This public hearing is now called called to order at 6:02 p.m. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the commonwealth an act relative to the protection of the wetlands as
most recently amended. Notice of the time and place of this hearing was published in the Vhaven neighborhood news on July 2nd 2026 and published in the standard times on July 156.
This meeting is being audio and videotaped. Person persons wishing to be heard will be called in the following order. >> Can I have a motion to open the public? >> Motion to open this public meeting. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I um please bear with me as this is the uh a new um endeavor for me uh right now. Um, >> you can do it. >> No.
>> Um, so notice is hereby given that the Kushnet Conservation Commission will hold the public hearing on Wednesday, July 22, beginning at 6 p.m. at the town hall meeting room located at 122 Main Street of Kushnet, Mass. Minutes for approval.
June 24, 2026. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. Does anyone have any >> No. >> No. I didn't have
>> uh that being said, uh I'll entertain a motion that we accept the minutes as presented. >> Motion to accept June 2024 minutes. I'll >> second. >> All those in favor? I.
>> Meeting mail. PJ Keating Company letter received regarding modifications to the PJ Keating Company Quarry located at 72 South Main Street. The review of matters presented votes may be taken.
Julia, what um >> yeah, so this was just um an update uh from them. they are have proposed upgrades and um for their core facility and access roads um storage areas and
some storm water management features. So it was a letter they sent to us and I know the planning board is uh covering this at their meeting on August 6th. So uh I believe you guys received this notice through your email as well. I
don't know if you had time to review it. um if you want us to cover it at our next meeting as well. Um you know what are your thoughts on that? Would be something we should go over. >> Um
>> one question >> I don't think we require a visit for for this particular thing >> this issue in particular. Um but that's what I was going to question is what has occurred with the um wetlands
remediation work? Has there been any discussion with feeding? >> Um as of now there is not an update with that uh with with them. >> Did they they did notify you of uh
a beginning date or what was the >> Yeah, they notified us. Um, and I believe it was for towards end of July is when they ideally >> anticipated. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll just keep an eye on that. Pretty good.
>> So, has has there been a um set plan um that they've submitted to us regarding this work? >> I have not seen a set plan. It's just been letters in the in the mail that they've been sending to us. but no like site plan or or anything
like that. >> So, at this time, are they are they looking for discussion on this? Are they looking for an approval on the proposals that they're proposing within this letter? What what are they actually stating voting on
>> for this? What are they looking from this commission? I think they're looking for us to um review their proposed upgrades and then once we've reviewed it, make a decision on it. But we haven't reviewed it yet.
>> Yeah. >> So that's going to occur on the 6th. Correct. >> The planning board is having their meeting on the 6th to discuss uh this. So, do we know if if they've provided the planning board with a um a a site
drawing on on any of this proposed work? >> I do not know, but I can get in touch with Victoria and see if she has something that maybe she can share with me and I can share with the commission >> for you guys to have. >> Yeah. So, I mean >> at the least they're going to have to make that public on the six. That's
right. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean a letter of letter of proposal of of work for submission. Um, you know, I understand. Um, I I would just like to see something on paper um for a site plan on what they're proposing,
especially >> with the drainage and the wetland and the wetland um issues that still remain there. Um, as far as this goes, >> that's good. >> Yeah. Okay. So,
>> no, just we'll keep that um out of the agenda so that we uh >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> You want an update on the >> Yeah, we we'll keep that on um Joe and
uh follow up. Okay. Old business Continue. Extension request for order of resource area delineation TGA TJA 540R Main Street SE00001-0544.
A request for an extension to an existing order of resource area delineation was filed by TJA 540R Main Street of Kushnet LLC for property located at 540R Main Street, map 11, lot
10. The applicant has requested an extension for the proposed 3.116 megawatt photoic solar farm with associated infrastructure. The applicant is represented by Asa Smith.
>> ASA Asa Smith of Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. Peer review by LEC Environmental Consultants Incorporated.
Nate Gosh Gary. >> Hey guys, how are you? My name is Asa Smith. um representing >> Atlantic Design Engineers on behalf of the applicant um TJ 540R Main Street at Kushnet LLC and this is regards to DP file number SC000010544.
>> Um as the commission mayor recall, we submitted a request to extend the existing ORAD on January 28th because the project was delayed due to utility in connection process with that resource. Since that time, the commission requested an independent peer review of the wetland ination. Um the
peer review was completed by LAC Environmental on June 18th, 2026, which resulted in few minor revisions to the wetland flag locations. Those revisions have been incorporated onto the wetland location plan, which was updated with a revision date of July 6th, 2026. um
shown here. LEC has concluded uh via a peerreview report dated July 17th on 2026 that the revised wetland boundary is accurately depicted on the updated plan and recommends that the ORAD acknowledge the revised flag locations with the peer review complete and agreement reached under delineation. We
respectfully request that the commission approve the ORAD this evening. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Um, you say there were minor uh in >> Yeah. Um, it's shown. I don't know if you can necessarily see it, but it's in
red. Here are all the flags that were placed. >> Yeah, that's >> I can bring it up closer. >> No, no, that's all right. >> We also have a set of plans if you want. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Um, again, minor. The only changes were really in this pocket here of one flag right here, and then this back corner of
the property. um and we you know we flagged them and then we GPS located and um updated the plan and confirmed with Nate um of LAC that these uh locations are accurately shown which he agreed with. >> So is this less of an impact?
>> Um it's very minor. um one flag is going to really impact the um you know the line that we're going to be looking at for the RDA as the next step. Um so it was very very minor. >> Yeah.
In total, the deliation um it did result in a larger wetland um area that was previously shown. Um I'm >> sorry. It did. >> It did. Yes. >> Somewhat >> somewhat negligible. Um I guess areas were gained in areas that are seen as not important to this project. So >> not directly. Yes. >> Exactly. Right.
>> Yeah. >> But um you know we feel that this line accurately shows that. Now, >> so I did speak to the peer reviewer today and um I also read through his report and in his report he did state
that um although they changed some flags, it's very minimal in its changes to the original plan. And I was looking at the original plan today comparing it to the new flags. There is a section where a good amount of wetlands is
added, but it's it's only like seven out of like 70 flags that have been changed. So, it is very minimal. Um, but there's kind of like a few ways we can go about it because if you decide to approve it today, it doesn't go based on this plan.
It goes based on >> the original plan. So, so this kind of information that we received will kind of be discarded. So, if you if you want to keep this original plan, there's a few ways you can do it. You can do an
amended order that involves this plan being the new baseline. >> Um, if you find that it's not minimal and you want to include it or the other thing you can do is deny. But, so there's two options to go about it. if you want to keep this plan and then the
other way if you don't really if you just think it's minimal and doesn't really matter you can go with accepting the original extension. So there's a few things you can do. >> Um how do you guys feel in that regard?
>> Just so you guys know that the next step in this process would be the RDA and so when we create the RDA plans we will be using this updated flag location. So, this is going to be considered the new location of flags. Um, we're not going to go back to the old plan and I'm a little confused
>> in terms of going forward. >> Yeah, I did speak to D today and you would need to do an amended to have this recorded. So, we have it in our records because right now this plan is not the recorded plan. So, it's not >> What about during the RDA process? Does that get recorded after that?
>> It would need to. Yeah, it would be recorded after that, but it would it would >> we can't extend this plan. >> IDAS don't have a registry of deeds process. >> Yeah, we can't extend this plan. We can only extend the original. So, there's no
way to go about the process with this as the new plan without doing amended or or a denial. >> Right. >> Okay. I mean, I would prefer the amended, >> right? I would say that would be the sensible thing. >> Yeah, definitely. I I agree with that as well.
>> Yeah, I do, too. So, um, >> I mean, you've already got all the plans done. It just would be the the application process. >> The amendment, >> it would be easy to amend it since the you already have the plan. >> We do the amended and the extension on the same agenda, right?
>> I mean, yes. I'm a little confused over why this process doesn't kind of relate since we have an agreement on the wetland mine. We can't approve this and kind of go on with it. I'm a little confused over how we have to go back to >> Yeah, that's what D >> It was. Yeah, it was a long process on the phone with D today kind of just
going through the specific policy, what we actually have uh kind of the jurisdiction to do and what we don't have the jurisdiction to do. And there's just no policy that allows us to use this as as the new plan without amending
it. I mean, again, I'm a little confused over why we had the whole peer review process um through your order and then we kind of went into this and now we cast to get >> the reason we did the peer review process was because >> there was a potential for the wetland line to be the same. If the wetland w
line was the same, we could just approve it and extend it. But since we found out that it's not the same, we don't just want to disregard this information even if it is minimal. It's, you know, we we went through the process, we found it out, it makes sense process. Definitely
since January is when we submitted it >> and now we're here in the middle of July, I'm being told that we have to resubmit it for an amendment. >> Nothing's unfortunately. >> Yeah. Um, okay. I mean, that's understood. Um so again at this point we can accept the um
approve the original at this point >> and then he >> I believe you would have to approve the amended first because since you submitted for the extension you there's no like timeline as to okay
we need to approve it right now like you're you're good you already submitted for your extension so we can approve the amended order and the extension at the same time at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Or if you feel that those small >> Yeah. Yeah. If you feel it's minimal,
you can just approve an extension. >> Oh, that's what I was >> going to >> Yeah, you can just you can do that as well. >> I personally feel that it is, >> you know, >> and I mean it's in the affirmative as far as the wetlands, but it is minimal
in in in terms of the area. >> Yeah. And you have my commitments. make a recommendation. Julia, >> I I agree that it's also um minimal changes based on the scope. It's like less than 1% of of the scope of the area.
>> And I agree. And that being said, I'll entertain a motion that from the public. >> Oh, that's correct. Yeah. Sorry. Does anyone uh have anything to add from the public to this? Uh
>> nothing. Okay. So be it. Yeah. So that um again I'll entertain a motion that we uh accept as presented this evening. >> So the accept the old plan
>> the the old plan. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll second. >> So I'll make that motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All those in favor? I >> I >> Thank you.
>> Sorry. No problem. >> You got it. >> Yes. Um >> Well, Joanne, was that >> So he was I'll get the paperwork out. He'll have to file the extension at the
registry of deeds. >> Yep. >> All that stuff. So I think we'll we'll be good with that. >> Okay. I'll follow up with you. >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you guys. Yeah, that wasn't No, that's uh extensions and not >> right. That's not >> part of the uh public hearing, correct?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we're trying. I'm trying. Okay. New business public hearing equity real estate James Sabra 1212 Main Street SE00001-0627.
A request for an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation was filed by Equity Real Estate James >> James Sabra in the corner >> for property located at 1212 Main Street map 6 lot 2. The
applicant requests confirmation of the delineation. The applicant is represented by Christopher Capone. Plan name is Plan of Land 1212 Main Street dated January 16, 2026. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken.
Uh I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> Motion to open public hearing. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> The floor is yours. Good evening. Uh for the record, Christopher Capone. I'm a wetlands consultant that is here tonight
with this abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for Equity Real Estate or Jim Sabra. Um, this address is located at 1212 Main Street. Um, I think we got Country Whip just up the road.
You got Route 105 that cuts in somewhere here. So, it's just after 105. It's a existing hay field right now. The property has a remnants of a historical home that burned on these two small lots that are right here in the front.
There's a driveway that accesses to that old homestead. Again, the property is made up of 26 acres. The majority of that land is wooded um with the hayfield sitting in the front. We have two areas of delineation which are considered a
bordering vegetated wetland. We have A7 that comes around through A25. We have B1 up in this area that comes around and ends at um B20.
Associated with this wetland is a perennial stream, an unnamed perennial stream. We have that labeled in blue. Uh this meanders through the property. It enters a existing pond on the property and then slightly on an angle exits
immediately off site. So we have identified the riverfront area here in red measured 200 ft from the bank full indicators and this represents your 200 ft arc from the closest point to that wetland. The 100t buffer zone is the
farthest line here and that represents from the two delineations. There happens to be an existing cart path that traverses between these two wetland systems with an old existing covert crossing with a old stone crossing.
There is a small upland in this area. Um but for the most part our delineation terminates right here. We did not do any further delineation to the rear. Uh in my opinion the property is questionable. There is current negotiations to
consider selling to one of these land owners. um that are adjacent to it. Right now, if anything is being proposed, it would be proposed on the frontage portion of the property um in in the hayfield. Uh it has potential for
three form lots. So again, what we're looking for this evening is the approval of the wetland delineation and the riverfront delineation for that perennial stream. >> No work is proposed at this time and we also do have a file number. >> No, got it. Yeah. Thank you.
>> Um Heidi, anything to >> I mean the violent delineation is clear. >> Doug and I Yeah, we we walked it. I uh so was pretty taken back especially um to see a stone dated from 1805 on that
site. >> Now that that was >> and the old horsedrawn buggy that still remains intact out there. Um >> almost like we're stuck in time. Um, it was probably the most
interesting site visit that I personally have have been on. Um, to see some of that nostalgia still in place. >> Um, >> takes you back. >> Kind of takes you back a little eerie, a
little mysterious. Um, on an old cart path that probably that buggy was driven down, >> I'm sure. Right. >> Hauling logs. hauling logs. >> Um, you know, out of that that heavily wooded area back there. There's a lot of
acorage back there, >> right? >> Um, never knew it existed. >> Um, I just I just wanted that to be said. >> All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, and from my position, I tend to find places a lot often than you do because of me traveling in places
chasing these flags. So, um, I can say this is pretty unique site, too. I haven't necessarily seen a wagon from >> it is and I don't know if anybody has sparked the interest to to maybe um remove that horrawn buggy out of there
with the apparatus that's with that and maybe >> you know museum it or restore it >> from 1805. That's pretty incredible that it's still standing on its wheels. >> Yeah, it's true. >> Thank you. >> Y that was very good. >> Right. Yeah, that was something I have
to agree. Um, all that being said, um, I don't have an issue. >> I don't have any issue with any delineations as presented like I mean everything looked adequate on site >> and uh going forward I'm I'm in favor of
um accepting you know the uh the plan >> at this point as presented. >> I agree. >> The plan is dated January 6, 26. Um the survey was done early in the season. So that's
>> a date of the plan you would accept. >> Uh I'll entertain a motion that uh >> we accept this um delineation plan. >> I make a motion >> as presented. >> Yep. I'll make a motion to accept as well. >> I'll second that. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Since I missed the site visit this Saturday, can I just walk? >> It was pretty sure. >> Yeah, it's not that far from your home. Yeah, >> go right ahead. >> Thank you. >> Quite a welcome. >> You know, but they know do they know what they're going to do with the property yet? They're just going to
develop a little bit just here. This is all all we can do is here in the front. So >> yeah, everything outside of the >> Again, it's not meant for development to the rear as I mentioned that once somebody else wanted street and it would probably come in from the other direction anyway for
access, >> right? They they said they mentioned they wanted it for hunting. Oh, it's valuewise. It's not much out there. So, but he's looking for confirmation for the delineation, you know. >> Good time, Mr. Capone. Thank you. All right. Have a good night. We'll see you
again. >> Thank you. Um, thank you, John. >> I'll entertain a motion to close motion to close the public hearing. All those in favor I >> moving on >> public hearing after the fact NOI Doug
and Lauren Lemier 35 Hway Road SE 001-0626 and after the fact NOI was filed by Doug and Lauren Lemier for property located at 35 Hathaway Road. The applicant constructed a drainage ditch in the
wetland resource area to mitigate water away from the dwelling. The applicant is represented by Field Engineering Company Incorporated. Plan name is Resource Area Disturbance Details dated June 18, 2026. Review of matters presented. Votes may
be taken. I'll entertain a motion to uh Oh, is this is this is this open already? The public hearing? >> No, you need to open it. >> No, we do, right? Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll entertain a motion that we open this public hearing. Motion to open public hearing.
>> All those in favor? I um >> so they sent an email today requesting if they could uh be continued till the August 12th meeting. >> Very good. Um then at this point I'll entertain a
motion that we uh >> yeah continue to what's August 12th. >> Oh is it 12th? Yeah. I'm sorry. Okay. August 12th. Motion to continue this for August 12. It is 12. >> Second.
>> All those in favor? >> I I moving on. Certificate of compliance. Shane and Courtney Tracy, 185 Matapo Matapo Road, SC001-0586. A certificate of compliance was filed by
the law offices of James W. Marsh for Shane and Courtney Tracy for property located at 185 Matapo Road. The applicant constructed a single family dwelling and completed the connection to an existing septic system along with grading including a grass drainage swale
and rip wrap area with a 6ft wooden stockade fence. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. >> Mr. Marsh, >> good evening. >> You going to hold this? >> Oh. Uh, no, I don't think we do. No, it's a certificate of compliance. >> Okay.
>> Good evening. >> Yes. Very good. >> Uh Jim Marsh represent uh the the owners of 185 Matapo Road. Shane and Courtney Tracy here for a certificate of compliance on the work um that's that
was approved by the amended order of conditions for uh DP uh 001586. Um with our request, we provided a uh well, we submitted an ASB, but also a um
a uh correspondence from Faring Corporation who did did the work under the amended order. Um uh essentially confirming that all the work authorized under the amended order has been completed in accordance with the approved um
conditions from the amended order as well as the uh site plan that was prepared um and approved by this commission. Um minor grading um was recently done with a rip wrap swale or swale grass
swell with rip wrap area at the end. Um uh it was done in a satisfactory manner and is we submit in substantial compliance with the approved plans act. Um we're requesting that the commission issue a certificate of compliance for
the work. Okay. Um, first off, I I was on site Saturday to review uh the work that's been done. Uh, I found it to be satisfactory in my
opinion. Um the one glitch was the um the grass wasn't quite uh where we would like to see it, but at this time I mean it it's going to be just, you know, a difficult situation.
I'm sure that uh whoever resides on the property is going to continue to ensure that it's stabilized. So um I feel that um the property is
complete and that uh we need to move on and uh grant the COC. >> I was not able to make this site visit unfortunately. Um, I asked uh my agent via phone call to um to put eyes on this
uh for her official opinion on this um so we could move along on this. So I'm going to rely on Julia for this information. >> Okay. >> So I did I was able to go out there today as I I couldn't go Saturday. I was under the weather, but I was able to get out there today and see it. And I just
kind of have the one um same thing that Christian said is in my opinion the grass isn't fully where we would like it to be. Other than that, it looks good, but the grass is just the one thing that uh I see isn't isn't quite there. Um
it's supposed to be 70% vegetated and it's it's probably like 40 50. So, you know, whatever the commission decides to do with that information >> to give you some comfort, there's um biodegradable matting that's out there
that's on the slopes um that will hold the slopes in place while the the grass that um has been, you know, it's working its way through that matting. It's already been seated. Um so that the slopes are going to hold uh well well through the summer and then once the
growing season you know comes then we'll we'll you know it'll become more established. >> Oh yeah I I haven't >> Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. No I I have you know. >> Okay. >> Okay. the um
>> I know there was some some heavy rainstorms and I didn't see much for >> right >> um >> I'll see >> any sediment really in the bay I mean in these in the grass well so >> I don't think there's much movement for for soil >> the 6ft wooden fence
stockade fence not seeing that >> yeah you can see it >> you did >> that's the stockade >> I believe so right >> well that was actually taken Oh, so the revised plan. >> Oh, the the the length of it, the the
whole >> line of it was removed. >> Yeah, that was a >> that was per agreement with the with the neighbor. >> Oh, sorry. >> Okay. It should have been stricken. >> Yeah, it I believe it was. I don't
>> The reason for the the fencing was to >> cover the um the the stone wall, >> right? That was the initial. >> Yeah. >> And now that it's gone, the uh the concrete blocker >> and I'm pretty sure that was uh
acceptable. Okay. So, again, um I'm sure that the uh whoever resides, like I say, is going to, you know, continue to maintain that that uh that grass. >> And I mean, I I know we're in the hot months. We've had our share of rain. I'm
more than sure that, you know, once this cooler weather settles in, >> there'll be a lawn there. There's there's no question about that. Are we comfortable with with letting this go? Um, less than 50%.
>> I'm I'm my opinion is 50%. I I feel it was it was 50% in my opinion, but you know, I didn't uh >> I didn't recommendation measure anything. I personally wouldn't approve it as is. I do believe the grass
will grow, but it hasn't yet. And that is our our >> set standard. >> Our standard, and it's not meeting our standard. So, I I wouldn't approve it yet. I would give it till the next meeting, see if it meets our standard.
But >> I would I would uh second that. I would like to see the 14 days. >> I don't I don't see it. I mean, if you look at the forecast, it's not going to change and and it's just not grass growing season. It just isn't. >> I agree.
>> You're talking September. So, I I can't I can't justifiably uh you know, not accept what I've seen. That's my opinion. That's my opinion. I >> and I mean I'm going to I'm going to put
it to you know >> I feel the same way like I have grass same situation so I think that out of everything they've done >> that control of that >> appreciate the effort and u
>> I'm sure that um >> it's not the biggest >> no >> especially when new people coming in they're going to want beautiful grass lawn >> of course goes without saying Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Anybody the public? >> Yep. Uh does anyone have anything to
add? >> Okay. So, that being said, I'm going to entertain a motion that we issue the COC as proposed on this plan. >> I'll make a motion.
>> No, we not. So, now what? >> No. I I don't agree with this and I'm saying no. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> I believe we we have a set standard. We're supposed to be following that. >> And I think to
>> to uphold that and and move forward, I I I'm asking for 14 days. >> 14 days. You You really think anything's going to change? >> Let's roll the dice. I don't think 14 days is a a lot to ask at this point. I I understand they've done a lot of work
there. I agree with that. I'm not disagreeing with that. We're having some cooler nights. We're having our share of rain. I' I'd like to see a little bit more grass growth. >> Evidently, that's that's where we stand. That's >> that's my opinion. And
>> can can you make a conditional vote then to issue it in 14 days? You know, I I don't think that you're going to get any. >> No. >> I mean, I think we're at a point where this is not going to really start coming in. >> No. more so than what it is now until
September. >> Um, >> and just so you're aware too that, you know, the the house was is under agreement. I think the closing is next week. Um, >> you know, there's there's issue with title. >> I don't see a reason to drag this out any further. I really don't
>> I don't think I' I have a neighbor that's been trying to grow grass for weeks. It's not happening. Right. >> I'm just saying. >> Was this hydro seated? >> It was not hydro seated. No, it was that matting. Correct. >> The matting. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if your concern is is erosion,
the matting that's in place is really holding >> the the slopes up. >> You're not going to see any any >> there was uh so the soil itself with some of these >> raintorms to hold it in place. That's why I thought, you know, >> it's just a matter of time.
>> And that stuff stays there. It's not going to get pulled out. It's just going to fire. >> Yeah. It'll buy That's right. Right. Yeah, I understand that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, the area that's not growing is is sort of above and on the the area that's closer to the
home. >> I just I I feel this puts us in an awkward comm um position as a commission. And I'm just saying this aloud. we we have a standard and to allow this to go kind of opens us
up a little bit. I feel >> that's that's why I make the recommendation I made just because we do have set policies and standards and I I do feel we should abide by them and that's why I made that specific recommendation.
>> When's the closing on this, Mr. Mash? >> Um >> Wednesday next week. >> Wednesday. >> Wednesday next week. >> Yeah. That's why I don't feel it's this puts us in a tough spot. >> I mean, >> to be honest, >> this is an isolated situation, Doug. It really is. It's an isolated business.
It's not >> uh you know, >> we did our best to um >> get the the company, our contractor out there to do this work. And I think it did a terrific job. >> We're in a point where he and he did as
best as he could to continue to keep the the area um wet. So, you could get some some grass growing. Um it's just with the holdups and some of the issues that this this project had um where we finally
reached agreement as to what we were going to do out there so all parties would be happy. >> Um we got to the point where we're not having the grass grow. I feel that you know it was expedited once once we came to a >> I agree
and so and uh you know um >> I understand you you have >> butter was u you know >> situation >> uh helpful as well um to try to minimize the disturbance on the u
adjacent property uh you know on the applicant's property. So, I think it was done as best as as best as could be done. >> Yeah, >> I do feel that way. So, >> well, I hope this doesn't bite me in the fanny, so to speak.
>> Yeah. >> I I mean, Doug, I think we've we've had some other isolated situations where, you know, this the saw the grass wasn't quite adequate before. And again, I I still I feel it's
a good 50% at least. So, uh, you know, it's not like it's completely barren, you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I'm not here to play the bad guy. Again, I I really I hope this decision doesn't bite me in the Fanny
um for future. >> Yep. um sitting on this this board, this commission um despite what my agent um you know just shared with with us. Um let's let's let this go. Let's let let's
pass this then. >> Thank you. >> So um once again, I will entertain a motion that we issue the COC on this throttle maker as presented. I make a motion.
>> You second. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thanks for >> Very good, >> Mr. Mr. Tracy. Mr. >> Good luck to you. Good luck to you. It's been a long road. Well, good luck, sir. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. M. Okay. Good thing you put your puppy face on. Well, again, all things considered is, you know, that's it's tough. I agree. I agree that it is. >> I'm not
I'm not uh you know, >> of course we absolutely I I I'm not >> Okay. Uh public hearing NOI Luke Kever and Jessica Brown Angelo Drive map 2 lot
12K aka subdivision lot number three. A notice of intent was filed by Luke Heber and Jessica Brown for property located at Angelo Drive, Map 2, lot 12K. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling, an ingground swimming
pool, shed and driveway, installation of a well, septic system, and underground utilities and filling and grading within the 100 ft buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. The applicant is represent represented by David Deion of
Schneider, Deinion, and Leon Incorporated. Plan name is sewage disposal system. Site plan dated July 7, 2026. Review of Matt as presented. Votes may be taken. I'll entertain a motion that we open the public hearing. Motion
over public hearing. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Mr. Deion. >> Good afternoon. Floor is yours, Mr. Chairman, and commission members. For the record, I'm Dave Dicknet from Schneider Dean Leone. I'm here representing Luke Heert and Jessica Brown. Luke's with me here in the
audience. Um this is a uh proposal to construct a single family dwelling um on this particular lot which is a newly created subdivision. Um it's the last lot on the right hand side and it happens to border uh bordering
vegetative wetland. It has a uh wetland system as you can see highlighted on the map in green um to the left of the site as you're staring at the site with your back to the culde-sac. Um so half of the property falls within the 100 foot buffer zone which uh brings us to
jurisdiction of the conservation commission. Um so the house has proposed a single family dwelling. It's a L-shaped house um with the uh future uh ADU as a part of that wing to the to the right. We
positioned the house so that we're parallel to the right lot line. So we're keeping as far away from the wetlands as possible. Uh I think we're holding 16 ft. The side set back requirements 15. Um so that places the left side of the house within the buffer zone. Uh we have
an erosion control shown from basically the street running parallel to the house and then it actually pulls away from the wetlands from the south and the north. There's a small pinch point um as you get to where the house is located. We've left a 20ft natural buffer. As you saw
at the site when we visited the site, there's a very steep incline. We're about twothirds of the way up that incline. So, there's really no need to go beyond that. Um, since that site visit, after looking at the site with you guys and all stakes, I've lowered the foundation so that we can actually
bring the grade down >> a bit to kind of match a little bit to the right. >> So, I did submit a revised plan and that'll help balance the fill in the front and the back. Maybe we don't want to have to pull fill out of the site. So the septic system is located in the front of the house greater than 75 ft uh
from the wetlands as required under the cushion board health regs. The wells to the rear of the site outside of the buffer zone. The driveways to the right hand side follows the property line that's outside of the buffer zone. We have a roof runoff recharge system to the rear uh way in the back behind the
building. All the roof runoff be directed in that direction. And we are proposing an ground swimming pool. It's located you know kitty corner of the L-shaped house. sort of right tucked in there at the top of the hill. Um, so it's a buffer zone project. We did get D
file number. There were no comments. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> What is the closest uh area uh to the um wetland on the uh property the building? Okay. Uh, so flags four,
they were there were actually whoever flagged it, they must have lost track. There was four 1 2 3 four and then another four and then a five. So the two flags later >> four um we're 20 ft parallel to that. And as you
get to five, you start pulling away. And as you get to six, you're probably closer to 35 ft. And as you get you go in this direction, we're probably at 40 at number two. And then 50 at number one. So, and you can see the fall off from the grades. We're we're actually trying to keep it all on the plateau as
it exists. And and you can see the contours how tight they are right throughout. Uh so basically that'll all remain natural. So to answer your question is it's 20 ft at at the pinch point where the house is approximately 40 ft away. >> 40.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, anyone have anything to add? Um, so as you know, Mr. Deinion, we were there on location for this site visit. As a gentle reminder, we have the right of refusal for a site
inspection. If the site is not staked, the engineer doesn't have a set of plans. I think that's been made loud and clear. We made the site visit. It would have been great to have a set of plans to actually see the plans and then walk the
site. I know I had a little bit of a an issue with that as I always do. The set of plans is a home run, right? I think Christian had a little bit of an issue with not being able to really look at a set of plans. I know I haven't had an
opportunity to review this myself personally. I don't know if Christian has. So, we're asking for future. I get it. Everybody's lives are busy. We forget. Site plan is so important when we go out there. We're volunteers.
>> Oh, I I I get it. I apologize for not actually having a plan on site. I I >> So, that's my scolding. >> Okay. >> Okay. My apologies. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> well, it was well staked out though.
>> It was very well staked out. I mean, he was so he he did not have the plan with him, but but the property was very well. It was we had >> he hit a home run with that. We did have
the ability to uh visualize what was going to transpire, but um >> I also drew a good picture in the D. >> That's right. We did it. We did, you know, >> um >> No, sorry I couldn't be there. >> Okay. What you guys
>> If nothing from you, is uh does anyone in the from the public have any input on this project? >> Okay. Well, um I uh I think it's pretty well uh very
well laid out in my opinion. Um I think you know they uh did uh Mr. Dominion did his due diligence and and created a a good plan for the site >> especially for a site of of that.
>> Yeah. I mean definitely because right the the >> very terrain >> aspects. Yes. Absolutely. >> What is this? Where is this street off of? >> That's off Keen Road. >> Keen Road. >> That's the um development. >> Robbie Rodri was originally involved
with that, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. It's probably It's a short distance from Peekom Road. >> 39. >> Go around the first 39. >> You actually drive right by >> on the left. >> Yeah. >> You can't miss the gorgeous south that's next door to that one. Jeez, it's
>> Yeah. All right. Well, Julia, any comment? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get out into the field on Saturday, so I don't really have much to say about this one. >> Um, and again, I think it's very well laid out. So, >> thank you.
>> I'm going to um entertain a motion that we accept the Is that correct, Joanne? I'm going to accept the >> you're looking to um
prove a positive I'm thinking the order of conditions >> except the order of conditions. >> Right. That's it. Okay. So that I just want to make sure I do it right. >> I don't know if you want to use the um standard order. >> Oh, that's correct. You want to read
that out? >> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, make the motion >> the um entertain a motion that we accept the NOI as uh >> order of conditions. >> Issue issue. >> Issue. Yeah.
>> Issue an order of condition. >> Yeah. With those >> as per the plan presented. >> Um including Yeah. >> Including the special conditions. Yes. >> Motion to accept the special conditions. Yes.
>> Yeah. Do you want to just quickly read those out? >> Um, do we generally read both? Uh, >> no. No, you're going to pick one. I think you want the bottom. >> Yeah. The erosion control inspection on-site meeting with contractor within 5 days prior to construction. No
stockpiling of materials, no equipment stored, no refueling, no portable toilets or wash out from concrete in the buffer zone. A certificate of compliance request is required no later than 18 months after the issuance of an occupancy permit. If the applicant fails
to comply or contact the agent, a $250 fine for non-compliance will be issued. >> Uh, all those in favor I >> I >> I >> Thank you. Nice. >> I'll never forget a plan again.
See you guys next time. You know the old saying. >> At least you showed up, Dave. >> First time. Shame on me. >> It's worse when they don't show up. >> Good luck. >> End up with a really good product there. Yeah. All right. >> Make a motion to close that.
>> Oh, that's correct. Thank you. I'm getting out of I'm getting out of All right. >> Uh I'll uh entertain a motion that we close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I be looking for that paperwork there. >> Um
storm water roof infiltration system design on plants review of matters presented. Votes made taken. Excuse me. Um Julia. >> Okay. So, just bear with me because this was a little confusing for me and I'm
not familiar with all of these terms for the roof infiltration system, but um Bob Maderas from the board of health um reached out to us. I wasn't in the office so I I wasn't able to speak with him directly but um he asked for from
from now on if when we uh do our roof infiltration systems on any plan we accept it in a certain design. So um basically there's one detail detail on a roof infiltration system uh where the
overflow downspout is facing either downward or upward. He wants us to approve ones that are facing upward. And so anytime we come across one that's facing downward, he asks us to tell them face it upward because that's just the
system that he prefers. Um we spoke to Deb from Merill Engineers who is a peer reviewer for us and she um is on board with this. She thinks it's a good idea um for us to accept this. Um he also
wants us when this comes across us to ask them to add a great cover to their um infiltration system as so uh so like little creatures whatever can't nest inside it and um disturb it. So it's just those two recommendations that he
asked us to bring up and take a vote on um and see if we we accept that. So every um property that comes before us that are building house that have a roof infiltration >> infiltration system. Yeah. >> To make sure they have these two. >> Yep. And when Deb is our peer reviewer,
she will make this recommendation for us. So it's not something we're going to have to bring up every time. like she will help us out with bringing it up >> a lot other >> but when we do other peer reviewers and stuff we need to make sure we're bringing this detail up because he won't
approve it otherwise um because it's just the system he prefers >> I think that needs that being said that's something that needs to be in front of us at all times when these cases come up >> in writing like that something like that I mean that's what
>> so if we could have that drawn up >> okay Okay. And and we have that in front. So at least when we know we have a case for this evening, so to speak, we have that literature in front of us so we can read that >> um
>> to the applicant. >> Well, I think you're going to I think when the application comes in like perhaps just let's take take the one that was presented just now. >> There's a roof runoff system. >> There is a recharge. So >> So is >> Mr. Maderas doesn't like the way it's
been sent in. >> So, can that be uh revised? >> It it can. So, but Julia can catch it when the plan comes in with the application and review process. So, right off the bat, if it's not one that goes to peer review and it's just an inhouse, >> right?
She can correct during the meeting. >> She can correct it through an email saying, "Please correct this so you can get approval from the board." I I should we have a formal >> I'd like to put it
>> protocol then uh >> Yep. That's why it's on >> prepared first and then >> maybe just a double check with Julia make sure that >> follow me >> I can prepare a formal statement and >> something bring it to you guys something
tangible and you guys can approve that statement process. Yeah, >> if you want like a step process >> Yeah. I think rather than just uh you know I agree. I agree. Something just something tangible that we can Yeah.
review, accept >> and move on. Correct. >> And we add it into the notice of intent requirements because that's where you're going to see it probably a lot. >> Well, then that would be right. That would be part of it, right? That it's included already.
>> Okay. So that that would be outstanding. >> So that's what we will um >> because I think there's some being held up right now. >> Yeah. We'll right carry this over. >> Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. That's what >> So you don't want the ones that he's
waiting on now. You you you don't want like this one before we we just approved it tonight. It's going to have the same issue. It's going to go to the board of health after the 14 days or 12 what is it? 10 days period. Bob's going to kick it back and say, "I'm not going to I'm
not going to approve it install." >> So, do you want him to wait another two? I mean, that one's not a problem, this one, because it's going to take the 10 days for the approval process, the appeal process. But the one that he's waiting on now has been in the office for a little while, waiting to get to
this agenda. >> So, should they know how to turn that that's what we're going to be asking for? like how would they >> recommendation? >> I I think that's why I let Bob call Miss Miss Keller herself to just make sure
>> that what he was recommending would be something she was on board with. She recommended herself. I think maybe you guys could um have me make this process still with the condition that we will ex
um reach out and change the current ones that are currently um kind of in the mix. So I can approve we can approve an official statement and process next time but with a condition to go forward with these ones that we currently have already.
>> All right. Then I'll I'll entertain a motion that we uh accept the uh the change as presented by uh the board of health going forward >> for the roof drainage >> right in the uh for the infiltration and
um >> and then further review a uh protocol >> at the next meeting. >> So I'll make that motion >> motion second. All those in favor I
>> I. >> Very good. Moving on. Discussion. 1094 Main Street Solar Project DP number 0607. Modification to the plan review of matters presented. Votes may be taken.
>> Hello. >> Good evening. >> Hi. Uh Sarah Sterns with Fields and Thomas representing the approved solar project at 1094 Main Street, also known as Clem's Way. Um my colleague Evan Connelly is here with me as well,
engineer with Bills and Thomas. Um, just to give the commission a quick update since we last spoke back in December when the project was approved, um, there have been some very minor updates as part of the building permit application
process. um mostly outside of the commission's jurisdiction, but um what we did was sent a joint letter to both Victoria and Julia just outlining the handful of updates to the projects since
the projects were approved. The project was approved by both the planning board and conservation commission. Um with that, um this is the updated plan that was sent in along with our letter. Um, you can see that the project looks very,
very similar to what was approved. Um, I'm happy to just kind of run through the updates with you so you can get up to speed with it. Um, and I'll mention also that the applicant was in front of the planning board on I believe July 2nd
and they did approve these changes as part of their process as a minor modification. Um, and you know, we had planned to come to this hearing tonight to discuss the updates related to the commission's perview as well. Um, so what's shown in blue is the 100 foot
buffer zone to the wetlands on this property. The red boxes that Evan drew on here um are the the kind of two key items or two key areas where the updates are taking place partially within the buffer zone. Um but I think the big
takeaway is that um the battery en energy storage system has been removed from the project. So that was originally approved as part of the order of conditions. Um there was a minor change to the gravel road just the layout back here but that is outside of the buffer
zone. But just to you know give you a sense of the scale of these updates. um instead of two just the two equipment pads, a third pad was added to this array. Um and that's really just a a
matter of efficiency for the spreading out the areas um within each of the arrays. But overall since the battery storage and that equipment has been removed the imperous area amongst the
gravel road and equipment pads has been reduced from what was approved originally. So that's you know a positive in terms of storm water management. There's no impact to storm water management that was approved and reviewed as part of the original project. Um and then the other item of
interest um is really in this area down by M main Street and the entrance to um Clem's Way is here and then the entrance to the site is right next to it. Um as typical with these solar projects after local approval um discussions with the
utility company in this case Eversource continue after that and the interconnection where the utility company is involved gets refined as part of that process once the project has approvals in hand and is going to go forward. So, um, as part of that
discussion with the utility company, instead of the original layout to interconnect to the line at Main Street, um, they have requested that it just change the orientation a little bit. So, a pole has been added. It's all still
overhead right there connecting to the existing distribution lines. But there, if you remember, I know it was a long time ago that we were out there, but you can, it's close to the street, so I'm sure you're all familiar with it. There's a an intermittent stream that kind of runs parallel to Main Street.
It's more of a ditch really, but um that pole is on the street side of the stream now. So, there'll be an overhead wire going across it. So it's well beyond the banks of the um stream itself, but you know it is technically within 100 ft of
it. So we wanted to bring that to the commission's attention. Um that and um as part of the planning board discussion um trying to reroute construction period traffic away from the residents that live in the Clemsway
development and make u more use of the actual entrance at 1094. Again, there's that crossing over that stream. So, um some improvements to that road may be required, but you know, again, just for >> construction period access
>> behind the buildings or >> uh really to the left of the residences as you're looking at it from the street. Yeah, there's an existing uh road and crossing there, but just to, you know, ease the burden on the res >> the road itself. >> Yeah. More well the people, but yeah.
Great. Yeah, this will still be used um because as you know this is common ownership. Um so this cleans way will still need to be used for certain things and and I believe it was used for the tree clearing that has been conducted already.
>> But again, you know, just trying to utilize the existing access to the extent that makes sense. Um the incentive >> um I will just say that it was originally approved with the utility
poles right along the bank here or along the the wetland there. Um so now there's only just the one pole that is within the buffer zone here and then the rest go up there. >> Yeah. So it's not an atypical process
for that to happen after we go through our local review. So, um, you know, as we said, this information was presented to the planning board a couple of weeks ago and, um, the plans that were approved with them were sent over
through Julia as well. So, um, you know, we're happy to have those be, you know, part of the file and those minor updates can certainly be captured um, during and post construction as part of the as build. just wanted you to have that
information so that there were no surprises particularly where there's work um close to the street and you know I didn't want Julia to start getting phone calls as to why why is this happening so better just to keep everybody uh involved and um you know
this is in front of the building inspector right now going through the building application process so all of this is being kind of kicked around at town hall throughout different um departments concurrently >> and that pole will ultimately be closer
to the main road. >> Uh yes. Yeah. >> I don't see an issue. >> I just have a question. I thought we were going to be discussing the row of pines to be removed as well. that is largely outside of the buffer
zone and actually on the neighboring property. >> Okay. Okay. >> Right. So that's it's not jurisdiction. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because that's that's down in this area here. >> Yeah. I was confused cuz it was in the letter but then it wasn't on the plan. So I was like is that our jurisdiction? Is that >> saw valid question cuz I probably would
have just asked it >> as well. I did see the we did include the photo again. This was like a joint letter for for planning and Hong Kong. So, we wanted to >> So, I wanted to clear that up and make sure that doesn't have anything to do with us. >> It doesn't. It's outside of the buffer
zone and it is technically >> on the other property property >> where the other property, right? So, they came in and spoke with Victoria right after we talked to the planning board just to show that like both parties are in agreement. >> Are those different parties?
>> Yeah, >> they are. They are. Okay. >> Yeah. So, you know, we put it in here per our client just to advise the town that, you know, they're on board with doing that. And again, you know, we just we weren't sure what the process was going to be between both boards. So, we
just put everything all >> I didn't have any problems with it anyway. I was just a little confused. >> I mean, we know how what happens when you have that like just thin stand of those white lines. They don't do well like that. So, anyway, that's that's a different project, but it's right on the line. Okay. So, everybody's on board
with that between the two entities. >> Water under the bridge. Yeah. >> So, if I recall, this was a um a site that was um a problem with storm water, correct? At the street. >> A problem in what way? >> Flooding?
>> No, this not at the street. No, this is you're thinking a 1050. Correct. Thank you. >> This has not been constructed yet. Okay. >> So, this is still proposed. We have not received building permits yet. Yeah, >> there has been some tree clearing um in
certain areas that was approved by the town um >> just to meet a time of year restriction. So, that's really all that's been done out here. Erosion controls are in place and that sort of thing. Some like preconstruction type stuff. Um and we met with Julia and other department
heads prior to that. Um >> so this hasn't been constructed yet. If you remember, this project went through a lengthy review with Bill Madden from GAF. Several letters back and forth, many changes. So, um, >> and that's why I'm confusing. Oh, I
know. Well, you have a lot of fair enough. >> And they're all next to each other. >> I know they're all clustered in this area, but yeah, this is a very robust storm water management system for this project because of past problematic areas. So, um, >> right.
>> I think, you know, this went through a rigorous review. >> Yeah. >> Julian, anything to add? >> No, I don't see a a problem with the the modifications. Um, you know, you were saying it's >> less of an impact. So,
>> that's always the the plan that you're going to have there is not recorded. >> Yeah, that was that was another thing I was going to planning board can do. modifications >> conservation. If you do a modification,
it's considered an amendment. There's no such thing as addendum. That was another thing I was going to bring up was how are we going to have >> this these changes properly recorded and reflected in our plan because when we look back and we have had issues with
this >> a good point >> um residents and people from the community they come into our office and they want to see the plan and the plan doesn't look like what it looks like in the field because the modifications don't undergo an amendment which I think
they should just so it can refct and we don't have that confusion from the community because we've been dealing with that a lot in the office and it's it's quite a tricky situation to to kind of navigate. >> I agree with Julia on this amendment.
>> So, a formal amendment is is the commission's request. So, that means it's a public hearing with a better notifications and that sort of thing. >> I I think it's the right way to go about this. And like Julia stated, we've been coming across these and we we wish not
to continue that. So to kind of nip this in the butt, I think this is the way to go is my opinion. >> The uh the modifications you said the battery storage was being >> gone. It's removed completely. And then
and then um for equipment >> there's an overall reduction in imperous area for the concrete equipment pads. >> They've just sort of spread them out more evenly amongst the arrays. >> Um and that's you know part of the
reduction of the pads because the batteries are no longer needed and it's also a reduction of imperous error related to the gravel road back in this area. So overall to the good in terms of impervious, right? >> Um no batteries and then really this
area in the 100 buffer 100 foot buffer zone to that ditch is one pole being added >> instead of several before. >> You know this comes back to >> uh you know less of an impact again.
>> I agree and I understand. So I mean personally >> this is it's really more of a notification to the commission tonight. >> It's less of an impact but you also have a plan that has a lot of changes on it. >> Correct. And it's not going to be it's >> when residents come in they're not I
mean they can send something in and have it on file. But like me and Julie the other day are running into like what's the latest plan? No we're going to the drawer going back five years and we have a whole mess in the office. This would be put on file with your office. This was sent to you.
>> It would be put in file in our office, but it we would need it recorded in the registry of deeds as well. So that way we have something to to look for and say this is the the plan that's being held up in the registry of deeds. This is recorded so when people come in, we know
the exact plan to point them towards. >> Sarah, are you prepared to to submit this as a as a as a final. >> We'll certainly do whatever the >> prior to possible other changes. I mean, >> this is in the building permit process
now. So, we are not anticipating any further changes. >> You did say that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, you know, typically and obviously you're we'll do whatever the commission asks of us certainly. Um but typically a formal amendment is required if you're
increasing impact, changing something I more work in the buffer zone, that sort of thing where people are concerned in the existing as well, right? It's not outside of the existing. >> Correct. Which is >> which is if you read that standard >> that we just
>> went through with um the property next door, it's within the existing. So it's not less of an impact. So that's >> the impact is less but but the change is
>> it it's less of an impact but it is >> technically under uh like the rules of the D and the WPA you are allowed to ask for an amendment with any change even if it's even if it's less of an impact changes are still changes
>> but still >> and you want the plan to reflect that >> perview of the local authority as well. Correct. It's not It's not mandatory. No. >> Yeah. You guys have the right to do whatever you want with it.
>> That's But I'm That's what I'm trying to stress that it's not because of because it's >> less of an impact. It's within the existing uh you know >> and just one more thing on the storm the
storm water that was the one that you said couldn't be recorded right is that correct on that property >> yeah the registry wouldn't take it >> okay I don't know if you want to tell her that we've got that new statement there they can try to record it again >> yeah we've created a new um kind of
>> not I don't know what you would call it but certification a statement, a letter. >> You sent it to me. We tried it. >> I sent you the new one. >> Record it. >> How new? >> Like a couple weeks ago now. Oh, no. Okay. So, I can send you the updated one and we can try to get that one recorded.
>> Okay. Yeah, cuz I we're keeping the site owner's manual with our, you know, with the permit that we're the order that we're tracking, but >> as if it were recorded. Um, but we tried several different methods with the registry and they wouldn't accept it
because it does not have a original signature on it for a town clerk stamp. So, they were just like, "Forget it." >> Yeah. We we've they've recently called our office and had a long lengthy conversation with us and >> we had Meill assist us to get that certification statement. So, because
moving forward, we have just not yours but a lot of different sols that need this statement. >> They don't usually record it. They just keep it with the on site. So, >> but yeah. All right, >> that's >> Yeah. So, if you can send that to me, we we're happy to try that again. >> All right, sounds good.
>> We're making a lot of friends at the registry. >> Um >> I mean, >> you know, I don't have that um >> those standards in front of me right now, but I did I did look through it, >> you know. >> I mean, the official way to update an
order of conditions is to amend it certainly. Um, you know, the commission has discretion on minor updates to record to include in the plans of record at the department and then include those changes in the final as so that when we
come to you that would be >> with a certificate of compliance request would have to be reflected on the as exactly on the as bill. >> But that's up to the commission. No, I I personally I don't have issue because again
>> uh it's less of an impact and it's within the existing. It's not anything outside of what's already been purviewed. So >> Heidi, do you have opinion? >> I just No, I >> I just don't feel it's substantial. If
it was >> battery, >> you know, I would >> you know how I felt the last time, right? You know how I felt about pad there now >> not within the existing and that's what I was trying to scratch >> it's not as big as the red box >> in that regard it's the footprint
nothing is is changing they're not doing anything outside >> yeah I I see that it's not substantial the only >> the reason that I make the recommendation in the way I do is it makes it difficult for us in the office and to share the plans with the
community if we don't go >> by the procedure, but it is >> I don't know that that would be if it's minor, you guys can. >> Yes. But and I don't know that that would be an adverse effect to anyone in the general public. >> Yeah. >> And in as Sarah stated,
>> the ASP bill >> that will be That's correct. So, >> and and there could be other modifications. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's true. >> That that are unforeseen and that's typical in any construction during it. Really is. I'm just and if the if the AS
bill when it's reviewed reflects the actual I think we're we're good. Uh you know so >> I just wanted to I just flipped this over um because I just wanted to share with you the original approved plan just to give you
>> a little bit more peace of mind. And you can see here where the um interconnection, this is the flagging along that ditch there. An interconnection came along this way across toward um the Clemsway entrance. There's several more poles
along that bank >> right there as opposed to like you're saying or it's just going to bridge right it's just going to bridge across which is >> which is clearly much less impact as far as >> less of an expense. >> Well, >> another bridge. Well, it's up to
>> all of that area will not be impacted now where they would have been uh trying to, you know, construct those poles in those in that area, which is >> which is a plus. It's it's it's clearly a plus where the other the new pole will be closer to the main road and and it's
just going to bridge it through. Um I I can just >> whatever you guys want. You don't >> I mean I I I'm not going to do >> I feel that um it's acceptable at this point and that um we don't need to uh go
through a formal amendment at this time. Um >> we do have our letter dated June 11th with the full planet showing the updates. Um so that's in the office presumably via email. I can send you
hard copies after tonight's meeting so you have paper copies in there. So if you do have somebody that comes in, >> you have it right on top of the file. >> Um really whatever other information would be helpful or provide. >> You got to understand this is just um
this is just in discussion. This is not on the agenda. So >> I don't I don't feel it warrants at this time and I certainly don't want to make the >> force to make the decision if you want to go to an amended order or if you want
to let them send you just a letter saying it's a modification. >> Sure, that's fine. Yeah, I I I would say that at this point that's what I would entertain is that you submit a letter uh stating the modifications and that uh
and acceptable I like the changes. I would do it as an amendment, but it is overall up to you guys. So, we did submit the letter. That's June 11th. That was >> Oh, I'm sorry. You said that. >> That's okay. Um, we're going through a
lot of detail right now. >> Yeah. No, I just trying to >> So, it is on file with the department. Um, >> if there's other, like I said, we'll send Julia the hard copies of that so she has the paper there. I'll send you a couple if that's helpful.
>> Yeah. Um but you know really whatever the commission's comfort level is we're fine with. >> I'm not trying to you know u again I'm going to personally say I would like to see the amendment especially going forward. We're dealing with a lot of
solar in this community. Um, >> is this the letter? This is the letter >> I would agree if it was in the uh beginning stages of the of the project, >> but this is this is done. This is this
is a you know they're in they're they're they're at uh they're at the building department now uh >> for permitting and um I I just don't see the benefit to the public which was my utmost
concern is >> the public and and wetlands protection but it's it's less of an impact and it's a small in my opinion it's a small modification the It is it is overall less of an impact.
So that makes me a little more comfortable with it because a lot of plans and looking for them. >> All right. So >> what they used to be like >> it doesn't matter because it's looked forward. >> So that being said, let's just include the letter in this.
>> Yeah. As Yeah. >> Yeah. I I'll I'll entertain a motion that we have that on file that the the modifications uh in in uh in the document >> at this point and uh again I'll I'll
entertain a motion that we we'll accept that at this point. >> Motion to accept. >> I'll second that. >> All those in favor? >> I very good. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Oh, that's very good. Thank you so much. >> All right. So, I'll send you the hard
copies. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, now on a somber note, um I have uh to uh >> Yeah, I have to um
the resignation of James Souza. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. Um I um like they said on a somber note um Jim was a huge advocate for this
commissioner and for the town in general. >> I agree the town of Kushner. >> Yeah. >> And he will be sorely missed. Um I don't I don't I don't know that anyone would will be able to replace him for >> I agree
>> quite some time because he's extremely knowledgeable and uh and you know a standup guy. I know >> I wish him the best and I hope he's watching or if he does watch he he'll
reconsider at some point. But um I I wish him the best. I mean he's he's been a a a fantastic advocate. >> Yeah. To >> Jimmy, if you are watching, thank you for everything you've done for um this commission, this town.
>> Uh all your hard work. Uh relentless hours in the office. >> Um again, a wealth of knowledge. Uh I personally have learned a lot from you. definitely going to miss you and uh good luck in the future and hope you do
reconsider. >> Yeah. Right. >> Good luck with everything to >> Yeah. Very good. >> Okay. Uh next is uh 16 Hunter Street update review of matters presented. Votes may be taken.
>> Julia, how are we uh progressing? >> So, this one's um making out pretty well. The peer viewer is Brad Holmes from ECR Wetlands. We discussed that last time. Uh I also believe last time we discussed that um the applicant
accepted the initial proposal um gave us the check to move the peer review forward. And now our most recent update is Brad Holmes is going out to the property uh 16 Hunter Street on July 30th, so next Thursday to complete the
uh site visit process of the peer review. So, this one is um under the works. We're doing everything we can. The um applicants are being very um you know, proactive and helpful and trying to just get this get this done. We're
all working together and we want this to to move forward. So, Brad will be out there next week. Interesting. >> Appreciate it. Yeah. Very much appreciated. >> Um anyone have anything to add? Do we need to accept a vote uh for the resignation?
Um, I don't know that we do. >> We need to I don't I don't believe that's um >> I don't know that that would be our that would be more the um >> be the select board because they're they're the appointed authority. I mean
>> they would need to >> um No, I at this point I think we need to just continue this in discussion. Uh 1600. >> Yeah, I think it should be continued in discussion. uh continue the updates from >> whatever we get from the peerreview site
visit next week. Um Brad will be writing a report. >> Um when did you say that that would there's possibly >> transpire? Yes, next Thursday the 30th. So very soon. >> Well, that's good. Then yeah, hopefully um we'll have some solid uh knowledge on
the at the fall at the next meeting and uh we can uh move this forward. Yeah. >> Yeah. pre uh much appreciate your um time. Thank you so much. >> A long meeting. >> Um yeah, but uh things are moving uh
forward and and I'm glad it's uh you know things are cordial and and uh progressive. So um we'll we'll carry this over on the in discussion to the uh >> August 12th. >> August 12th. So very good.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh agent updates. Nothing under updates today. >> Nothing under >> Yeah, we put it all under discussion. Sometimes you don't know whether to put things under discussion or agent updates. We just kind of combine them.
>> I don't know. >> I did notice you put something in the packet that I haven't seen at all yet. So, I don't have an update on that cuz I I haven't seen that. >> So, I think we we received a communication from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Um I put in your
packet as FYI, we are looking for public comment on the um act implementing regul regulations 1094. >> So you wanted to take a look at that. Okay. So we did um >> yeah I see that's not under agent
updates, >> but we did receive uh I didn't see this exact letter, but we received another email regarding the same situation. They're updating um some of the legislation in the WPA and there is a
comment period and I believe I I forget when the comment period goes to but >> says yeah comment period will end on October 4th. >> October 4th. So if you want to review those changes at all and submit your comments um at all too if you have any
concerns. >> Yeah. From what I'm hearing, I I think we should all maybe chime in on this. Uh, from what I heard, and it's only here say they're trying to lessen the protection of the different species. >> Oh, yeah. That's right.
>> So, I I I think it would be a good idea if we maybe all of a su I haven't got to review any of the changes yet, so I don't have anything specific to say, >> but I do think it would be good if everyone takes a look at it. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um, from again, it's hearsay. From what I'm hearing about, um, all of what I've read and what I've heard, um, it it there's going to be a a good impact on the protection. >> Right. Um, and I don't think that's a
good idea. >> Yeah. No kidding. Should be going the other way, >> right? Exactly. Totally. So again, I I think if you guys have an opportunity to maybe do a little bit of homework, some research on this and and maybe cast a comment, that would be great.
>> Where is this information? >> Well, this is this letter was right here for the comment. >> You got that? >> Okay. >> Yeah. So that's Yeah, that's it right
there. Thank you. >> Okay. And and uh anyone in the general public would be greatly appreciated. Um it is our mission to try to protect as much habitat as possible. Absolutely. Yeah.
Yep. Okay. Uh other business, any other business that may properly come before the commission not reasonably reasonably anticipated when posting 48 hours prior to the meeting. Future business. The next meeting of the conservation commission will be on
August 12th, 2026. Meeting will be held at town hall meeting room located at 122 Main Street in Richmond. At this point, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion to >> second that motion. All those in favor I
>> Good night. Heat. Heat.