th. August 9th, I mean August what? August 9th. August 9th, I'm sorry. August 9th is a site visit. I suggest we take a walk
around the basin. We look at where the concrete structures are. We look how they constructed it. And then we will come up with a determination as a bullet. But as of right now, we're talking if we're talking about the breaking asphalt. Department of Environmental Production does highly
suggest using it especially for the basins of the base of a road. Um, so those are the two usages and that's why there's two memos. I didn't want to tie the issues together. Correct. You got two separate. You can consider them in isolation.
Correct. for for the first one, as as the chairman just said, based on the policy of DP, I would recommend I I think that it it should be straightforward, but that's that's just my opinion and I I I respect
all of your opinions. Um Christian, you've raised a couple issues here. I I'm just I'm going on what I have, but I I uh we've been out to the site. We've been trying to work with uh Mr. Pastello with with Joe Jr. and Jamie Bisette
and and I know that this has been an ongoing uh long um ongoing project and I just I'm trying to push it forward u you know trying to find a solution and the second memo again is the use of that material
up on these on one of the retention basins. My understanding is that at least what I'm hearing rightly or legally to get more information that it would be the foundation whether that's going to actually sequester it you know
on the top I don't know I I see that the you know I don't I um anyhow it's it's a separate issue and and I think the second is probably more sensitive to the commission than the first one would be
so like I said this is coming up on uh the meeting um August 9th. We will walk the site. We'll look at the basin while we're there. We'll check out the concrete structures. We will talk to Jamie Besonette, I'm sure, will be there. We're going to talk about all five RDAs. I think that one site visit
um could get us a lot of answers. Um and then we'll go from there. Then we can bring it back here, deliberate on it, vote on it, and decide what we decide. So, can I and I'm sorry to interject again. I don't know if Mr. that fellow said who do we want to do? I don't know
procedurally. It's a discussion. It's an update. My update agent update. Did he's not on the agenda. He's not on the agenda. So, he can't even come to the board. Okay. That's that was my question. Can I ask a question though? Can I ask a question? Can I Can I ask a question? You really shouldn't.
Okay. Just cuz it's under discussion. You're going to hold me back until August 9th for me to proceed with the loan. Is that what you're saying to me? I'm not saying nothing right now, Joe. What I'm saying is exactly what we just said is that you're coming up on the road. The question is, can we proceed with the road? It's obvious that all the
recommendation was presented to all of you. We can't proceed with the road. The question is the basic. Can we proceed with the road? We're going to hold me back another month, two, another month and a half to do the road. We can't deliberate on that right now, Joe. I can't bring it even to a vote. This is this is going on and never going
to end. It is going to end, Joe. Sir, you have proof in front all of you that that material is accepted for the road. Why you holding me hostage again? Because we can't bring it to a vote. Joe, that material has been already there for a long time. The longest time, sir. It's not even on the agenda. You and I
shouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sorry, Mr. Susan. The fact of the matter that material for the road has been there for 20 years. Why are you holding me another 6 to 8 weeks? So, I cannot do no work on the road. Leave the basin alone. I understand. And I agree with you 100%.
The road is clearly to go forward. No, they have no enforcement order. Just an order of conditions. Then you're free. He's free to work. Just not on the basin. Why is there an enforcement? We had an issue with the basin. Yeah, we had an issue. But there's no
active enforcement order. There's nothing holding him back. Hold on a second. Put him on the July 23rd meeting. Do you want to go on the July 23rd meeting, Joe? Put him on the July 23rd meeting. I can put you on the July 23rd. That'll bump it up a lot sooner as soon as possible. My question is if
in fact it's clear that the material for the road is accepted to the state by state order which all of you read, why are you holding me hostage again? I just can't vote on it or do make a decision tonight Joe. How long is this going on? How long have you
July 23rd it will end? We will have an answer for you. July 23rd we will be doing a site visit with Saturday. respect and I thank you all of you for your service at the time but this is not fair. It's three and a half years on the making and that material is there but for 20 some odd years and you get proof
in front of you. You had proof in front of you that material is accepted for the road. You just can't. You're not on the agenda. You weren't brought up. We've been talking about this how many minutes you had at the site already? What did I say to you the other day? It's too late to get on the agenda. Joe, I understand. But you've been talking about this for months. We had two
meetings already on site. On site? Yes. What what's the problem? And we sat with him. It's clearly it's clearly in front of you what the law says. Can we just please bring this to Joe and you'll have all your answers. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
So, I've had a conversation with Mr. Castello cuz he's frustrated with the project and and I can agree with his frustration. So, what I did is I talked to our MS4 engineer Kevin McHugh from KICO Engineer and I asked him a few times few different things and I went on
vacation. I even bugged him when I was on vacation to try to help Mr. Cassella with his development of Deep Brook and I said, "You find any reason ABC should not be used on roadway around Storm Water Basin?" His response, I haven't found any reason that it can't be used.
I sent an email around companywide and no one else could find the reason either. I said, "Thank you." So, I think if the commission's going to deny it, you better have a good reason for denial in a policy. somewhere a state policy somewhere in place or rule and
regulation somewhere in place that says you can't use it before you deny it. Kevin, just so you know, we do have papers from the D. They do recommend the use of it. Um, and I even asked the question you heard you question we can't vote on it tonight. I'm not Mr.
Souza. I'm just bringing up a point, okay? Because it's gone a little bit too far and and I'm sitting at home and I'm watching meetings and I'm listening to bickering and moaning, yelling back and forth, confusion everywhere. And all I'm doing is trying to come in and provide a little bit of guidance. I told you guys last time we were here, I said, "We have
our own MS4 engineer. We can use him as a consult here and there for certain purposes." I reached out to him. He was kind enough to look and he said, "I reached out companywide. Can't find a reason why." So if there's a reason why, we would all like to know what that reason is on why we would deny the per
the use of that material ABC around storm water basins, roadways. I said around storm water basins and on the roadways. So I just received this uh this week from the D saying that they recommend it for the roads. I will say that we have a recess.
Um yes, I'd like to entertain a motion for a recess. Why don't we just end this? We're only in discussion. Let's end the meeting and we can talk. I'd like to entertain a motion for a recess. Motion. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? A motion that we come out of recess and back to this public meeting. So moved.
All in favor? Mr. Chairman, thank you and the uh commission uh for clarifying what was on the agenda for us. I wanted to make sure that we dealt with what we needed to deal with and didn't violate the open
meeting law. I thank you for during the recess clarifying for me what was on the agenda and the discussion involved and I hope I didn't uh delay you folks more
than I should have. No, you haven't, Jamie. And I want to thank you very much. It really brings clarification. All right. But now we have other business. any other business that may properly come before the commission not reasonably anticipated when posting 48 hours prior to the
meeting. Future business. The next meeting of conservation commission will be held on July 23rd, 2025. Meeting will be held at the town hall meeting room located at 122 Main Street to Cushion at Mass. With that all being said, I'd like to enterain a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Excuse me. We're going to sign. Oh, I'm still going to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I