##VIDEO ID:8GgdODKi_ac## e e e 37 on Tuesday January 14 2025 a brand new a new calendar year I call this meeting of the choun Conservation Commission to order my name is Carl bishof and the chair of the Conservation Commission will be following the published and posted agenda and this meeting is both in person and now in Zoom we think uh in the case of the zoom not working though we will continue continue the meeting in person only this meeting is being broadcast and recorded by chelsford tele media and will be available on their website and on YouTube um we do have a quorum here I'm glad to see everyone made it tonight on time uh so that's a good sign of the new year and um we're going to start off our um first item on the agenda is the open space inter plan we have a presentation from Megan tenhoff from the northern middle sex Council of government who has been leading our uh our subcommittee uh which is uh focused on developing this plan this plan is uh every seven years or so we have to do an update so Megan take it away thank you so much for having me again my name is Megan tenhoff um I'll just do a quick overview of the agenda for this evening um introduce myself and Nim Cog go over um open space and Recreation planning sort of 101 have an overview of the planning process and timeline summary summarize our Outreach efforts and feedback a brief overview of our analysis and needs dive into the um review of goals and objectives and then we'll have time for questions at the end next slide could you just bring that mic just a little bit closer to you yeah thank you again Nim Cog northern middle sex Council of governments we are a regional planning agency that supports the nine communities in Greater l we offer technical assistance in everything from zoning bylaws open space Recreation planning and uh Economic Development next slide so the open space and Recreation plan uh was developed uh and led by a committee of I think there is nine two staff um and two members of the Conservation Commission and select board next slide so what is open space well open space is conservation land it's forests it's Recreation it's agricultural it can be Corridor Parks or amenities like small Parks or pocket Parks could even be like green buffers along roadways um and it's any open area owned by an agency or organization dedicated to conservation plus and it could be undeveloped land with a particular conservation or Recreation interest so that could be brownfields and importantly it's for passive and active use so everything from bird watching to soccer playing next slide so what is an open space and Recreation plan or osrp well it's a blueprint for enhancing and preserving um your community's Open Spaces parks and recreational opportunities and it serves as a guide to um maintain and enjoy all the things that make CH for special next slide so why does it matter why do we want to do an open space in Recreation plan um to maintain and enhance the benefits of open space um that make up the character of Chelmsford uh increase accessibility to our Green Space protect our green infrastructure like trees and wetlands um there's economic and fiscal benefits to developing a plan and certain Grant programs require them and they're Community Driven to for outdoor spaces and recreational activities for Generations next slide so doesn't Chumps have an open space and Recreation plan well they're updated every five or seven years the last one was done in 2017 and so we are working to do a new open space and Recreation plan and Chelmsford has had an osrp since the 1960s next slide so what is an osrp and how is it organized well there's nine sections I'm not going to go into each one of what's in each one of the sections but it's a summary introduction a community setting Where We Lay the groundwork a history of the community put uh population characteristics census data and then projected growth patterns section four has environmental and inventory analysis so we look at the um geography soils topography landscape character Water Resources next slide and then section five is an inventory of lands of conservation interest so it could be private Parcels public nonprofit Parcels uh section six is the Community Vision so a description of the open space and Recreation planning process and then section seven leads us into an analysis of needs which is really a summary of resource protection needs and Community needs then that moves into section eight goals and objectives and then nine which is really the work and that is the 5-year action plan so next slide so the planning process is community engagement collecting and analyzing data we defined goals um and then we formulated objectives with the action items created a draft plan reviewed it with the public at our uh public forum number two um we reviewed it um and worked with with the open space and Recreation plan committee and go ahead next slide and so in the planning process we are right here um right at the final plan see the end next slide okay so Community engagement was um of course Central to any open space Recreation plan process um so we had monthly ospc meetings uh we did community events Market on the common we did a survey public forums this is number three uh semi-structured interviews and focus groups and uh we believe that we reached about a thousand people through our engagement efforts and semi-structured interviews and focus groups are highlighted for a reason they are for our enhanced environmental justice Outreach so if you could go to the next slide talk this a lot of text sorry about that but environmental justice Outreach is really um driven by the state um that all Massachusetts residents um experience equal protection and meaningful involvement with respect to development implementation enforcement of environmental laws regulations and policies and the equitable distribution of environmental benefits so uh environmental justice uh has definitions and there are six areas in Chelmsford that meet the mass Metts environmental justice guidelines of minorities comprise so number four minorities comprise 24% that's okay 25% or more of the population and the median household income of the municipality of the neighborhood doesn't exceed 50% of the Statewide median income that's a good question no wait till the end thank you next slide okay so the environmental justice principles that were used to drive this plan um were LED with empathy thinking about the cumulative impacts for uh the environment both the benefits and the burdens and the Outreach was really to support the cultivation and strengthen new relationships with EJ communities um and including them in the process um designed with the EJ communities and so I wanted to make sure I read this what meaningful involvement is defined by the state and that is um the meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development implementation enforcement of environmental laws and regulations policies including climate change policies and the equitable distribution of energy and environmental benefits and burdens next slide so our enhanced environmental justice Outreach included focus groups semi-structured interviews and our survey um our surveys Flyers were posted at over 140 locations throughout chelsford and 94 of them were in environmental justice neighborhoods so what we heard in particular from our environmental justice Outreach is this need for more signage and knowing where open spaces and parks are uh flexible open space so somewhere some place where somebody could go watch a movie like have outdoor movie night or they could play cricket um we're also heard that people wanted opportunities to learn about the ecology and potential restoration fun youth Centric programming people were wanting uh things like uh amenities such as benches restroom Shades or picnic tables to enhance their experience outside heat relief so shade or places to go and cool off in the water when it's hot uh the a recreation department Community Food security both in the preservation of agricultural land uh pea patches and food security and then accessibility really uh was quite a thread throughout all of our engagement both in the ability for people to ACC like physically access the space once they get there but also the transportation to actually get to um a place to recreate next slide so our survey we had uh 411 survey responses and the main uh thing that people really wanted to see was increase accessibility uh within uh Recreation and uh open spaces so accessible Trails better communication about uh how to use spaces what's uh and uh Recreation opportunities next slide so now what so we've done we have we did our Outreach data and then we looked at existing plans both with um the town of mford and state plans and then we took our community um and environmental data and then we put it into what we call an analysis of needs next slide so the resource protection needs for the town of CHF included flood mitigation and storm water management Water Resources wildlife habitat and biodiversity climate resilient infrastructure and public education on resource protection next slide the community needs were Recreation opportunities connectivity and access equity and inclusion climate adapted amenities agricultural lands and youth and Senior engagement next slide so we did all that work and then together with the committee we came up with our statement of purpose and I'll read that Chelmsford strives to create a future that prioritizes sustainable land use equitable recre cational access and resilience to climate change by expanding and protecting Open Spaces the town aims to Foster accessibility enhance quality of life and build a community that thrives for generations to come so we took our an our analysis of needs our statement of purpose looked at what the gaps are and developed objectives and actions um to identify a road map to achieve our goals which were then reviewed by the open space and Recreation plan committee and the town next slide so the exciting part what are our goals and objectives we have okay next slide we have five over arching goals with several objectives under each one um I'm going to just read let's see where I am um I'll read just the goal and then some of the key objectives and we can dive into some of the action items a little bit later because it is quite long if we go through the whole thing so goal number one is to increase Community engagement with open spaces so what do we mean by that it's enhanced communication about um the town's resources and activities increasing signage um expanding public education programs on environmental historical and Recreation topics improve access to information um engage Youth and strengthen Partnerships through nonprofit organizations next slide goal number two enhance accessibility and promote equity in Open Spaces our objectives are to expand accessible trails and safety features improve physical access through sidewalks and Trail connections and focus Investments on in underserved neighborhoods next slide goal number three improved climate resilience through strategic land use our five objectives are prioritize land conservation in climate vulnerable areas protect drinking water quality adapt open spaces for climate change identify opportunities for local food production and increase public awareness of open space benefits next slide goal number four maintain upgrade and Steward Community spaces for high quality conservation Recreation ecological and agricultural uses our four objectives are develop a comprehensive Land Management and maintenance plans explore opportunities to upgrade facilities for improved safety and comfort for active and passive Recreation Foster Community stewardship and identify farmlands of local importance and protect them uh to limit losses and goal number five next slide is to expand recreational opportunities and Facilities so our four objectives Ives are investigate the development of flexible multi-use Open Spaces to serve a broad range of community recreational needs explore the costs and potential for development of new playgrounds amenities and recreational facilities that meet the needs of the community and neighborhoods explore potential amenities that meet the needs of the community provide additional recreational programming to serve residences of all ages within the community next slide so it's not meant to be able to be seen there but what I've provided to you is the five-year action plan and this really is the working document it's iterative to guide the implementation of this open space and Recreation plan and one of the key components of this work is the development of an open space and Recreation plan implementation committee um and you'll notice when you review them that a lot of of the actions um sort of interact with each other and that was done on purpose and you like looking in the document you can see how they interact together and that's to build capacity and think about how can one project or program support another [Music] um okay so it outlines the actions that we need to achieve our objectives it's a 5-year timeline we have a prioritization of ongoing shortterm medium and longterm and then a list of potential funding sources and who is the responsible parties to to do this work next slide okay so questions so um thank you Megan this was you know I've been participated on this this was a very uh interesting process and the team did a fantastic job I also want to thank ncog Megan and Mike uh Michael's not here but um guys did a fantastic job um supporting us but I would like to open up to the commission if you have questions um on this um Megan did say we need to set up an implementation committee so that's on us to get that organized and make that happen and anybody watching and listening that's interested please connect with David um we can um start the process to get that started but um questions from the commission [Music] just if if I can make just a comment I'd like to Echo what Carl said um great job Megan and your whole team thank you um I've gotten a few questions from the public and I to address some of those I just want to say um that there are a lot of questions and issues surrounding open space that different members of the public may have and this plan is not designed to answer all those little questions it's a broad umbrella following State guidance and as Megan mentioned it's important to have partly to get our community a chance to provide input which you did great and partly because you need it to guide our actions and thirdly you need it to apply for certain grants but as Carl mentioned there's a lot more to do and a lot more details related to open space that will fall into the implementation committee not necessarily this plan Yep this is our responsibility in conservation uh we own it's since the beginning of the Conservation Commission act in 19660 or 59 it says create an open space and wck plan and we as Megan said we've been doing it I counted them up it sounds like we've done almost on track to the seven-year cycle so that's pretty good for great being around that long Chris yeah just my comment um you know good presentation um guess my comment is one of the things that you touched on really was you know we've got what I would describe kind of hidden gems throughout the town I mean some great reservations some great resource areas for recreation but a lot of times it's difficult for people you know many even have lived here for many many years to find those and be able to to take advantage of those great resources so I guess do we have any shortterm plans at this point to try to quickly try to you know get some signs out there better signs that we can kind of in commun communicate kind of where everything is because I think that'd be a really good thing to strike at first I mean that's kind of on us um well that is uh objective 1.1 action one is to enhance signage um and there's some suggested uh locations to do that first and then some secondary ones but yes that's definitely something that we heard many times both in the survey and in our other outreaches people not even really knowing what's down the street if if if I could add is Megan's group Nim Cog does other projects for the town and it's kind of like a consulting firm so I think you're kind of done with this project I know you remain interested but your scope of work is kind of over and but now it comes to us well it has to be submitted to the state well for approval yeah thank you um but we certainly could engage some outside help if we had a bunch of things we wanted assistance with not not putting up sign but some of the broader goals but that's on us as Carl Carl said okay Megan thanks thanks very much any uh yeah any quick questions from the audience this isn't really a public forum well it is I guess but um that you had the you had the Q&A session last week so don't see anybody moving so okay and then just one last slide quickly David um so what's coming up next next public comment was actually due January 13th um the next we're on a presentation Road show the next one will be at the planning board followed by the select board and then we will submit it to the Department of Conservation services for approval and please reach out to David to stay involved and join the implementation committee thank you right time beautiful thank you Megan again I I I want to say the um the commit the the plan in 2017 was an excellent plan but didn't quite get over the goal line for a number of reasons and I can say for sure that ncog helped us get us we're not there yet but we will get over the goal line and it's totally due to the help from ncog um so thank you very much so that we can have a official accepted plan by the state it was a pleasure thank you so much thanks thank you Megan okay um we will continue with our regularly scheduled programming uh so um I would like to just um make a quick statement the Conservation Commission is chartered to protect our natural natural resources most specifically the wetlands and to manage land held in conservation the commission is made up of seven volunteer citizens of chelsford I've decided I like to repeat that every um like twice a year brand new brand new year and maybe a new fiscal year in July something like like that but just kind of a reminder of why we're here um so is there any citizens here that have concerns that are not on our agenda that would like to speak up on something that they'd like to make um bring to our attention I don't David I assume we get our zoom up and running it looks like it is so nobody there nobody in the room I'm glad to see you hello vivin glad to see you nice how are you good all right um next thing on our list we have um a report on the findings pursuant to an exe to the execution of December 1224 administrative search warrant at 5961 Carlile Street I am going to set this up um with um some commentary U to just kind of get us uh background on this uh hopefully I can just hit the Salient points but it will take a minute here because this is uh involved so in 2023 uh Mr and Mrs odonnell from 63 Carlile Street expressed concern to the conservation agent David coz about erosion of a slope adjacent to their driveway uh due to they said to their neighbor Mr Harvey at 5961 Carlile Street clearing vegetation and trees in a nearby Wetlands um we heard a complaint from them um just a year ago on January 23rd at a meeting here um after that discussion we concluded that we needed clarification if it indeed was a wetland it does not show as Wetlands on the the gis uh map um our question was whether or not we had any jurisdiction here David was asked to go on site and determine if we might have jurisdiction and we agreed that Town Council could be asked to clarify who has the burden to determine what is jurisdictional and um it it needs to be determined whether the erosion is impacting the wetlands at our April 9th meeting last year we had a follow-on discussion on this topic with um at that time Our Town Council at that point in time um after discussion with Town Council and David in that meeting our uh we uh and based on the advice of Town Council we voted as a commission to request Town Council to contact the property owner attorney for permission to go onto the property to determine whether there is a wetland and we said if permission was a refused that Town Council could then pursue filing for an administrative search warrant um that did not happen prior to July 1st which is when Town Council in chumford changed from the former firm to KP law in July on July 1st so over the summer David uh began working with the New Town Council on this topic and um we had a executive session here uh in November with uh the attorney from KP law and um his summary of the situation at that time time was that two letters were sent to Mr Harvey they were emailed to his attorney he had left multiple voice messages and no response from Mr Harvey Harvey nor his attorney and he our Our Town Council suggested that the commission maybe at the point where an administrative search warrant is required to determine if there is indeed a resource area on that parcel and if there was a violation to the bylaws um if the visit um reveal that there was a a a violation uh Town Council said that we could then enforce uh issue an an enforcement order if we chose to uh the commission at that meeting voted unanimously to authorize our agent and Town Council to file for an administrative search warrant um at 5961 Carlile Street on December 9th that was granted by the court on December 12th that was executed by David our agent and three experts from LEC who we will hear from momentarily um and at the at the site the intent of the consultant investigation was determine if there was indeed a wetland present at 5961 Carlile Street and if so is this Wetland jurisdictional under the Wetland protection act or the chood wetlands bylaw and is there evidence of any significant recent disturbance within this Wetland and is that likely to have caused any erosion meanwhile comparison of uh Google Earth images of this property uh between October 2021 and may of 2023 do indeed if you look at G Earth they do show significant tree canopy removed just west of the upper portion of the driveway to 63 Carlile Street this work according to um what we have heard from the neighbors is this work was done in the February 2020 three time frame we have now received the report as requested from LEC um and we are now ready for them to describe their findings and I believe they're on the zoom call David is there anything you wanted to add to that um no I thought that that summarized it uh very well uh Carl um so I'll I'll just add so that the the the search Warr was executed on December 12th I don't know whether you mentioned that yeah or not um so um so yes Tom peragallo uh Richard Kirby and Nicole Ferrera from LEC uh are here um on Zoom um and uh so uh I guess Tom do you do you want to uh start but you know summarizing your findings uh you're you're muted Tom yes thank you uh um yeah just as you noted in your summary a few minutes ago uh we now I got two pictures oh well um our objective was to go in and determine if in fact there was a wetland there because that had not yet been determined definitively um it was done remotely and apparently there were some applications or some other issues that depended uh on knowing where that if there was a wetland there where that boundary was and so that was one of our tasks um and then secondly to determine what kind of wetland it was um and then that would determine under what jurisdiction it would be held if if there was a wetland uh we also um examine um the area within uh what we uh thought to be a wetland to see if there's any disturbance and um those were our primary objectives uh a lot of it was soil-based for a number of reasons um the um the time of the year um you know kind of limits uh the degree to which we can describe vegetation although Rich can maybe talk a little bit about about that we did describe the vegetation within the Wetland and also adjacent Uplands um and um then we also describ the soil at uh random locations and all of this uh then was um uh gpsed in a very general sense uh so that there would be some sort of um graphic of what we did so you could follow it um uh in your discussions and meetings um I would uh add that we were working under the search warrant and it was our opinion and also the opinion of the town's attorney uh that we were um we would not be able to or the search warrant did not allow us to specifically hang Wetland boundary flags and then survey locate those flags that was beyond what was described as observations so our map is not an exact uh delineation or should not be construed as being an official Wetland delineation but in an approximate boundary what we found out there and after we did our data analysis we the three of us walked around the boundary and basically uh pick points that we thought uh the Wetland would probably follow uh so I just want to put that caveat out there our work was limited by the search warrant and also the amount of time we were able to have on the site um in addition we did review U quite a number of aerial photographs from Google Earth as you mentioned and also um historic Aerials and then U later on David sent us some um photographs that were taken um on at the site by one of the neighbors I believe and so we uh also gave some consideration to that but our Focus was not specifically on tree removal per se although uh we did identify um one or two areas that appeared the trees were removed but in both of those areas uh it was um our opinion uh that those uh trees were removed in Upland areas not in in the resource area and so what we identified there was a a wet Meadow a freshwater Wetland isolated and that is um there's no um water body uh with which it's connected and as a result um it's not under the jurisdiction of the wetlands protection act but would be under the jurisdiction of your bylaws and regulations um I think that's covers most of it maybe rich and Nicole would want to add something uh good evening Rich fby from LEC I would just add that uh you know as part of uh our Wetland evaluation we also identified the plants that comprise the the dominant um plant communities within the Wetland and within the adjacent Upland and you know we provided a list of of those plants that we observed obviously within the Wetland area we observed you know greater than 50% Wetland plants um mostly herbaceous type plants with the with scattered patches and individuals of shrubs and saplings um and then uh of course within the adjacent Upland were on a slope and observed predominately predominantly Upland plants um so that that was really just how we how we evaluated the uh the plant Community composition there to determine the the Wetland boundary is it related to the vegetation and then of course we married that with the with the soils investigation that uh that Tom did to come up with our estimated uh Wetland boundary okay is Nicole there is she going to add anything or not hi Nicole Farrar from LEC um don't really have much to add other than we yeah we used the GPS to GPS the boundary but it was a you know an estimated boundary okay thank you so um thank you very much um I have questions but I want to see if the rest of the commission has questions or David if you want to add anything right now um sure uh so so uh it's not it's not shown on any of these photographs but um uh it was maybe two or 3 months ago I I I can go back and get the exact date that um an existing driveway uh up um up in this location was was paved um and and I think did did extend uh a little closer I I think it's a in the buffer zone um to begin with and and and did extend um a little bit closer to the wetlands um I think I think one of one of the issues conceivably could be um issuing uh or take the commission taking enforcement action because that work was in the buffer zone um without getting approval however I don't recommend that uh the way that I typically handle um Paving of existing driveways when someone contacts me is that you know I'll take a look at it and what I'll I'll what I more what I say more often than not is that a crush stone filled trench or strip needs to go around uh the driveway on the Wetland side in order to accept runoff um had the property owner contacted me in this case that's what I would have told him to do um of course he didn't contact me so didn't have the opportunity to tell them to do that uh but the reason I'm not recommending an enforcement order is because in this particular case the uh lec's findings indicate that at least so far at least since the time when the driveway was paved that there's really been no uh impact to the wetlands from the driveway so I think I think it's something that should be uh you know an eye should be kept on it uh moving forward but right now I don't think it would be productive tuition enforcement order for that so the other question I had real quick was the evidence of dis of uh erosion um uh or or this this disruption is there any evidence that this could have caused erosion I don't know if you if that was stated earlier by Tom because that was the original concern of the neighbor was erosion to their driveway entries yeah so the disruption of the trees did that cause the the evidence of any erosion would you like me to give an opinion on that yes um we we looked for evidence of erosion or more probably that and also sedimentation which the two go together and um one of the things that we examined was the soil profile and typically if something has received um sediment um from the slope above it would be pretty apparent in the profile and and it would be obvious and uh with an Abrupt boundary and different material on the top than the original surface for instance and uh right below the driveway and probably the the most critical point uh David was there to sort of guide a little bit because I didn't I wasn't really sure uh where exactly this point of Interest was so we looked there and we looked at other places as well and did not see any evidence of sedimentation uh within this this Wetland area um the side slopes were had been Disturbed U but all the disturbance we saw was in the uh buffer zone and we looked at um potential sedimentation right at the edge of the driveway and there were some uh fragments of crush Stone and um uh I don't know what's what people are familiar with but what I would call a graded base material that had sloughed over the edge but as far as we had observed saw none of that within the resource area um and as far as any um tree removal again we didn't address that directly um we could go back and look at that more carefully which I would want to you know take a look at more uh specifically at the trees but we did look at a whole series of of photographs and as I mentioned the trees that we noticed missing were uh in the Upland and didn't really relate to what we thought was our scope so um uh of course anytime you remove vegetation on an Upland slope there's the potential for wetland impact from erosion and sedimentation but we we did not deserve observe that in the time we were there or Where We examined okay all right thanks uh Peter do you want to start you have any questions um yeah just quickly the uh the jurisdictional Wetland the Wetland that's jurisdictional under our bylaw which is basically this House's backyard um presumably has been there for a long time and I think this house has been there for a long time right I think so very much a pre-existing condition correct um that's not a new house it's been there a while so I just wanted to clarify that um my second question is um the trees that were we think were removed I realize maybe um you guys didn't look that closely at the trees uh but the trees that you did mention that you kind of looked at you said they were in the Upland area but David maybe you can help me I'm you're sitting next to me staring at this map the trees that were removed were they in they outside the Wetland I got that were they within the 25 ft buffer it looks like they probably were in the 50ft buffer like exactly how close to the Wetland or not exactly roughly how close were those trees and is it sort of under our bylaws you know don't disturb 25 ft from the Wetland I know you want to start Tom answering that question yeah that well as I said our measurements should not be consed exact or even something that you'd want to take anything more than a rough measurement from uh let me just pull up um map and take a look you have the map in front of you and I think Nicole put on the 20 and 50 foot buffone based on our approximate Wetland boundary so um one of the trees that we noticed was definitely removed was up near where this pavement was put placed it was a large um deciduous tree there that had been removed and another one um I believe this map is oriented north south let's see uh to the south of the Wetland area um probably somewhere roughly within I would say again I'm just estimating here probably somewhere between 25 and 50 F feet from the Wetland boundary near uh that orange dot uh with where the lettering says S4 which is actually our soil sample site but it from that vicinity there was another tree that looked like it had been removed there in the Upland okay and again we that we could Define was certainly removed this is the other thing with photo interpretation we went through several different flights several times of the year and I think what's been in that Wetland area for a long long time is sort of a a shrub Community shrub herbaceous Community very few trees um if any and the buffers then the buffer zone had a few trees but also a very Shrubbery uh um vegetation and so when you look at leaf on photography it looks like everything's covered with a forest but then when you look at Leaf off photography at different time of the year in the same year you can see that U the area did not have a lot of uh standing trees even back well probably the best resolution in Google was uh a photo taken in April 2018 which looks very much like the picture that's up now before you and um uh with the exception of the couple of trees that I mentioned and the the tone on there while it may imply you know a bare ground surface uh I think if you you follow that to the next photograph in the next season you see that it's actually uh heavily covered with vegetation with some shrub growth so um you know interpreting these things um is just that it's an interpretation okay so but so that Wetland area that you identified is presently covered with a mix of shrubs and other vegetation but not trees is that yeah we we didn't see any trees like anything over five inches in diameter in there uh there was one close to the boundary but it was shrubs and herbaceous vegetation as Rich mentioned okay and and my last question that particular area that is identified as a jurisdictional wetland um does not appear to have been altered significantly in in recent times can we tell that well I would say re yeah I mean there was one area clearly where the buffer zone was altered um but not the Wetland uh except for the fact in one of the pictures as I mentioned it looks like a ditch had been dug uh near the driveway um near S2 actually S2 is right in that ditch and but but the soil profile did not um demonstrate any deposition that's not to say that material might not have been taken out because there were standing water very distinctly in that area and that's that's only from uh evidence from the photographs that were handed to us uh by David later that we saw thank you so if I could just add to that so um I'm just uh looking at the um at LC's uh report so is saying LEC also reviewed aerial photography from Google Earth dated 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023 uh and 2023 so I guess maybe a couple of different be 2024 Sor 2024 and historic Aerials dated 1963 1971 1995 2001 2 2005 and 2008 so so is it Tom is it is it fair to say that if you had noticed any tree clearing to speak of with reviewing all of those Aerials all of those dates that you would have noticed that well obviously from 1963 to the present there's been all kinds of changes and as I said in the report we're trying to get a track on you know what land use changes were were occurring in that area and I don't think it's any surprise that all of this area was in agricultural use at one point so you have that era of of disturbance where you have U you know perhaps pasturing increases in organic manner so the surface builds up um perhaps tree removal perhaps other things drainage and all that sort of thing um and then um it's probably fairly stable from the 1970s onward um but in the last few years we focused on the last few years because that's where uh it was alleged there was disturbance we didn't see anything remarkable or significant from number one its past history or even currently um if I I didn't uh view the photographs that were sent by a report this late this afternoon um from um I don't have it in front of me but uh from the attorney's office of um uh the abtc yeah yeah and and there was one photograph in there where it appears there's no vegetation on the surface and um you know that's interesting i' be nice to examine that further and then maybe go back and review but um I think um when we were there we saw no evidence of tree removal uh there were no stumps you know typically when somebody removes trees from a well and it's even with a year later it's generally fairly obvious um but with stumps or very disturbed ground where stumps were pulled um debris from the trees um and vegetation doesn't recover as quickly as it appears to be growing in there fairly well especially the shrubs are fairly well well developed it's not like just a Year's growth or something like that um so um that's what we observed and it's consistent with the area of Photography at least down in the Wetland area that that's always been sort of a um shrubby um herbaceous combination most of its history okay Peter thanks uh Chris anything no questions mark I'm not seeing enough yet okay I leave leave it at that right now okay yeah keep in mind this is not a hearing this is not a a regulatory hearing it is a complaint brought to us but yeah no questions John no questions all right okay so David do you have a recommendation at the moment um well I uh I I know uh it is not strictly speaking hearing um on the other hand is probably in the commission's best interest to you know uh obtain uh any and all information uh regardless for the sorts I don't know whether the the the owners uh Andor their or the the abuts Andor their attorney who are here tonight whether they want to say anything and whether you know Mr Mr chairman you would allow them yeah sure uh thank you uh Mr C and Mr chairman members of the commission do you all have hard copies of the letter that was shown a moment ago on the screen that I submitted late today I have copies if you don't have physical copies no they don't okay i' I've got copies here may just be helpful to have some of these plans in front of you as I talk through them so I have uh seven copies thank you have answer thank you thank you thank you so I'll just begin uh for the record my name is Adam Costa was before you maybe six or seven months ago uh as your chronology had indicated a bit earlier representing the odonals who are here with me tonight as well uh Sean and Francesca um so appreciate you hearing from us uh this evening um and I apologize for the lateness of my submitt I only received the correspondence late in the day yesterday and so we had to digest it relatively quickly but I wanted to put a comprehensive response together as best I could um I appreciate the work that LEC has done and I appreciate some of the additional explanation that we got uh tonight which I of course didn't have in crafting uh my letter um I think the greatest frustration I had in reviewing lec's report it confirmed much of what we knew to be true you know we appreciate that a consultant that's engaged as a third-party expert uh late in the process a year and a half to two years after after uh alleged uh alteration of Earth has occurred doesn't have the benefit of what my clients saw with their own two two eyes and is simply trying to piece things together on the site based upon what they can see uh and do research through things like aerial imagery so we we recognize that we appreciate that um having said that my clients reported to me what they witnessed again with their own two eyes back in February of 2023 and they witnessed significant clearing of Mr Harvey's uh I'll call it his backyard it's really sort of his back and his sidey yard immediately adjacent to their property boundary um what we know is minimally there were 29 trees removed just on our property just in the odal's onland property by Mr Harvey who trespassed over the boundary line so 29 trees just on our property we don't have a count of how many trees were removed on Mr Harvey's property um now I'm not suggesting all these trees were 18 24 in diameter trees uh I also know enough about Wetlands I'm not a Wetlands Specialist or scientist but I know enough to know that you typically don't necessarily get 18in 24 in diameter trees growing in the center of a wetland um but i' I've highlighted a couple of things here um and I want to kind of start I guess in reverse order uh of the way that I presented it in my letter because I've heard LEC reference on a few occasions that the different Consultants who have spoken um the the quote unquote Wetland that they didn't observe any trees necessarily or stumps located within the Wetland that they couldn't confirm necessarily that there had been alteration of the Wetland although I did hear the Consultants say um there was one area where the buffer zone was was clearly altered but not the Wetland itself and I I think it's important to recognize we're talking about a jurisdictional wetland that is jurisdictional under your bylaw and your Wetlands regulations that's distinct and I know that you know this that's distinct from a Wetlands protection act Wetland resource area your bylaw and your accompany regulations are more protective than the state act not every Community has that I represent number of communities that have local bylaws and regulations that simply mirror the act and provide some additional processes and procedures but they don't provide substantive standards they don't increase the protection of wetland resource areas you do and in fact you do this a couple of ways and I've highlighted it on page two of my letter you actually Define as within uh as as constituting a quote unquote resource area not just the Wetland itself in this case a freshwater Wetland but the buffer zone so you qualify the buffer zone as a resource area now the state act doesn't do that the state act creates a buffer zone a jurisdictional buffer of 100 ft from the boundaries of a wetland resource area but it doesn't qualify the buffer itself as the resource area your bylaw and your accompanying regulations do that so when we talk about alteration and we distinguish between well yes again to quote LEC there was one area where the buffer zone was clearly altered I wrote this in my notes as I was hearing it but not the Wetland it doesn't really matter from the commission's perspective if the alteration was done anywhere within the buffer zone that buffer zone is the resource area and and requires enforcement your your Reg ulations actually go one step further your regulations say within a buffer zone all activities that involve removal of vegetation are presumed to impermissibly alter the adjacent resource areas and actually put the burden on the party that is defending the work that was done to to reut that presumption which of course I I don't know if anybody's here on behalf of the property owner I don't think so um and they haven't appeared at prior meetings so they haven't rebut that presumption so what my clients witnessed back in February of 2023 was wholesale clearing of the back and side yard of Mr Harvey's property um when you look at the exhibits and a couple of them have been shown on the screen already and I appreciate that I walk through Google Earth as well you can't see much in the in the aerial photography from back in ' 85 in the early 90s because the resolution so poor back then but um I agree that as you get into the 2010s and into the early 2020s there is a distinct difference seasonally based upon you know what you see in April what you see in August what you see in December having said that if you turn exhibit 3 and I've got the exhibits each marked at the top of the number exhibit 3 which is the photograph that is currently shown on the screen uh this is the aerial photograph and it's hard to read but if you look at the top left corner of the of the photograph it actually has a date here there's a bar you drag uh to show the history of the the aerial photography and the date here is 10221 so this is October of 2021 and you can see and granted it's October so you know it's the fall it's not July but still you've got a fairly significant ific canopy here of trees but you can see that the canopy was significant enough to completely cover that company that that that property you can barely see um the the the South West corner of the house because there's such a significant canopy running right up to um the arbor VY Road that's on my client's property that that separates these two properties when you flip the page to exhibit four this is just sort of rotated 180 Dees now you're viewing it as if you're standing above carile street so you can see the the 61 or the 59 61 Carl Street property is now in the foreground my client's property is at the rear with the solar panels so when you look again at the subject property you can see how dense that that that uh vegetation is whether it's Shrubbery whether it's trees whether it's a combination of the two it's fairly dense dense enough to form almost a complete canopy covering that property when you then shift to the next series of exhibits five six 7 eight uh these are all dated May of 2023 so this is approximately 3 months 2 and a half months um after the the clear cutting of the property occurred and you can see exhibit 5 is the same as that first exhibit I showed same vantage point with my client's property at the bottom of the page you can see that you know there's some green on Mr Harvey's property but it it's a little bit of scrub there's not much there's not much there there was obviously some significant clearing of that property exhibit six is the same as the second exhibit I showed you of present day um or or or earlier uh but this is the present day version this is rotated 180° as if you're standing or hovering above Carlile street again you can see not much left on that property so much so you can actually see the rear boundary of the property is clearly delineated by where the forest starts again there's a line there where you can see the the the delineation and then again if you turn to exhibit seven and8 uh this is something that Google Earth lets you do it's as if you're almost hovering down in a drone a little bit closer so it's sort of a 3D pictometry I mean there's not much left there it looks like there's one tree between Mr Harvey's property and the arbor VY road that separates uh the Harvey property from the odonnal property uh that one tree is sort of standing here it's a little awkward looking because of the um the the technology and then again exhibit 8 is uh viewing it from the other angle looking at the back of the 59 to 61 car street property and you can again see there's not much there so there was clearly alteration of a wetland here how extreme that alteration was we don't know um but it appears that the Wetland was alter altered um we have we have additional photographs I didn't want to overwhelm the commission we have dozens and dozens of photographs not aerial but ground photographs from the time frame February March April of 2023 uh showing work as it was being done out there uh showing the land as it looked immediately after the clearing occurred uh and again this is a combination of work that was done straight through the wetlands we have photos of um individual standing in the wetlands uh with with with Nets and uh we have a photograph of a of a a bulldozer being driven down and into and through and across the wetlands um so there was Wetland Al alteration done and even if there wasn't even your consult has acknowledged that there was certainly alteration of the resource area um because the buffer zone qualifies as a resource area so you know we would hope that the commission would take enforcement the last thing I want to say and this goes to the the issue of the the the driveway that Mr spoke to um sort of uh I guess to the left of the Harvey house so if you look on your screen there right about where the cursor is right there so I I think the the representation was made was that this was a prior driveway that had been paved and we we dispute that that the driveway to the Harvey residence you can see it is on the opposite side of the residence that's always where the driveway to the Harvey residence has been there was an area that over the course of time turned from what was sort of grass sort of dirt to something that was more like gravel and then suddenly the gravel was cleared and graded and then the cleared and graded gravel uh became paved so it happened over a period of time um but I dispute the idea that this is some driveway that's existed for 30 years and all they did is simply go out there and PVE it I agree that I've dealt with conservation commissions and communities representing applicants I've worked with concom and communities I represent It's Not Unusual to talk to the agent and the agent talks about some erosion control to ensure that there's no damage to the Wetland resource areas and then you can complete your Paving of the driveway this is something different um which is the cause for our our second complaint to the commission so again that's a lot um and I know it's a lot to digest in terms of just receiving the letter now but um we certainly appreciate the efforts that the commission has take taken to follow through with this um I know if you've reviewed some of my emails to Mr Co I've expressed a bit of frustration over the past year and a half that's not really been directed necessarily at him or at you it's just frustration with the process we did start this a year and a half ago uh you had a transition of Council in the midst of it so we're just anxious to see some resolution to this um because we believe and and and I'd be interested I heard LEC uh comment on um no no damage occurring to the driveway on my client's property but then LEC said something to the effect of they acknowledge that the side slopes had been Disturbed so again our concern is and it goes back to what we initially said when we came before the commission okay maybe if you look at the driveway now it has not been compromised but the consequence of all that's been done and the compromising of the side slopes to the driveway over time our fear is is going to have an effect on the on the stability of the driveway and the condition of the driveway and that's through no fault of our own that's the consequence of these activities that occurred without permission from the commission okay thank you is any of that you mentioned inside a buffer zone or a recharge area on the edge of the driveway uh any of any of what the uh the driveway that Mr Mr Harvey potential yeah potential of damage uh so so the the driveway that was paved that had not been paved previously that many years ago hadn't been a driveway at all is not within the Wetland itself we're not we're not alleging that it is the Wetland doesn't extend that far even our own plans that were prepared for my clients and their property when they had their law apartment approved even those plans don't show the Wetland extending all the way out to the front of Mr Harvey's property but it is within the buffer I mean the buffer zone is so expansive here if you include the full 100 foot buffer it covers most of Mr Harvey's property it's two-thirds of his house is within the buffer right yeah it it looks like the driveway is just outside of the 50ft buffer and as you mentioned within the 100 okay sounds right I mean just from the drawing yeah no so um we got let's call it last minute information here and we're still digesting the report um I I'm really glad we get the paper copies thank you very much for giving us the paper copies this is again I'm going to reiterate this is not a hearing this is a complaint but I'm going to recommend that we if it was a hearing that we continue it um that we don't make any decisions at the moment um I think we all need to review the documentation and kind of get our heads around what's going on does that um I'm seeing nodding um yeah I don't I don't think we have to vote on something that's not a i c can I ask a question while we have so what I recall from the previous hearings um discussions discussions tonight and in the past was a concern about driveway erosion of of your client and what I heard tonight was there's a concern the driveway might erode which kind of makes sense if you remove the vegetation I might be wrong but I thought in the past a statement was made that the driveway is eroding presently and I think the LEC report if I got this straight said that there is currently no evidence correct of erosion correct Therefore your client's concern appears to be you know the future which is is fair I get it is that do I have that right I think that's right we we had stated if I remember it's been a few months and I've had a few hearings since then but if I remember correctly from what I said when I was before you in April maybe of last year or maybe it was later than that in the summer um was that we had and we have some photographs of this we we had belief that there were portions of toward the front of our property where we enter in off of Carlile Street uh areas where the driveway was showing some potential of eroding now look to us like it was I'm not an expert my clients are not experts um whether LEC saw that same area and said no that's not erosion at all or LC didn't go in that particular area that wouldn't be on Mr Harvey's property it would have been on my client's property um so so we did believe that there were some areas that were presently eroding and that the situation was only going to get worse yeah fair enough but it's also important to remember that the erosion would have to be impacting the wetlands and there was no evidence of that I mean I was right there Mr PA Mr peragallo you know took soil samples at the toe of the slope right below the alleged erosion I mean there was absolutely no indication of any kind of material from that SL side slope being in the wetlands I mean you have to remember a driveway is not a protected interest under the Wetland regulations right and then just quickly did I see photographs of a utility trench built along your clients driveway or have I mix recently have I mixed up no that's correct that's correct I'm kind of curious how that affects our discussion we don't have to talk about it right now but I wanted to at least put it on the table well maybe I can leave I can uh let uh attorney cost to give some background on that sure so there there was an issue there's as as I'm sure you've you've all gathered through the conversations we've had over the past year and a half there's much more to the story than simply some Wetlands interest I mentioned before 29 trees removed on my client's property there have been exchanges of threats of litigation between the parties the odonnal and and Mr Harvey um Mr Harvey raised about two years ago when my client was before the planning board was it planning board for your zoning board zoning board of appeals for the uh what you what you can now do as of right right an accessory apartment um and uh Mr Harvey appeared at those hearings and expressed concern that the uh the gas line and the water line uh providing service to my client's property was on the Harvey property now of course my clients didn't install that gas line they bought the house after it had been constructed um but they did some investigation and they confirmed in fact that that was the case so uh uh National Grid um and um their contractor uh contacted the town and coordinated re moving a portion not the entirety but a portion of uh the the lines that were crossing over onto the Harvey property to move them uh onto the the adonal property so that occurred um within the past uh last uh November was the water line last was gas line last December was the water yeah so November December last year 2024 uh no 20233 23 a year ago a year ago oh yeah it's 25 now correct a year ago that's correct so so and even though at that time we didn't know for sure it was a wetland um I did uh review both the state and and bylaw regulations with regard to installation of utilities then it was my determination that was an exempt activity did did not require a filing with the Conservation Commission and I informed Mr Harvey as well of my opinion and at that time we didn't have any indication it was a wetland well we we we had the GED delineation but that's all we didn't know for sure um but you know that's what but I wanted to review the regulations in any case so even even if we knew at that time was a wetland definitively it would not have required a filing with the commission okay so if if uh thank you very much appreciate it and uh so um I I I I guess I'd still like to get a you know Mr Harvey I I think it's fair to give him one more chance to respond to this we've I know we've reached out the attorneys reached out but um with all this new information I still think there's uh and and I think the commission has expressed it like to digest what we've seen and heard right my my suggestion would be before that um so let me let me just ask um Tom Rich and Nicole so you're certainly willing to consider new information uh you know re re review uh review it um and you know revise revise your report you know in accordance with what you feel would be appropriate just you're you're willing to do that aren't you uh yeah we'd be willing to do that but in regards to I mean unless you want us to go in there and get more dat data and we have permission to do a more precise delineation we wouldn't change any of that um but it would be more in uh reference to vegetation removal I think yes from what I hear uh the other thing specific to the vegetation yes the other thing the other thing I need to check and and I think it's fair I think it's fair to assume that if the commission is takes ends up taking enforcement action in this case it's going to be appealed and one of the first things to remember about enforcement action is in that case the burden the burden Falls far more on the Conservation Commission um to make the case ra rather than um the the alleged violator um that um that there is there really is in that the presumption in that case is is really almost lost completely so so the commission needs to keep in mind that if you do take enforcement action it needs to be able to be upheld under appeal so one one of the thing so I sort of want to both review in gen Town Council I want to review that both in general specifically I want to know council's opinion about um in that kind of a situation using um a photographs and oral testimony from a Butters yeah and because if if Council says does not recommend that then then I don't think we can really ask LEC to include that in any kind of Revis report they do yeah sure they can they can use you know uh you know Google Google Aerials and other Aerials um but you know some something again that's not going to be able to be upheld you know in in Court I mean to to be frank I mean if I could uh could I comment with to that yeah oh yeah I would say um we've looked at all the Google Images we could look at them again I'm I'm not opposed to that and um with new new information we could look at some of the areas more more in detail but except for a few of them the resolution isn't good enough for to say anything more definitive however there are aerial firms that uh we could purchase photography from in the perhaps in the critical years and get a little more um you know detail and resolution and be able to even to the point of perhaps um Counting the larger trees um and that's that would be one way of being a little more definitive about it otherwise it's always a little subjective uh okay Tom Let's uh let's you and I talk a little bit more about that yeah Rich uh nothing to add at this time thank you okay okay all right so I'm going to I'm going to shut it down here I think this is enough discussion we gone longer than I was hoping on this topic but um I think we covered a lot of ground here so to the LEC folks thank you very much for all the help you've done so far thank you and um appreciate that and attorney Costa thanks very much for giving us uh uh your update uh your your information so um you're welcome this point I think we'll um we'll come back to this uh perhaps at the next meeting we we'll talk I think we need to talk to Town Council and see how we want to proceed yeah does that make sense do I see NDS no I just I just one last statement I mean I I just think that the commission has certainly taken this the allegations very seriously and I just want to say that for the record yep very seriously I quite agree Chris thanks okay let's keep moving here so next on our agenda um we have our uh we had an MCA this is the Metro West Conservation Alliance we had a meeting last week um this is kind of the Sudbury Valley uh we've been a member of that for a couple years now and um so they asked us to participate I think you guys saw some email about that Peter and I and David were at the meetings but Peter you want to give a short just a very short yeah we have a lot here but short update on yeah I have a u i have a 32 page slide deck is that okay that's a sh version yeah hey short and sweet um 2third of our town drains into the conquered River Watershed and there's a couple of they're called NGS they're you know nonprofit agencies that look at that whole conquered uh River Watershed and it's basically I don't know 35 towns from chelsford roughly South along 495 so long story short um they are doing a uh Watershed survey to generate recommendations to the member communities on how to make the water quality better I mean that's a gross simplification but that includes you know potential land acquisition that includes all kinds of things to make the Watershed better and the reason I think that's important to our town is most of our open space right is along water shed well it's all in a watershed that's how watersheds are defined but we've got a lot of open space that's actually in the streams that feed into these Rivers so bottom line is we'll work with them um and see what comes of it and see what their ideas are on how chelsford and other communities can contribute to keep the water quality good in this big Watershed okay thanks Peter uh next on our agenda is the report from our planning board liaison hello Chris good evening um since your last meeting on December 10th we've had two regular meetings a work session and a very brief joint meeting um with the select board uh to appoint our new associate member of the planning board U Marcy comtoise are you saying we've been slacking yeah I know the ad bylaws have taken up some time yeah well he got offended by our 20 minute short meeting record that you know got to um but Marcy has been nominated as the associate member until the April election um on the board so um we have been working on the Adu zoning bylaw uh for the January 27th special town meeting um we are working through some minor zoning changes uh for Springtown meeting s sorry zoning bylaw changes for Springtown meeting um based on some uh recommendations from the Attorney General's office um we are in the middle of discussing potential Kate's Corner zoning improvements uh potentially coming to Springtown meeting um and at our last meeting we did review for palot Drive um and we reviewed the aqua for protection Gap analysis scope um which I believe is on your agenda as well and we did request that the um the manage the Consulting Group does come before the full board at an upcoming meeting for discussion rather than having a subcommittee um work on it and then come to the board after that I also wanted to mention that we do have a recommendation from the planning board on um or some a request from you from the planning board uh regards to for payot Drive I didn't know if you wanted me to mention that now or during the hearing why don't you mention it now okay so there is some um in the new plans there will be four parking spaces in the back of the the building um as reserved parking spaces for snow emergencies there was some discussion I know at one of your past meetings about increasing Green Space um there's a potential trade-off to moving the um parking lot away from the wetlands and losing that green space and emergency parking um our recommendation what if that was only green space we wouldn't have an issue with that but because that also now serves as emergency parking the planning board recommends that we not lose those four spaces um if we do there's a potential that it might have to be redesigned yet again so when you lose you mean keep the four spaces yes is the board's prefence because the trade-off is that with those four spaces in in Green Space it pushes the parking lot closer to the wetlands right um if if we get rid of those we can move it away and it was like a dozen before I think we should wait till the hearing really get detail just yeah thank you so that's our recommendation is that we don't lose those got it the tradeoff I think and we'll give us the definition of emergency parking places you'll hear more about it in the the hearing but if I need to come up and explain a little bit more then I can okay you're sticking around yeah will all right all right let's move on then we in fact we'll it'll be shortly I think so next is our um thank you Chris uh next is our regulatory hearing so we're now getting into the regulatory hearing section of the meeting so we are now at a RDA uh after the fact filing this is continued from December 10th from our last meeting this is Johnny and Katherine Ramos from 35 brick R Kellen Road and David do we have a request for continuance uh yes we do I can just give a quick update um uh preliminary to voting the continuance so um the um the roses have uh hired uh nor environmental to uh do the restoration plan I met on site with Katherine and Moren Harold from nor um last week so uh they are I can vouch that you know this is being addressed this is being worked on um and so the the plan is to have Moren present the restoration plan at the February 11th uh meeting so Katherine has requested a continuance till then okay I'll take a motion to Chairman that we continue this matter until our meeting on February 11th second motion from Chris second from Mark all in favor I I I I motions approved all unanimous thank you very much on that um next uh on our agenda is the notice of intent also uh this one's continued from November 12th uh this is Kathy Romberg for payot Drive uh and uh looks like Casey is coming up to Podium so thank you David do you have anything to set up on this or do we just go right to the new plan from Casey um maybe maybe case can just um uh talk a little bit about um the the current revisions and what led to them actually I I'll just State we did have we we had two participants I think it was Bill and Mark participated in and you David in the session that was done in early December I think it was I believe so uh with a number of parties present and the outcome of that meeting is this new plan that is correct am I correct okay all right than Casey Ferrero with Howard Stein Hudson thank you for having us Chris covered most of it I'm just kidding um so from the previous plan like you said we had a kind of a joined meeting uh fire chief engineering uh planning conservation had members uh but also the the some of the abutters were also um present and we kind of discussed what are the opt option that could be kind of a balance or medium uh between fitting all of the parking on site and then what if we could still maintain to use some of the culdesac that would be you know technical legal on Street parallel parking that's available everywhere else but also safely to which the fire chief could agree um that he can maneuver or they can maneuver their apparatus in a safe manner um and we can designate those locations that he needs as no parking um so what you'll find is uh David if you just scroll to the layout plan please is that what's up there so we have a parking lot in the rear uh which is seven spaces um so we have excuse me uh seven spaces at the rear four spaces at the front those four spaces at the front are located within existing pavement area um it's important to note that we do still have to be a reduction to the front of the property um just be to meet storm water standards and to be a better um product overall to in um improve the storm water quality coming off we still have to be a reduction in the front so we can't use all of the impervious set up front um just because we have no way to treat it no way to capture it no way to do anything with it um without you know impeding on the town's right of way and then adding treatment to the town's responsibility uh it just wasn't an option um so is is everyone seeing the four spaces that there St up front that's one right well no those aren't the four space there's four spaces directly in front of the building that are on our property okay this this is one right here and if you just point those out please see so we have the four one two three and four directly within existing pavement right in front of the building okay thank you so that totals us to 11 permanent parking spaces within I guess what we would call you know a paved and curbed or you know area where storm water is taken care of um that leaves us with a net to make up of five parking spaces um so you know we showed a culdesac exhibit of sorts um to where we could safely Park five parking spaces within the culdesac um Tony made it clear we're not allowed to stripe any parking within the culdesac but we're allowed to show where you know based on parking standards a typical parallel parking space is 10 by 22 so 10 ft wide 22 ft long could we get five of these in the culde-sac safely and still show the fire truck turning around we did show five um again we have them here they're shown um with line work but they are not to be striped it's we have to be clear that they're not going to be striped out there what we are going to stripe is the no parking locations for the fire department and also the trash receptacle is also going to have a No Parking striping in front of it so again we have 11 on site with five offs s um but then came the problem of so what happens in a snowband emergency where the town calls a a parking ban you're not allowed to park on the streets we still have to have somewhere for these five five cars to go um so what we thought of and and you know one of the comments that we received at from a Conservation Commission member at the Joint meeting was you know it would be nice if the kids had at least something left over so that they weren't forced to be in the culdesac weren't forced to go in the pavement um whether they stay in the culdesac whether they' use the grass you know that's up to the kids and what they want to do if they want to you know throw a ball back and forth or if they want a roller blade right there's two different locations to do that um but so we kept or we expanded based on that request at least to some extent that green space that's immediately behind the building um that actually doubles in use as Chris brought up now as we can fit for four cars in there for for parking and ultimately that's going to be up to the responsibility of the the owner and the management company of the property to clear those if if they're not used before the snow starts or likely the cars will be there before the snow starts because the parking B is called you know a day or two ahead in advance of a snowstorm um the as Chris mentioned the trade-off of having that green space is expanded is this design versus the last design didn't save really any trees from the rear of that property just due to the construction the grading that had to happen um and in order to get the pond in and then we also have a sale that goes around the pond for that existing parking lot that drains across our site um so instead of now accepting that into our pond where we have the room now to redirect that around which is best practice in most scenarios we don't want to accept we don't want to be responsible for anybody else's drainage anyway we'd rather give it a path to get from point A across our property to its destination anyway um so as Chris mentioned there was a trade-off in allowing that green space to remain using that green space for the parking that we needed uh you know and it's again it's just snowband emergency parking it's not going to be used on a day-to-day basis however many times they have a snowband in a year what's it been lately two times maybe three times in a bad year five um so again we're we're asking for that trade-off from the Conservation Commission to allow us to have you know in overall we still have a smaller parking lot in the back there's less impervious space in the back that's draining towards this pond that's you know exiting to the Wetland um we added Green Space um I think that kind of covers the layout changes um the drainage changes we're essentially the same drainage as we were before the entire intent is the exact same we have new pavement that we're accepting through the same TSS unit which is called the arrange Guardian I know I've presented it to you a 100 times on different projects this is a different unit of the rain Guardian but it still does the same thing it excepts storm water it treats it before it discharges it through the back of the unit um it goes from that discharge unit to the pond where it is able to Stage infiltrate and then exit um the exit is defined in the same I believe it was the last plan we had changed the the exit from being just the Overflow reir into a discharge uh an outlet control control structure so what this Outlet control structure allows it to do is slowly drain over time rather than all um staging up and then dumping over at the same time so that allows us to meet our flow requirements with much less Pond and much less area used and Disturbed for that pond than if we didn't have that outlet control structure at all so uh if I'll just actually can you go to the next plan David where I'll talk to this so I will mention so this El control structure is here buried somewhat into the side of the burm of the pond um because the pond is not very deep and because the pond is also not very uh the burm doesn't rise up very high the outlet or the orifice and then the outlet of that pipe has to be um pretty low level with or just below the outlet of or the bottom of that pond the only location we could get to then outlet that pipe is at this elevation 99 and and change the only location where we can achieve this elevation does happen to pull right at the buffer zone the 25ft Noti start buffer zone so there is going to be minor disturbance to a couple feet within the 25t disturbance to pull that grading back create that low spot for us to outlet and then also replace with some rip wrap to prevent the erosion from everything coming out of that pipe so it will need to be some disturbance within the 25 ft to get this pipe in and again the benefit of this pipe is that we can slow slly drain this Pond over time instead of creating a much larger Pond that has to detain everything to meet that flow requirement for the storm water standards and actually I'll just while them up here so this is the Swale that we uh designed going around so there's this all this pavement and parking from this existing building on Tings Boro road before the plan where this uh kind of intersected us was right in the middle of our parking lot so we had to accept it and we had to put it through our pond where we have this benefit now where we can sale it up and around and it doesn't have to touch our bmps and our maintenance system or our storm water system it's much preferred to just add a Swale going around so that we can let them act on their own and let them have a bypass through our property then accept it into our own um I believe that that summarizes the changes or goes through all the changes that we have on the plan um I will note I did talk to Sheila she issued a letter before the planning board meeting um I had one comment on it related to standard three I know there's another letter related to flood storage that's we're working on with Sheila now um I called Sheila and talked to her about her standard three comment uh you should be seeing that come through anytime with a a Revis with a revised letter that's Stone water no that's uh bordering land subject to flooding that's what she's talking about right sorry there's actually two standard 3es she had a question on standard three of bordering land and then also the storm water so yes the storm water one is solved you'll see a revised letter from her at some point probably it'll be in the same time that we solved so we're still working on clarifying for her the bordering land subject to flooding um but I know she had an outstanding question on that that we're still working on with her okay all right David have comments so I'm I'm I'm sorry Casey I'm confused about how how adding the the green space is a tradeoff it's a trade-off you know not adding it or adding it as a trade-off between what and what yeah so if we don't have this green space here we now no longer have area for um four cars to park in the event of a snow emergency so where we'd have to add it is likely on this back end which would push this back out anyway but you'd also have the vehicles on the grass closer to the buffer zone rather than away from it and where all of this drains directly into our Tre systems anyway um the tradeoff originally came from one of the comments was that you know he'd like to see something in this area just to have us a location for kids to play so that's where the the change originally came from it just also doubled as this is a location we could put this parking that we need to have anyway because I can't have a snowband event where now I have five people that are just unable to park and they need to go drive through the whole snowstorm because they can't stop anywhere but but whether but whether it's it's green space or paved it's you're still getting it farther away from the wetlands so correct I don't well so they were so the the tradeoff in general was that with this green space here this whole thing moved this way so the the whole when we originally showed it when we went to that joint meeting I don't know where the best place to stand is good but we showed everything about 15 ft further away this direction so everything we showed at that joint meeting was approximately 15t further away from the Wetland but I mean but it but it's not the the insertion of green space that's driving it it's the emergency parking the need for the emergency parking actually came second that came as a well here's the space now that we have to do this originally the emergency parking we were planning on trying to fit on areas around where we had green space but it just came up that if the preference was to have green space immediately at the Json of the back of the building for multiple uses whether it's children or a picnic or whatever well we also have this space now that we can add these parking spaces in but but it you can you can do that and still keep it as green space corre I think that's what you're saying so it's going to be I guess I should have mentioned that the landscaping material that we're going to use is a reinforced grass type material that's going to have some kind of stone base at the bottom to give it some strength and then also you're going to have your typical grass on top that's not going to be driven over on a daily basis either so it's it's going to maintain its its strength and toughness throughout the seasons okay you can you give a verbiage it's going to keep people off that it's it's going to rely on a on the owner oh a ver what is it to use that only in emergencies I mean that's going to be completely on the owner and the management company to make sure that they're not parking on it on a daily basis yes we start Mark any any more questions oh I'm sorry I'm so Casey go ahead you you still talking I think I think you were done right yeah I'm all set uh it's it's a fast Improvement of what originally was proposed to us but there was no room to get anything around a dumpster I can see that right is a PO front there yeah so what's actually in front of the dumpster unfortunately there's a pole but what you're not showing on this plan is the guy wire that holds the pole up stretches all the way to the dumpster okay so that area immediately next to the dumpster is actually what we're removing pavement from we're going to grass all that and that's how we're balancing the what we're adding for pavement and what we're removing in front I I just think that during the summer months they're going to park where they're parking now this isn't you know they're going to go back to R habits yeah you know the only thing we can do about that is have the management company be on top of them I mean if the police are called and they're enforced that's what happens but you know from our perspective as the engineers all I can do is put that responsibility onto the owner and the owner's management company to make sure that they're parking where they need to be parking yeah it no it's it's not great but it's the best of what I think this is what you do I got nothing else okay Chris yeah I mean I I'm pleased with the changes honestly I mean I see a lot less assall payment than we had in the previous plan so we've traded off asphalt payment and we've replaced it with green space and and Lawn and so yeah I'm really pleased with the fact that we're able to get together and and Hammer out some changes to address the concerns were raised by the public so I'm happy with this okay Peter um rather than ask a million questions so uh Mark you and Bill went to the meeting right and so I gather you're comfortable with G given the constraints I mean you know you're you're you're you spent time thinking about this and you're you're cool with it it went back and forth and yeah there's no trees dist stb this way there are trees oh as I so I did mention in in the presentation that you know with adding that green space in and then having the sale that goes around the parking we're at the same limited disturbance essentially as we were before um and that comes from you know even if we're leaving it as grass we still have to grade it to get that Swale in we still have to grade it to put that pond in um and then moving it over that 15 ft you know there is more grass involved in the entire area now having the grass in the beginning the grass at the end um but we are disturbing still but Casey you confused me you said that the location of the pond or the infiltration Basin or whatever we call it moved on the map to the left about 15 ft from the previous plan yeah to the exhibit that we showed at the meeting where we had the parking basically directly abing the rear of the building yeah no grass in between it so then when we add the grass between the parking and the building everything shifted back over and you mentioned yeah and you mentioned thank you you mentioned that the infiltration Basin is smaller is smaller in size so how come there's not more trees left that's where I'm getting mixed up now we have a swell that redirects the top pavement to keep it separate from our system that goes around the outside of the pond as well so before the pond was our limit of disturbance now we have an additional Swale cuz we want to separate their stuff from our stuff then quickly you know our our commission is supposed to look out for flooding we've talked a lot about that so I'd be curious what our town Engineers position is or if you know Tony and Sheila have looked at that question it's not it's just yeah so are you talking about flooding or flood storage cuz they're two SE flooding of the flooding the water that may bypass this whole process this whole right site in a dunure drive the the dunure I'm think of the dunure drive residents concerns which sounded to me like more than just this property by the way the the whole water thing is somewhat beyond the jurisdiction I think I think of this one property but that is a question so I don't know if our DPW has looked at that specifically with the new design I know that they reviewed our design with compliance to standard two which is the flow rate and flow volume they are in agreement that we are a reduction overall of both flow rates and flow volumes to that Wetland and to the systems that tribute to that Wetland um I also know that they do have an overarching concern regarding the area that they are looking into right outside of this project that was happening before this project came up right so so excuse me I I'm sorry just in the interest of time I guess that's my question you know because our town Engineers are looking at the whole area what's their opinion on the impact of this design that I would be interested in that question um but there's also the limit of what I can do out oh yeah I understand that I have to I'm held to I have to meet the standards on my property and I have no control over what the town looks to do or wants to do outside of my property so if I can show that I am improving it at least to some sense in my property I meet the standards that I have to yeah that that's the storm water standard our commission's uh uh goal is to to try to mitigate flooding in general so let's table that as just a question then just finally what's interesting about this design is your previous design you ended up treating the neighbors runoff kind of by default because you had to and under this design you don't and I believe that would be considered your legal obligation to worry about your property not the neighbors so I just that's just an interesting artifact of the changed design we're sort of trading off we sort of got free treatment right with the old design we sort of got freebie treatment of somebody else's runoff which isn't your responsibility though so that's all I had but but I mean you're you're not making with regard to treatment the situation isn't being made any worse right I would think if you were going to technically look at it we're still providing treatment um there is TSS treatment in water quality SES provided that they have a sediment for Bay at the head of them I would argue that the existing Pond they have at the rear would act as the sediment for Bay and then it discharges to our Swale as if it was a water quality sale I'm not going to take credit for that I'm not going to be responsible for maintaining a water quality sale just because it's somebody else's y but I would say you know in theory it would improve I'm just not going to require that you know my client be responsible for maintaining a water quality but but but just to be clear that the um the storm water standards for redevelopment do require an improvement correct yes a net Improvement anyway and are we meeting that with this design well so technically our property is not a Redevelopment so we are held to the full standards of the we have two portions of our property the rear of the property where that part comes in is not a Redevelopment but it's adding impervious surface correct it's a development not a Redevelopment a Redevelopment requires a uction in impervious surface we add 5,000 and change sare ft to the rear so we have we're held to the full standards not the Redevelopment standards so we meet all of the full standards for discharging to a wetland um the front of the property where we have separated is where we meet Redevelopment standards and to have a um just an improvement upon the existing water quality and water flow okay I'm done thank you Peter bill I think the this is the best compromise you could come up with based on that meeting we went to everyone seemed to want to reduce the size of the parking lot in the back and I was the one that brought up the the green space for the kids to play give them some place to play where that area where the Overflow parking for the snow you've got that area so we reduce the parking you got some green space you've installed that Swale to go around so you're not treating the water from the ab Butters and uh the fight upon was pretty much driving the whole thing with the cuac as far as parking so you satisfied them by putting the striped areas no parking spots correct and implying that you could park in the circle without the markings M so it kind of everybody gave in a little bit we reduced the parking uh size of the parking lot you reduce the size of that pond in the back because you've got the whale now so I think this is pretty much the best that could be done for that site because the parking drove it in the front that CAC in the fight of now I had one question so I like the plan I appreciate you looking at the Green Space where you put the pavers in for the area for kids to play because kids live in that apartment those apartments and I just had a question so you do you need uh a waver from us for the 25 foot because of the out Outlet yes because of the outlet controls the outlet of the El control structure did you have to get wav from the planning board on parking amount of parking so no actually as an existing use they can't hold us to a required parking amount um but I still have to meet special permit criteria for um waivers from the landscape buffers and all that stuff so there's still special permits that they have to give us uh just just that the parking number is not one of them okay so all in all I think putting everybody together in that room everybody gave in a little bit everybody understood that we had to do something to help these people get parking for a building that was built 60 something years ago so I I I think this is the best plan you could come up with so I appreciate what you did thanks Bill John I agree 100% with Bill for what he's got to work with uh you know that green space is a big option that was a smart option so I mean if you got to go into the 25t to regrade going to be taken care of right away once they regrade it I'm I'm comfortable with this plan okay all right um it's unfortunate it seems that we're still going to be losing trees but um that's the um what kind of trees are they a lot of them are infested with a A lot of them are infested with bow s uh I don't know if any of them are Willows tell me there's one Willow it's if it's wet if it's wet this maybe okay David we still waiting for DPW then uh we want to see that letter before I think we vote on anything here operation of Maintenance stuff like that take care of that is there an on M plan that we'll have with this so I will note there is an onm plan that was in your package um one of the request from the planning board was if concom seemed to want to go in the direction of the current plan and not request major changes really the only thing that was outstanding for planning board was to add snow storage to the onm plan um and you know curbing to the on M plan line striping to the onm plan and that was the gist of what the planning board really asked for unless Chris remembers anything differently um but so that is going to be forthcoming to you tomorrow we've made those changes anticipating hopefully a positive direction for this meeting tonight so that'll be um submitted tomorrow so that on the Plenty board's meeting of next week um hopefully we can get a close out and and this will require a Swip and a land disturbance permit from W right so it is a public meeting and we do have a Butters I'm open to any comments from the neighbors um i' hope that it's new comments as opposed to um you know we've we've heard a lot already but um happy happy to hear ments and uh have folks come on up make sure you state your name and your address Michelle Caputo star weather 19 donshire drive so I went to the meeting on December 10th and I left going okay best we're going to get less decimation to the buffer zone and they get a smaller parking lot I keep hearing there was a compromise but they got a parking lot we have decimated buffer zone I'm extremely concerned that 16 trees are coming down all the Shrubbery all the wild life that lives in that little area done this to me is part of the conservation committee's job and I'm actually pretty infuriated that I'm being told I've been compromised cuz I'm feeling compromised not that I got to compromise the buffer zone I don't care how you up with plantings but they should be appropriate deciduous trees Shrubbery I listen to the nice little the nice attorney here who was like oh yeah the buffer zones are actually a wetland resource area so I am feeling very strongly we know that there's an illegally paved parking lot for both the Frank Brocks area that you own and on the for payet property I don't care where the plantings go as long as they're appropriate for that wetlands area our bides aren't going to cut it in a wetlands area and they're not going to provide the appropriate wetlands and Wildlife cover if it was perfectly fine to fill in every buffer zone and then just put a little retention Pond there so that it handles the water we wouldn't have any conservation committies and we wouldn't have have any Wetlands rules they don't do the same thing they do something similar but there's a reason it's really important that we protect our wetlands and I'm not hearing that and I'm very very disappointed thank you anyone else I'd like to speak y go ahead so s Fernandez 27 dunshire Drive um my apologies for not being in person there today but I do have a few comments um I thought that beyond what he had showed today there were still a few other revisions that was requested from the planning boards such as no storage of snow along the edge of dunshire Drive properties of that parking lot and also there was still an issue with the recycling that wasn't being put on the plan and the fact of it not being able to be picked up I don't see that so if it was been done um maybe you can point it out um the other comment that I heard about you know parking in the old habits the thing to note here is the residents of that property were asked to park parallel in that kvasac for over a year and they haven't done it once so I'll be very surprised after all this work that they're going to actually Park parallel in those four spaces or five whatever's there and just to comment a little bit I didn't see in this plan plantings um we do know that this Project's going to have a negative impact in the local ecosystem you know we know it's going to affect various Wildlife we do have a huge population of small manimals such as stes we have a lot of migratory Birds we have red tail hawks cooper hawks groundhogs there's a ton in that area I mean they come through my yard all the time I see the move we have foxes and I really would like to Advocate due to this you know loss of environment that they're going to plant something you know and going on the previous comment some native bushes possibly some flowering bushes some sort of trees in any area that's possible just to compensate for a portion of that habitat loss you know there I don't see any promotion of the biodiversity you know in that area so really I mean my ask here is is there any way for them to restore a small portion of the vital habitats that we have you know that we're losing with any plantings that can accommodate that and that's something that I think that the conservation committee should and you know be able to help with that's that's what I have okay thank you thank you good good one more okay Amilia kuto St weather 19 dunshire Drive um I mean just going on that similar vein we have a lot of Wildlife and I have big concerns they're taking down 16 trees if we we're adjacent to their property behind there they go long and if we wanted to remove a tree in our yard we would be required to come before you probably and you would say replace it with something else so it seems like they're getting quite differential treatment about removing 16 trees in a buffer zone and not having to replace anything thing and I just some very concerned trees help with flood control they provide habitat that area back there where they're going to be clearing out is all wilded there's deciduous Leaf litter there's uh all sorts of wood on the ground like animals are back there and so like just somewhere on their property I get like the bylaw that says parking lots have to have a buffer have uh that they're asking for a variance for is directly running against their property but if they could plant something somewhere on their property to help offset some of the damage that seems like reasonable good neighborly thing to do for them to have to offset some of the struction they have to do because they gave a smaller parking lot but they're taking up the nearly identical footprint there's a little more grasp but the destruction is essentially the same and for many of us it's not the size of the parking lot that we care about it's the the destruction and if it's smaller but it destroys just as much we don't feel like that's a compromise we feel very deceived by what we left the December meeting joint meeting with to what we've been presented as the comp romise and so I would hope that that could be taken into consideration some degree of mitigation to the damage thank you okay thanks any comments go ahead go ahead Casey unless you want me to respond I really don't have any will okay uh any more comments here Peter you sound like you had something to say well yeah so I've been thinking about this whole habitat thing too as you guys know that I always do and uh I'm not it's not clear to me Casey you can help me but it's not clear whether you are proposing uh some sort of Shrubbery or trees and but let me give you the second half before you respond and it's not clear to me where you'd put them because there are engineering requirements for Designing these storm water basins and we got a site here that let's face it it's too small um if it was a new property before the boards the board would have the latitude and you'd probably have the space but given it's an old property there's some limits so I guess the real question is you must have thought about this where can you stick in shrubs and trees well so there's that question where can you stick them in and everything that we've designed function the way we want it to design um but then there's also and you kind of touched on this typically when I'm before you I am proposing something that is brand new that I am planning on hopefully making money for the person that's coming in as the applicant this is not that scenario so I you know whether or not we're we're ending up planting what we're trying to do is be as cost cognizant for the applicant in order to make this happen this wasn't her decision she didn't want to come in and and build a parking lot and I understand whether or not the neighbors have agreements or disagreements with that but I've been told a hundred times by her if I can find a way for her to not have to build this parking lot let's do it right so in the in the vein that there's habitat loss I I do feel for that but at the same time this is not something that she's coming in here so that she can line her pockets and and leave with a whole lot more money she's going to leave in a net negative and a Severe net negative and I'm trying to mitigate that net negative as much as possible so that um you know this this damage to her and the way they run this building doesn't last forever um so I guess in essence what we're asking is just we're trying our very best to be as cognizant for the wetlands for the buffer zones as possible um you know we'd like to to keep the cost in mind for what the construction is potentially to be so are you saying that the owner wishes to negatively impact chords Wetland values let me finish and negatively impact the neighbors concerns over both Visual and the whole flooding thing because they want to save a few bucks because that's not how our regulations read that's not what I'm saying at all what I'm saying is they would prefer to not have to do any of this and disturb any of the buffer zone at all but since they're forced to have to get the parking off of the street and satisfy their own parking requirements they're trying to do that in the most cost effective way possible and one of the ways to do that I get it I get it I get it but don't I don't have any sympathy for the coste effective part of this I do as a homeowner and if I had to do this I wouldn't be happy but the fact is this property needs a bit of an upgrade because of the fire chief's concerns and we need to find a way to help mitigate some of the loss of these trees I the problem I have is I don't know how to do that and I'm looking at you as the creative engineer to help us so what and what we have proposed is a is a net positive on storm water treatment what we have now is an improvement to the front which drains to that mitigation ditch we have an improvement on volume we have an improvement on quality and then we have an improvement in the rear where 90% or more of all the TSS coming off of this prop or all of the storm water coming off this property is hitting 90% TSS before it even gets to the to the wellon itself yeah but we're not talking about the storm water water quality we're talking about habitat as a wetland that is still part of Wetland Conservation sure but we're talking about something different you're changing the subject uh please don't do that I'm saying how we are in tradeoff providing something that's better and requesting to not have to provide something else that also provides a benefit Casey understand that my question was can can you as a creative engineer find some way to put put in some vegetation and some habitat type things I you must have thought about that but that's really the question I think before this board what what what can we make it better what about down here you know south of the proposed um parking area and north of the property line is there anything you could do down here um I mean it's it's only showing on this plant it's only showing a couple of existing trees it would would seem nominally just like some additional trees could be planted there maybe not red wouldn't plant any trees because that's a slope the slope goes basically from the top of the parking it's level for a couple feet and then it drops down at a 3 to one so there'd be no trees that would be planted along there additionally that goes down to a fence line that's only going to be a few feet off the curb line there maybe 10 ft or so well could the fence be removed no we cannot remove the fence because that is actually the one of the portions of the planning board conversations right now is that fence acting as a screening uh mechanism for the parking lot at the rear and the condition of the fence well but maybe maybe the neighbors would be agreeable to having the um fence removed and replaced with vegetative screening I don't think and we've stated this before that the vegetative screening would take hold in any amount of time that's going to actually provide any screening in place of what the fence already does without doing a solid barrier with and even if you plant a uh a screening vegetation to 2 feet on Center it's going to take 15 years for it to grow tall enough to actually screen anything I plan on living that long do you doesn't come on that's not a that's not a good I'm I'm sorry to be so it doesn't take place of the fence that exists all right all right um we hear the comments from the from the people we're not I don't think we're voting here tonight on this uh we still need to see DPW comments I'd like to see if the anything you can do to improve the the biodiversity the habitat if there's anything that can be done creatively um think outside the box um we I I hear the comments from the neighbors and um like to see if there's anything that can be done there David anything else I don't have anything to add at the moment no so I'll take a motion to continue this Casey next meeting or uh yes we're going to have revised materials hopefully by tomorrow so for next meeting so January Mr chair I move that we continue this hearing until our next meeting which is January 28th 20 okay motion from Chris second second from Bill any further discussion all in favor okay Mr chairman can we just take a five minute break I was going to do that after the next one but if you want to take a five minute break now that would be okay too uh we will we will go on hiatus for five minutes returning at 842 p.m. maybe 8:43 e e e e e e e e e e e everyone thanks David for giving us the chance to collect our breath and uh see see see to Nature okay so the next uh on our agenda here is a notice of intent for the uh there's a continuation from November 26th so a couple meetings ago this is 10 hild Street um David you going to just start off with a report on your Con on your conversation with the yes National Heritage biologist yes so um here here is uh the email that I had sent a natural heritage uh with some questions um and uh I did end up speaking to a biologist there uh whose Name Escapes me at the moment and go back and look it up um but we can just go in order here so first question was during the course of the notice of intent public hearing uh at least one possibly two certifiable vernal pools have been identified in the boarding vegetative Wetlands ination to the project site although the potential vernal pools are shown on the attached plan the applicant's representative was asked to also inform your office in writing of the presence of the potential vernal pools was this done and as your office in any case taken the veracs into consideration in your decision decision so the quick answer is his reply was yes um that the vernal pools uh you know little ways off site have been incorporated into the decision uh I I asked him um how they knew about the vernal pools um and he really did not tell me he said he assure me they didn't know about them uh since I had that conversation with him I received uh or I was CCD on an email from someone else at natural heritage biologist who's in charge of certifying vernal pools he I was cced on an email uh to Joel and Ruth Luna so you know obviously they they had submitted the information for certification to natural heritage um you know I don't I I don't know if if if the biologist I spoke with knew about that and was and just wasn't telling me um but uh they obviously natural heritage someone in natural heritage knows about them and in fact uh in that email um that biologist that person said that the at least one Vernal pool had been approved for certification so I assume that's the one that's closest to the project site um second question um my understanding is that your office hasn't pass decisions and CH required a a locked chain link fence to be installed to protect priority habitat for nestling Turtles um and in fact I have verified that uh that office natural heritage did require a lock chain link fence for a project at 234 riverneck Road um which was built chain chaining fence was installed and it's it's unlocked I guess a couple times a year for a consultant to get in and uh survey for nessing Turtles uh in view of such past decisions would your office consider amending the current decision to require a chain link fence instead of the currently proposed post and rail fence so the biologist the biologist answer to that question was he was not involved in that earlier project um he he indicated that that office did not have um a problem in at least in principle with the commission requiring a chain link fence um for protection he he would he would um want to make sure you would want it to be reviewed by you know herbologist or or some expert to make sure that it was not it would not impede tural migration well sort of the whole point of the fence would be to imper impede Turtle migration into dangerous areas um but but but but you know I more I have more to say on this later um is part of the review of my proposed conceptual uh special conditions um so so uh we'll we'll talk about this one a little more um third one although the applicants representative has not provided the Conservation Commission with a copy of the draft Declaration of restriction he stated during the hearing that it will apply only to paral elect shown on the attached plan would your office consider amending the current decision to require that the de Declaration of restriction also applied a lot four or at least the portion of it located within the 100 foot Wetland SM zone so he too told me that he would send me a copy of the Declaration of restriction and never did I don't know why it's so difficult to get a copy of that um but in any case he he he said he said no that they they would not consider amending um that uh the Declaration of restriction they don't they don't he said that they don't like to deal with individual small Lots in that manner and they said parel X is relatively large so from their perspective it made sense to do that um this this this is another uh one though that again I've I've I've included that um doing an additional restriction on lot four in my in my proposed conceptual um special conditions and so we'll talk a little bit more more about that as well when when we get to that point which I guess is than the next bullet uh finally finally the N the last one the commission has also concerned that there has been significant disturbance and alteration of priority habitat on the site over the past several years that was made without the approval of your office was this unapproved PRI disturbance taken into account in the current decision and again his answer without much of any elaboration was yes but again you didn't really go into detail about how it was um you know figured into their decision okay I guess not exactly the most satisfying uh interaction but um it is what it is yeah uh and you can't I don't I don't think there's an appeal but uh you can't that's it right uh right I don't I don't think there's um there's much more that um you know information or you know help for lack of a better word that we'll get from that office okay so next on there is for you to discuss your proposed conceptual special conditions yes um so this is uh as as I mentioned before um the first one was a lock chain link fence instead of the proposed split rail fence for permanent per permanent Turtle protection you know I don't know that this needs to be um on either or um at least from the commission's perspective I I I assume that from the applicant's perspective that the split it's a it's maybe an issue of Aesthetics um with regard to the split rail fence but you know it's certainly little doubt in my mind that it does not offer well I so I don't even think the purpose of it is to protect the turtles C certainly does not offer the um the kind of protection that a lock chain link fence would um but but you know there's I think there's an issue here with um you know location certainly the proposed um split rail rail fence is located outside the buffer zone it's located outside of really any um areas under the commission's jurisdiction so you know obviously the question is would would would the commission does the commission have the legal authority to require a chain link fence either either to replace um the proposed split rail fence or maybe possibly in in a an alternative location um but I but I think uh in in any case you know at least some of it would be outside areas not under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission so I think I think you know ra rather than and and and I think the at the last hearing you know Brian correct me if I'm wrong I I think that it was stated that the applicant would not be willing to do a chain link fence so I think I think um that that really a consultation before before the commission should attempt to require that a a consultation with Town Council needs needs to be made um and and I think there are probably you know three or four in interrelated questions here uh I think I think certainly one question the first question would be can can the um commission require a chain link fence um you know out out in areas outside of the buffer zone or other areas under its jurisdiction yes or no and if the answer is no then maybe the next question is well can the commission peer review the the proposed um or I mean maybe may maybe it would end up being you know peer reviewing natural heritage decision but but but with a thought of you know is there is there additional protection that can be offered for the turtles in in particular uh a chain link fence um and if if if just say for the sake of discussion here if the answer to that question is yes then then um then if if the commission did get a peer review of that and and the the result was or the report came back from whoever consultant was hired that with recommendations yeah this this this this a chain link fence or something would better protect the turtles at that point can the commission then or require a um the the fence if if the result appear said yeah that's that's really um what should be done to protect the turtles I mean you know I think I think if if if it were possible that the commission could require that it would be much more likely to be under the bylaw because the bylaw does does explicitly say that the commission has to protect rare species habitat so so those are you know I can I can think a little bit more about that before I actually talk to count Town Council but I think those are the kinds of questions that um should be asked of Town Council okay um so uh next one is uh restoration of wooded habitat in the 100 foot buffer zone uh maybe I'll just bring up um this plan here um so so commission recalls that that this plan actually does show um the Upland habitat um um if you look really closely you can say it's the U it's you can see the uh Flags um so it it it would just be a matter I mean it's not rocket science it would be just a matter of um doing some some Restoration in between those flags and the buffer zone of course because of course the commission really can't go uh outside it's the buffer zone or it's or its regulatory jurisdiction um and and and in this particular case it it would be really for the benefit of the Vernal pool Critters because again has been stated uh over and over again that the Vernal pool Critters live in you know outside of Vernal pool season live in Upland habitat Upland wooded habitat so it would just be a matter of requiring um in in the order of conditions requiring submission of uh a restoration plan for this area of the buffer zone uh well between 100 fet and the Upland habitat um you know it's a relatively small area it's again it's some it should be something that you know um a wetland botanist could do or or even even an arborous could do that you know to to to suggest um you know appropriate Upland um tree species um uh and then uh the next one is additional restriction document for lot four uh which which is of course this this lot right here um you know I've uh and I've done that that sort of thing in other towns it wouldn't be a full-blown chapter 184 restriction that like we're going through with Warren Pole or kolis um it would it would be short of that it would it would be more like uh some sometimes what the the Board of Health in in in towns with Title 5 systems I don't know maybe maybe you know it's done in this town as well in certain situations but like like a deed restriction that then gets recorded in the chain of title on the property again I can I I I can certainly I've I've I've drafted those sorts of things in other in other towns um it could certainly do that in in this case Cas you know maybe with the help of Town Council um I I think I I mean it would there would also be you know a Perpetual condition or conditions in the order of conditions that refer to you know The Bu The the buffer zone never being disturbed um in on this lot but again I think I think it would be just just as much to make the land the the the owners the future owners aware of it to have to have uh another document uh in addition to it that gets recorded um in the chain of title on the property and then the the next one is uh you know I didn't I I didn't really in in in the natural heritage um letter approving it I mean I really didn't see much of anything that pertains to monitoring reporting of you know um you know use use of the the nesting area or the proposed nesting area um now maybe maybe they have something in mind I don't know that they didn't include um but I but I but I think we do have precedent for that um already with 93 brick Hill and road I think it would be U essentially the same conditions I think there was there was a fiveyear monit Ing and Reporting uh period you know um uh after after construction of the teral nesting area with thing things uh you know in information like um you know species using it um you know conditions at the time um you know I I go back and review that and maybe maybe work with um your office as well on that so okay all right Brian do you have uh any comments or questions or anything to present um for the record Brian good than associes not really what I had uh passed out was the latest plan of the subdivision was back from October uh I believe Dave David couldn't find that I did not have that now so he has it now I resent the PDF and he asked that I bring those copies so it's it hasn't been changed since October we haven't we haven't done anything since then um and then we just got these these potential conditions today I haven't had a chance to talk with our team about it uh my only ask would be uh if you're talking to Town Council about the fence I would also bring up the requirements for the turtl nesting monitoring because that also falls outside of jurisdictional areas and that's covered by the natural heritage no and not not completely Brian here's the let me where's the plan I I would still request the Town Council o Pine on sure jurisdiction but I mean you you can you can see right here that a good chunk of the nesting area which is down here right mhm that's in bordering land subject to flooding flood flooding correct so that is well within the commission's regulatory jurisdiction at least geographically but yeah I I I will also please counil about that and that that's it no no other comments or questions at this time okay questions from the commission John do you have anything right now I think with this chain link fence where are we talking behind lot four uh well it just uh if it I mean optimally it it would go uh completely um around the abound the the rare species habitat which is this this line right here like that um as as I say that's that's optimally so but again I think I would I would recommend that the commission get some kind of expert opinion on on recommendations for you know the exact location of the fence because I thought there was a fence behind that single house a split rail fence or something uh just talked about that that that may be true um you know but again a split rail fence is not going to really keep the turtles from like going into the lawn or o o over here going in to the culdesac um you know the or the road um so that's that's the that is the concern you said some of it's outside the buffer zone that chain link fence uh yeah I mean I could I mean just this right this right here is the proposed split rail fence right so so so just again for the sake of discussion if if that if that were uh replaced with a chain link fence yeah that is outside that's outside the B it's it's outside the flood plane um so the commission may not be able to actually require anything there in the absence of an agreement from the applicant but I mean just just for the sake of thoroughness anything else just like to verify that you know maybe I mean I you know the commission might be able to require split FR split rail FRS running along the flood plane like that um I'm not sure that's in the best interest of the turtles and you know I'm not sure that makes much sense so um well the split rail fence behind that house was just to delineate that's what I the area where people yeah yeah that was that that's a primary purpose for that now this is something different with the turtles right this is this is to keep the turtles from going up into the road into into yards where you know they might be uh removed moved and disposed of um well well it's the nesting thing they tend to go Upland into our backyards and and lay eggs and then we mow them over especially these rare species are particularly migratory um and and as I say and I will point it out to Town Council that there is precedent for requiring a split rail fence of course that was natural hairy that did that I'm sorry a chain link fence of course that was natural heritage and you know they of course do have that kind of authority yeah all right so hope that answers your question John anything else could you do a little could you do some of the chain link and the area outside our jurisdiction the split split rail or not even a split rail anything outside our jurisdiction no offense yeah it's did not it I I mean I I don't I don't think the commission I think just about guarantee the commission would not have the the that Authority unless unless there's a compelling reason if at all for protecting them commission is required to produ rare species well what makes it worked is being contiguous yeah yeah so you're going to have to find that out yeah yeah and now these septic systems that that's all been designed or approved approved uh septic systems have been designed designed and submitted to the Board of Health uh we have not received approvals okay so we're waiting on that can I ask why they haven't been approved [Music] yet do they have issues okay I get it well there's that letter that chord water wrote I know but I haven't had a response from that yeah I yeah I don't know the answer and I think excuse me they're also aren't they also doing that contamin ation study followup Board of Health so maybe that I can't answer for the Board of Health but those two are somewhat they not totally related but it's related to the site creating a problem for water let's keep going around John any anything else no I was just wondering about the septic systems yep if they've been approved y because that that's a major factor it's a big deal what's a big deal I'm good I got Mark anything else Chris anything no let's get that legal input I think that's important yeah okay Peter anything else yeah I'd like to just share that if I were living there I would consider the chain link fence excessive but I would also consider building houses in endangered spey habitat excessive and that is sort of a compromise I wouldn't like it but I think that's the right thing if we're trying to protect Turtles the second thing yeah David I kind of agree the leaf litter and the trees is important um I do want to make a comment the natural heritage letter you have to forgive me I worked a lot with attorneys in my life the natural heritage letter unfortunately has a huge deficiency that we're probably not going to spend time thinking about but I got to say this it says here's our determination based on the information submitted to us and we have no idea what information was submitted and I know you talked about that with this whole thing about did they know about the Vernal pool or not but that's why the response you got from natural heritage does concern me because they didn't actually say clearly we did consider the Vernal pool and we know that the information submitted to us initially did not have a consideration for there being a Vernal pool so I just want to point that out I don't know where to go with that but that does concern me about the language in the letter well I mean that's as I mentioned earlier that might be a question for Town Council does you know to what extent if any does the commission have the authority to peer review the natural heritage um decision and and I mean this is a form letter basically right right and and and i' like to just Express an opinion having worked with natural heritage I me if they really looked at this and decided no big deal I'm perfectly fine with that I'm not second guessing that I'm just saying when a letter says hey here's what I think based on the information given to me and you don't know what information was given to him and you know I know it's a form letter and I'm probably fighting City Hall here so I'll keep going um again I just want to say this um there were alterations in the to this property before this development plan the tree cutting and other things that did um I guess violates the right word um the natural heritage designation and some of our own bylaws and I don't know what this commission wants to do in the case where you have an applicant that clearly comes to us with an existing violation and we've been talking about violations in general so maybe it's more of a question of what's our policy going forward but I just want to mention that and don't want to go any further at this point um and then the final comment I've got a few I've had a few discussions with residents concerning flooding and Dave I just I know I've asked you this privately and I've read the rags but I want to be clear this commission's responsibility on flooding is limited to the FEMA flood zone Zone and we believe and Brian's been been good about explaining this we believe I think correct that the flooding based on the FEMA flood zone line and based on the engineering calculations that are required our current best data says um we're okay but we know it's raining harder and we know there's evidence from the residents of flooding my read and David am I correct there's not much this commission can do because we are limited to the existing FEMA floodline and we're kind of limited to the standard engineering CS that don't account for increased rainfall have I got that correct the ladder is correct but but I think I'll just please correct you a little bit with regard to the former so so so the the the commissions um legal jurisdiction doesn't doesn't extend any further than the 100-year flood plane however you know it can can C it can certainly extend into the five-year flood plane or the 10-year flood plane um so so if if if there is if there is evidence brought to this commission that say a certain area of the buffer zone is flooding every two years or every five years the the the commission uh C certainly can um you know take that into consideration in any decision um it it it it makes because if if you recall and it's one of the nine interests um is is is um protection of flooding see check off the boxes in order of conditions where it says that the commission has determined that the area of the proposed work is um play plays a role in these nine interests you know flooding protection from flooding or control of flooding being one of them um but I but I I think that um and correct me if I'm wrong Brian or feel free to add to it I think you have looked extensively at this haven't you and and and youve spoken to uh work work with DPW on this there there there does not appear to be any any evidence or any calculations that show that that the buffer zone um or is is is to frequent flooding even though we did we did get I think one video from under the Neighbors which which showed um I know several years ago you know de definitely flooding um of some air of of an area down near the wetlands I don't want to belor this but this is the problem all everything's set up for a certain amount of flooding based on historical data and it's raining harder but our Rags aren't really set up to address that so my I'm still wrestling with what do we do do with that because we can't go beyond our legal obligation which is based on Old rainfall data and it's not just our problem it's a problem everywhere every commission buy up buy up houses that are repeated repeatedly flooding but but I I don't think there's much more we can do in the regulations okay thank you I'm done so David you have a list of questions for the uh Town Council and that's where we're at at the moment and we want to hear those was the outcome of that discussion so okay um it is an open hearing I would be willing to take a couple of uh resident questions or citizen comments if that's of interest to anyone and I see movement so I guess so not surprised hello Linda Carney at 17 Tor Street and 19 Plum Street and I want to thank Peter for bringing back up the pro problem that we have with the trees that were taken down before this even started because we are firm Believers in our neighborhood that the lack of tree roots that were taken out is the reason for the flooding and that needs to be considered and I would would invite you and respectfully request you to revisit the findings that you had discussed at the beginning about either accessing fines for those trees that were taken down to the current homeowner or requiring replacement of hardwood trees thank you kind okay thank you Paul wood 16 Hiller Street I guess this is more of a clarification for me uh David you that picture you had of the M of the lot that's want understand what you're jurisdictional um one so do I understand this 100 foot uh buffer zone for the Vernal pool you have jurisdiction up to that point yeah it's it's it's actually the buffer zone of the bordering vegetated Wetlands within which the Vern pool is Lo so there is no that do I understand that you could just require Ching the defense that part not in whatever you know then there'll be up to a fight over here um yeah I would I I would agree with that and and but I'll definitely confirm that with with reason I'm bringing it up is um I just want to protect the area as much as possible because things have come up over this whole last year I know one of the big issues was at one point they couldn't do lot four unless you asked the planning board maybe maybe give them a variance on the road so they can push the the house away cuz they couldn't do without it they a't the variance and the house showed up so I think they played you a little bit um so i' I'd be very careful that's all that's what my only opinion is thank you hello um Christy wood 16 H Street um just a question um what is the expanded open sand area that's just um something that we're not quite sure if maybe you could well I I assume that's propos that's going to be a proposed Nest nesting area correct BR okay all right thank you okay are we expecting uh this would be at our next meeting or do you think it would take longer well I might as well continue to uh next meeting 28 see if that doesn't work out can we um but but but I but I I I I I would like to keep it open in any case to have a little a little bit uh you know better drafting of the special conditions y aged we'd like to review those okay all right so if you get a draft before then it would be good to get it out but I'll try yeah okay great take a motion to continue to continue this hearing until our next meeting which is January 28th 2025 motion from Chris second second from Bill all favor I I do have one question can we somehow get this hearing earlier in the evening next time we come back please these folks I mean they they if we get them in a little bit earlier it would be I'm sure they would appreciate it and Brian and Brian too right don't worry about me don't worry about Brian all right good good request Chris thanks all right you're welcome good night happy New Year everyone all right the people that is the end of our regulatory session we still have a few more topics so let's keep going uh discussion so David you um so just to frame this the speaking of the Board of Health the Board of Health has um contracted to do a gap analysis on the um well go ahead you you describe it David go ahead uh sure so I don't I don't think we need to go into a lot of detail right now um exactly what the Gap analysis is I I think um members should have some idea but in in any case um the the the consultant um that the health department has hired for the analysis wants to speak with uh Town boards and commissions to get input about what the boards and commissions are looking for um and and his uh initial question is you know what is the process is it that um to have a meeting of the full board to talk about that um or to designate like a couple members uh to meet with him and so that they they can give him his his input in that kind of a setting and then and then come back and report to the full board him being the consultant or the Board of Health no the consult the consultant do the water districts should be involved in that um I believe so they are in the scope okay so so says they are yeah I think I think he'll be reaching out to them if he hasn't already to talk to them I know I know he's reached out to the planning board you the planning board discussed or made a the same decision last week um but I I think this is a really good opportunity for board members to let him know what they want to see to address I think what everyone feels were deficiencies during the course of some of these more recent projects you know dealing dealing with contamination I I I would personally recommend that a couple members meet with him um CU I could easily see it going you know an hour um at least and I don't know that we need we need to take up I think a couple hours it's going to go more than that man it could be and I don't I don't complicated I don't see the need to take up you know uh I would in any event I would not make it part of one of our normal meetings that if if we were to decide we want all of us it would have to to me it would have to be a special meeting but but you want to do it I'll do it with you sure I I will but I also want to say like we did this once before and I know some people on the commission felt left out I think so whatever we do let's make sure everyone at this dos is happy and so maybe if it is a private meeting maybe there's I think we might have done this before but we got to keep the rest of the Commission in lock step with what's going on sub so they can and so they can commit so they can contribute it's a one time right it's it's it's a one time me it's a one time meeting one time I'm I'm fine with that you know like a one time thing you know well I think we're trying to get rid of the ambiguity nobody knows what's going on with a lot of items right and and let me just add it may be a one time right but we have to have a feedback mechanism either before that meeting I I want to be sure everyone's happy that's all that they're getting what they want during the process I mean and then as well as so just to frame the the question this is all about protecting the um the aquafer aquifer uh protection and so it's in the area of we talked about septic tanks it's in the area of pasas contamination it's all of these things that talk about that and we we saw in the 270 Bela road we saw in a couple of other places I think I forget where the other one was we had uh the um all of them yeah I mean we see contamination risk of contamination my concern when I think about this is you know we're ched as a Conservation Commission to protect the water and then when it's contaminated it's like I'm sorry you got to go to the mCP in the state and you can't do anything like what like you know that to me is that's so there's my feedback um but it's that kind of thing that we don't have the the bite that we should have so that that's that's where I you know so I'm I'm good with not doing it with the whole board um personally but if I if I could add so I'm not the guy they picked um I do not know but he's a licensed site professional their whole thing is regulations not just the thing called the mCP but when they have a project they're working on they've got to look at all the regulations including Town ones so when I read the that this fellow wrote I I felt very comfortable having you know been in that part of the business that he not only understood kind of what we were trying to do but there were four or five places where I said this guy either talk to somebody or really understand some of our issues you know it wasn't just a perfunctory scope it really looked like somebody had thought about the challenges a municipality like ours face if not our exact one so I felt pretty comfortable personally with the scope the only point is we need to be sure you framed it very well that we get input and get this thing resolved so we don't have to spend all this time wrestling when we have contamination or or whatever right so so again I so we need a piece of it so I think you really need to take advantage of this opportunity to tell this guy what you want to see in terms of well let's just say nominally you know uh additional legal authority to make certain requirements of applicants so so if I could make a proposal um if we decide to go with just a couple of us let's be sure I don't know if it's part of our hearing or offline or separately but let's make sure we get your thoughts about what what's Driven we just like we did last spring right what's driving you nuts about the process what information would you like to see or you what whatever whatever it is that you need yeah we got to be careful though that's a that may be a violation of the open meeting law well not if we do not if we advert if we uh post it well but I but I think I think one of it's not a hearing though it's not there's not well but I think I think one one of the main reasons for doing it so that it doesn't have to be posted and you know there aren't these other constraints so I think I think I think it would I think it's more a matter of do the other commission members have enough confidence have enough trust in whoever designated to be able convey to the consultant you know the concerns the priorities I feel comfortable with Peter if Peter wants to be involved or any Mark you're perfect but I don't think we all need to yeah I I definitely want to be involved in it whether I do it myself or with you somebody else that's fine all right Mark with with the water department he understands from that point of view excellent yeah all right I me I think the two people would go do the meeting then come back back and report to the full body right yes he knows the questions he he's okay he's pro at it I'm good with that I'm seeing nodding I'm I'm okay yeah so they would go meet have the meeting and then come back report to all of us and so why don't we say yeah we'll have Peter and Mark organize with the consultant to have a sit-down meeting and go go through this if any of us have specific concerns send them to let's say send them to Peter and mark the way I look at it is this all came up with uh 270 270 B rer Road and and uh brick Hill Road and also down here the car wash the car wash too yeah it was quite a few so you know we would we didn't know where we stood or who had the answers to what what's the Board of Health part of this what's the planning boards part of this are we overlapping them are we fighting with you know but butting heads with each other right A big one is two 3 riverneck Road right right right and and I think I don't know if we can talk about it per se Carl and I don't want to go on a big tangent it's getting late but um I have thought about this and one of the big questions that will come up eventually I think is do we need to do anything with our rigs or our bylaws certainly internal communication within the town but if that's if that's the kind of you thing you think should be done you got to tell this guy that's what I'm emphasizing exactly but that comes back to this commission so when would this be take place in the next couple weeks well so so the way the process would be work is what is that I would contact the guy saying you know so you know two these two members from the commission have been designated to to have this meeting with you and presumably I will be there as well and then we can just go ahead and schedule I mean you're both generally available during the day right the only you could have some questions at our next meeting just to say this is the bullet point so we're going to talk but we have an appointment with this guy we should shouldn't we I think he wants to have it before the next meeting I think he wants oh he is under contract you probably know is he under contract yes he is okay well let's do and and and my definite sense from him is that he wants to proceed as quickly as possible email at bu send send email I think that's fine yeah yeah if we need District meeting tomorrow so I'll bring that up and make yeah ask them ask them what they think yeah but um you can do two meetings one with them we have concerned about open meeting we can read those the questions out in the meeting me just no deliberations via email no no deliberations but no deliberations as a full Comm as more than a quorum yeah you just don't want to be passing you know discussing it back and forth in email I mean you can certainly send emails with questions exactly you can certainly do that that in yeah right but but for example Mark and I can have dialogue by email yeah yeah or coffee or if we you're not a COR yeah so so Mark when did you say that you're not not available in general uh I'm not available from the 4th to the 9th or 10th something like that of next month I'll be in Florida then okay well I I think the meeting is going to happen before then okay before the 4th yeah so but if it's before our next meeting it's January before January 28th so right I'm sure he'll propose a couple of times and okay just watch your email or whatever okay I think and and again I think my goal is to I hope it saves the whole commission time down the road good that would be right Mark my goal to like make this more clear so we don't have to spend so much time on it I don't want to be looking can we do that or is that going to be okay or is are they putting surage in or are they going with the septic system right I we do we we want to be able to address and say no that can't be done I feel like we all our meetings last year were extended a few couple extra meetings each because we didn't have the answer to some of these things so we were circling back we were yeah yeah we had silos separate silos we're not really so if we get beyond that CU I don't think any meeting should go like these last ones did last year crazy to unless Chris is running them then they're quicker 20 minutes 20 minutes but you know but but Bill I've reflected on that and you got to admit the reason they went long is the town had not really been confronted with this no I agree with you because it wasn't on the radar it was all new everybody all right let's keep moving let's keep moving we made a decision we got Peter and mark thank you both very much for stepping up here appreciate it and David organized that so let's keep moving on Land Management uh uh update on the coolest farm well there's under continual business I oh sorry oh yes continue business so um so the um last email I got from the surveyor was that they they had uh completed um the research and field work uh they completed the the research on all the parcels they were they were going to be doing the field work for one of them I forget exactly which one it was uh they were going to be doing that last week um followed by the other two Parcels after that was that before the snow yes yes hope hopefully um and uh so I I hav I haven't gotten any um status updates since then so you know assuming they they did do the field work for uh the one particular partial last week and that maybe they were planning to do the other two this week um so once so once that's done then they'll they'll be able to provide us with paper plans or or plants and then and then it's it's then up to the commission to decide things like uh you know permanent monumentation you know where where where does the commission want that Perman monumentation to be located what kind of permanent monumentation um those are all things that uh topics of future discussion doing the work who's doing the survey it's it's Hancock Associates is um so speaking of that there we there is an invoice from them uh for uh $1,197 um you know I I think that the the annual the annual appropriation reservation management account can accommodate this ultimately there's not enough in in the account for the full $15,000 estimated total cost so at some point we'll have to I think we'll have to go to an alternative um you know account you know I'll talk to Paul about that but uh in any case the commission needs to authorized payment of this and that's for the field work uh no this is this is is uh the initial research and set up a project you talking about this invoice yeah so this step one yeah so I don't think this does include any field work okay that will come getting we'll be getting another invoice for that 15,000 total they that's that's the total project cost how many for how many Lots three three do you need a motion then for okay so I'll take a motion yeah I moved Carl that the commission approved the invoice that we have received in the from Hancock Engineering in the amount of $1,197 second motion from Chris second from Peter all in favor I I motion passes thank you um okay um David you want to give us an update on kouis as well um so um that's that's proceeding um I say the the main thing report is is that we did get the Baseline documentation report back from um the consultant working on that uh that's been forwarded to subury Valley trustees who's uh I think more more or less um you know at this point in um is proposed to accept the the CR um you know some of some of the additional things we're working on are like um the uh the site assessment the environmental site assessment you know uh some kind of a boundary survey uh for for that um so no Milestones but things are moving along okay all right and on Warren pole I heard there was a milestone there was uh pleased to report that that uh the CR has finally been submitted to the state nice how long it will take them is anybody's guess at this point that is a long it's a long haul that's bad was we're not done well no I mean they could they could definitely have changes that they want to see so I don't think I don't think it'll be all the way back to the drawing board it's still a big milestone though I'm getting confused who's the trustee now or will be for Warren pole yeah that's the land trust conservation and the grante and the grante rather I'm sorry and the the periodic inspections they would do that that would be do they do those though before it's approved like if it takes the state 3 years to approve it does that mean nobody's going to be looking at how we're doing on the boundaries and and meeting the CR um yeah yeah I mean yeah although but the bdr was done by an cpra a year ago on that it's about a year yeah and there's going to be another bdr as well for the meadow for the meadow yeah yeah yeah okay well just something to think about but if it hangs at the state for a long time but you can certainly go out yourself and check the boundaries and I could violations if you want you're welcome to Rather somebody else did it gives you gives you an opportunity to get out let's keep moving so that's good I don't know of anything else at waren pole there's nothing else um I'm trying to think there was something else I wanted to mention uh but I'm forgetting another Land Management something somewhere but uh I'm not sure why so Littleton storage container uh so that has been removed um happy to report that but but the the owner did say um and he sent me an email saying well but here's like half a dozen other properties where there storage containers near the wetlands um and so I mean he strongly implied he want to see he wanted to see the commission take action on those I don't know how you want to handle it you send that list to all of us yeah I I I I buy one of these and get eyes see any other containers um on other properties yeah uh no Nei I I saw I saw one you did I haven't really been looking for any send the list to us and you know we we like to drive around and we'll keep our eyes open and and I you know I want to take it seriously if there's a if there's really something that we should be looking at I'm all all in and a certain sizes exempt or not well well exempt from a requirement for a permit from the building not exempt from commission regulations and and one thing that you guys all know but might be worth mentioning that a lot of those backyards you can see from the bike trail because you when you drive by you can't see all the backyard I'm not sure he's talking necessarily about Littleton Road only it could be anywhere in town that he's I I don't know't seen he's included the addresses um I think some of them are in Littleton Road but not all of them okay so I I would just move forward on the the assumption that at some point I'm going to hear from him again you know the commission anything about these are we comfortable in responding by saying yeah good point but we have no evidence or when we have evidence somebody Reon the reason why his particular thing came up was because they working in the wetlands yeah so shouldn't we simply push back a little bit I mean he's right it wasn't that we went looking for it you know that's right so I would phrase it you know when we have evidence of wetland violations we take a look at it and and what he's saying is I'm giving you the evidence yes is the list well then tell him to give us the names of the locations yeah he didn't give names he gave addresses oh and you know my point is send us the list we can all check them out cover you know there's something wrong with a man's character it's caught at something and Blows the Whistle to other people I'm not going to argue that but if somebody's bringing us however it gets to us and it's a it's a legitimate complaint we should look at it yep but but I mean I mean you just I mean it might be something yeah that's right near the wetlands but it might might have been there for 50 years so you know there are other things you got to take into account and it might not be any impact like plowing in the wetlands so but I don't have a problem with let's let's take a look at it we don't I don't want to burden David with it but um I think take least few out yeah if it's in your neighborhood or you're in that area and you got the list you know take a look but but a reminder do not go on someone's private property just just a statement you know okay and and pictures would help too if if if you see something that's questionable so uh we have uh anything else on agents report David that was all you had listed okay and finally approval for Signature we have our uh wonderful Vivian has been cranking away uh I think there's only one left that's open right yep okay 10 we're almost with a clean New Year so awesome we're we're we're right there thank you very much so we've had these uh October 8th is the first one um I get a question on October 8th yep page four it said that I asked whether the state was planning on fixing the celv on it says dunai drive it's supposed to say 3A Toro Road sboro Road 3A yeah good point yeah y yeah the state wouldn't do it on D share no that's yeah good point some have been fixed by the town so you get that right Vian yeah that's that's all take a motion to approve the minutes for October 8th oh this was the nibby meeting yeah was almost attacked that I I think we had more people watching that meeting than any other meeting in our history was can we have him back have Jane come back that was quite the meeting we may do some more stuff like that we may do something yeah we should we should yeah not not an hour but you know one a lady that had a hawk really a hawk day I was there for the hawk day that was really impressive all right all right can I bring a Chickity bird SE in your pocket might bring a willow tree in sometime I'll bring a squirrel seeds willow tree seedlings wait wait bring a willow tree up guys let's let's focus let's get these meeting minutes closed off here anyone want to make a motion on October 8th Move Motion from Bill second from Mark all in favor i s i with the change noted next one October 22 eer was absent uh the presentation on Botanical survey at cranbery bog mark recused on a couple of things recused okay I'll take a motion move to approve the minutes of October 22nd 2024 motion from Chris second from Bill all in favor I motion passes November 12 this is the uh let's do the executive session first so let's be careful on this one this was although at this point it's we talked about it in public so but we did have a um roll call vote so we did that right um we had the summmer summary of The Situation from the attorney um I think all of that was accurate that uh Vivan captured there um we had a summary of actions at the end we had a motion by Bill to file for a search warrant we had a motion to adjourn I confirmed that attorney weissfeld was the only person in the room with him um that's that's actually a a zoom executive session Zoom requirement which I learned so we did all that I move that we approve the executive session minutes of November 12 20124 motion from David from you want to release them sorry do you want to release them or not yeah I think we can release them there you can do the motion can be approve and release I move that we approve and release the executive session minutes of November 12th 2024 motion from Chris second from Mark all in favor all I I November 12th regular session nobody was absent we were all here talked about Willis drive we talked about crooked spring with trees well I'll tell you I was at Crooked spring uh yesterday and um the sledding hill there is getting a lot of lot of use this is right on the oh yeah right near where all the trees are down all all the the Deadwood but they boy you could tell there were kids there I talked to one of the neighbors he said oh there were kids all over the place on Sunday oh yeah that's great it's great lot of disc approve I move to approve the minutes of um the regular meeting minutes of November 12 2024 motion from Chris second from John all in favor I I okay motion passes and finally we have December uh I'm sorry November 266 yeah uh Peter was absent um I have to say I you do a great job thank you does a great job and decorate that's my need for drugs but whatever and decorated the common I move to Mr chairman that we approve the meeting of November 26 2024 motion from Chris second from John again all in favor I I and that is the approval is passed and that is the end of our I meeting can I add a Land Management thing if I take 30 seconds uh okay 30 seconds um I just wanted to share with the commission members in case you want to weigh in uh I've been working with Christine CL on a scope of work for the tree and invasive study that was authorized by town meeting nice and I'd be happy to inform everybody privately or through this forum uh but Carl had a great idea to use crooked spring Christine wants to do roads I want to be clear that was one suggestion and has a great IDE a great idea for crooked spring so I'm going to advance that it's it's Christine's project Christine Clancy she's our tree Warden um and she sponsored the thing with how many with Paul con but she is interested in uh something related to conservation in addition conservation in addition to the roadways that she wants to look at trees so if you have any thoughts let me know but I'm I'm going I'll just say the reason I threw crooked spring out there as a as a site is that it has a number of different uh distinct uh invasives it's got uh Japanese knotweed it's got fragm might in the wetlands both of those near the wetlands in the wetlands and it's got plenty as all of our sites have plenty of Bittersweet um and it's very much on the road and visible to the to the street all of those all of those areas most of the Inland part of that site although the fragm myties are Inland um are visible from the road and that to me is kind of a a good thing to make that site more visible you know if if if there's some activity done through this uh through this project so anyway that was my my thought so hopefully that's to put a finer point on it the Town Master plans calls for doing invasive studies um and the town is responding by this money that was authorized when do you think you have the S so already um well it here's the thing it's it's drafted okay but Christine hasn't put her stamp on it okay and I sense it's going to go out to bid fast so why don't I if you'd like to see it I'd like to see it yeah yeah I'd love input um I worked with um um going to pronounce his name wrong Bob kot uh who's a EPA PhD person retired recently has started to work on some of this stuff as sort of just resident at large and he's been helping me with the scope um so we put our thoughts together but yeah and I'll add the I'll add it love input thank you take a motion to Jour motion motion from Bill second from Bill all in favor I thank you Channel Su T media e e e