Well, good evening everybody. First item on our agenda is is Dave Powell's uh request for determination of applicability to imp improve uh drainage on his driveway. So, uh this is a continuation of
conversation that we had. It started in August and we're picking up on now. Uh Dave, I'll yield the floor to you. Uh uh so you can tell us uh where you're at and if you want I can share the uh the plan that you sent on my uh on the
screen. >> Um sure. Yeah, if you want to share that'd be fine. Um I'm also joined by Jeff Squire um who's going to sort of walk us through the plan. >> I can also let you share if you want Jeff. >> Sure. that that'd be actually great
because I've got a couple I've got one other slide that I could I could share that would help um the story as well. So, um >> yeah, Dave, I don't know whether you want to say anything, but um yeah, we my name is Jeff Squire. I'm with the Berkshire Design Group and um redamed by
Dave and his wife to um help them navigate the issues with their um you know, driveway challenges as you know. Um and so I'll just share this and just sort of talk through things briefly and
then um can answer any questions. So we went out and did a site visit um about a month ago um took some um you know some some record of of the existing conditions and spoke with our civil engineering crew um in the office to you
know gather their thoughts. We've had, you know, very similar projects to this um in a number of other towns. Um you know, there's a number of driveways like this. So, you know, really it's about the large um um why don't I go actually to the second slide and then I'll back
up to this one. Um I just move my screen here. Sorry. Um [Music] I know what I'm doing. Okay. Sorry. Just got to move my windows around here. Um,
>> so yeah. So, as you know, there's a there's a large amount of area lawn, house, um, and and stuff that contributes to the runoff that then collects and is concentrated in the driveway and is washing down, um, you know, down to the bottom of the hill and then eventually, you know, depositing
sediment and and gravel into the stream, which is right adjacent to that curb cut off of Haydenville Road. Um, and so, you know, what our assessment was really is that, you know, while the gravel driveway that was installed, you know,
may have been an improvement over the previous conditions, I'm not really aware of what those were, but um, and then there was an installation of a stone swale along the edge. There's still that large volume of water that, you know, ultimately, um, you know, especially during these larger storms at
the bottom of the driveway is concentrated. it's, you know, start starting to create ruts and um washing away a lot of the driveway. So, the strategy really was to try and armor this, you know, ex existing condition as best as possible and try to break up um
some of those, you know, water sheds to the extent that we could alleviate some of the pressure, you know, down at the end of the driveway where the biggest, you know, problems are occurring. And so the, you know, thought process was to to, you know, certainly widen that and
and, you know, make that stone swale along the edge of the driveway a little bit more robust. Um, but also try to, uh, install a couple of culverts that would at least divert some of that runoff, you know, and convert that to
sheet flow down this vegetated slope. um in a couple of locations. Um it seemed like, you know, this this one was a little bit challenging because it's it's relatively steep, but it did look like there were a couple of locations uh in the upper portion of the driveway that you could you could locate, you know, something. Um and then certainly lower
down there's um there's a sort of a flatter area um that would, you know, certainly be appropriate. But the idea being that you create a couple of little sediment, you know, pond areas where you could get a um, you know, a a a culvert
in underneath the driveway. And this is just sort of a an image that we found that was somewhat representative of what we were trying to convey, but um try to, you know, reduce the amount of water that ultimately ends up at the at the bottom of the driveway. And then the
other the other big component um was that um you know rather than gravel install um uh recycled asphalt you know essentially asphalt millings uh sherpack as it's otherwise known but that compacts a little bit better. It's a little bit more durable. It doesn't wash
away or have the you know tendency to move as much as the you know the existing gravel does. It's a step below, you know, paving it with asphalt, which um, you know, I can appreciate is is going to, you know, is going to command a top dollar these days, especially for
a driveway of this length. So, um, you know, the Sherpack is something that we have done and used in a lot of projects that, um, with a very similar situation, just to provide a much more, you know, stable driveway surface, um, and try to direct that runoff into a couple of
locations that are much more controlled. Um and then I think at the bottom of the hill obviously just we've got some space um to the left of the driveway to create a little bit larger of a you know stone settling basin to try to capture that water you know let try to let as much sediment
uh settle out as possible before before that over tops and gets into the um you know into the stream course. So that was um that was the gist of um you know our you know our suggestion our recommendation. There were some details
you know to to sort of document those um you know sort of um you know improvement areas but um that was that was the thought process. So happy to answer any questions or >> Okay. Well, uh, members of the
commission, if if you have questions, feel free to to pipe up. Or Kelly, if you have questions, feel free to jump in. I know I have some questions. So, Ann, did you got one? >> Uh, no, I don't have any questions at the moment.
>> Okay. I thought I saw you move as if you were going to speak. I have I have a question. Um >> Okay. >> Can you just um explain in a little more detail what the um discharge side of the culverts would look like?
>> Sure. So what we um what we were looking at um was a you know it'd be a similar you know outlet to the to this um you know at least the the flared end as it's called. Um it's a we're suggesting a 10-inch pipe. So it's not nearly as
large as what's shown here. Um but that idea and that at the outlet end there's a little you know there's a stone basin surrounded by you know a small stone basin. This is you know 4T I think we're suggesting um so there's a there's a place for that
water to to you know disperse a little bit. We are suggesting, you know, a concrete curb as a as a level spreader to avoid that water channelizing down the slope. Um try to spread that out and and disperse that, you know, into sheet
flow as as quickly as possible. Um but yeah, it's it would be, you know, somewhat similar to this with a with a very defined level edge for that water to overflow. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Sure.
One of my questions is what are you doing on the inlet side to make sure that you're capturing the water that's flowing down the edge of the driveway and that it doesn't bypass the inlet if it's really raining hard. So, what we're suggesting is um and it
may be not as well represented on the plan, but the idea that, you know, it at these inlet locations, there's a little bit more of an enlarged basin. You know, it has a little bit more depth than the swale. Um it's got a little bit more um
you know, width to it and, you know, really tries to direct that water. You're you're absolutely correct. And then in the huge storms, you know, there's there's there's a certain, you know, capacity that um that Culvert is going to have. So, you know, during the largest storm events during these, you
know, torrential downpours, um there may be, you know, some bypass. You know, the hope is that you divert as much as you can in these locations so that you minimize, you know, what does bypass, but that you, you know, you really try to create these as a, you know, as a
depression. It's going to it's obviously got to be lower because of the covert elevation under the driveway to get that you know below that surface. So, you know, just to begin with, it's you know, you're you're already 12 18 in deeper than, you know, the the trench that runs
alongside the driveway. So, that certainly creates a low point for that water to go. >> You have a sense of what size storm these 10-in pipes can uh transmit? Um, we could tell you what the maximum,
you know, capacity of those pipes is and try to translate that into a storm event. It's hard to without doing a real detailed, you know, watershed analysis, you know, we could we could, you know, provide some numbers, some estimates of,
you know, what that capacity is and and what sort of storm event, you know, it would take to fill that up. We could we could certainly do that. >> Yeah. I'm sort of interested. Do you have a gut feel for what it would be like, you know, more than five year storm?
>> Oh, certainly more than a fiveyear storm. Yes. >> Less than a 25, something like that. >> Yeah. I guess as a as a reference, you know, on larger commercial projects, you know, with a big expansive parking lot, most of the, you know, catch basin
piping, most of that drainage piping, um, is 12 or 15 in max. You know, it's not until you get to the main, you know, connections in the in the city street or something that, you know, those pipes get larger. So, you know, a 12-in pipe
is is, you know, pretty typical to handle most, you know, up to the 100red-year storm event. >> And we're suggesting a 10. So, just to put that in in some frame of reference. >> Okay. And then uh at the where the
driveway meets Haydenville Road, you've got a little stealing basin there, but then where does the water go from there? Does it cross over the road surface or how does it get into the stream? It would. Yeah. Imagine it would follow this this gutter line, you know, along the edge of the road and and do what,
you know, most of that road runoff does now. Well, I think one thing that we would like to see improved is not having water sheeting across the road because in the winter then creates icing conditions. Uh
what do you think that's still an issue with this design or is there a way to get it into the stream more directly? so that it doesn't sheet across the road. >> Um you we could certainly look at the possibility. I mean the only way to
resolve that would be a covert you know at the bottom of the driveway and that would result in an outlet you know closer toward the stream similar to you know what we proposing here. I think, you know, maybe it's a little bit larger just because of some of the runoff
coming from, you know, offsite and and the roadway >> um that we need to account for. So, this may be something that would be a 12-in culvert. It just Yeah, I think, you know, initially our our reaction was trying to minimize work close to the stream, but I can appreciate, you know,
the concern about that runoff. Yeah. >> What what questions would that be um under the highway super, you know, uh vision there where we're going to call it and would that affect the redevelopment there, Scott, that they're
going to do on Haydenville Road with the re, you know, they're going to is that in that section where they're going to pay, you know, change pave and change culverts. >> Yeah, interesting question. Um yeah, so they are proposing to do a significant project of re improving
storm water management and in some cases expanding Aiden Hayden Road. Um I guess there must be an existing culvert if that's accurately depicted there. >> I remember there's a big like I think
it's good like 48. It was a huge covert like right in where the stream it goes into the stream. It was a really big culvert. >> Yeah. It crosses like diagonally. It's very large. I'm not sure >> what the diameter is. 48 tons, right? >> Mhm.
>> And so, but if you were to do like a 12 inch there, you'd be discharging at the downstream side of that culvert. Correct. >> Uh, yes. Yeah. I mean, at least in what we've been talking about so far, um, you know, it's if they're planning to
replace that culvert or do some work there would, you know, I I would think it would be certainly worth connecting with them to see if there isn't a way that we couldn't, you know, dovetail the, you know, the goals of both projects to improve this culvert and to try and, you know, improve the drainage
going into it. There may be a better way to rather than creating two culvert outlets, you know, combine the two or somehow, you know, develop a more creative strategy that, you know, we could we could piggyback on their work.
>> Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's probably a good idea because it it could get really complicated if you set things up for the what the current situation is and then in a year or two the whole thing it gets
changed. >> Um, so I guess yeah, my feeling is is that I think the rest of what you presented looks okay to me. the my lingering concern is about the bottom of the hill
uh where it meets Haydenville Road and getting that water to avoid it sheeting over the road because you know I would hate for us to permit something that creates a a hazard. >> Um and it would probably be better to work closer to the stream uh than it is
to let it you know sheet across the road. Uh, but I mean I can give you the name and contact information of the person who's working with doing the design work for the Haydenville Road project and I think it would probably be
worthwhile if you could talk to him and just get a sense of, you know, what you could fit in there that would not get in the way of what they're already planning to do. >> Yeah. No, we'd be happy to do that. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Are there other questions or comments from the commission? >> Oh, I'm all set. >> All right. So, um, Jeff, I'll give you the name and and phone number for the engineer that's doing this, one of the engineers that's counting it. It's Todd
Clark. Um, >> yep. Let me just find a Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh, Clark. Yep. and he's at Hil and Tanner and his phone number is um
let's see a T is telephone I guess 603 460 5152 Y >> and his cell phone is 603 8678809809
you said Uh 867. >> 867. Yes. >> Okay. Yep. >> 8809. >> And uh his his email address is tclanner.com. oiltanner.com. Okay, great. Well, I'll um yeah, I'll
try to reach out to him tomorrow and um yeah, see if we can't uh come up with a good solution. So, I've sort of expressed my opinion that if we can sort out what happens at the end of the driveway that that would probably satisfy me. But I want to ask
the rest of the commission what you think. Do you think this is something that's doable? That's something that you're comfortable permitting with a determination of applicability if they once we get to a final design. >> Yeah, I think this is a lot better design than was originally planned. I
think it takes care of most of the previous question we had for the other part of the driveway. And I agree with you, Scott, for just the trying to figure out the bottom part there so we don't cause an issue. >> Yeah, I'm all set, Scott. >> I'm good with it, too.
>> George can't hear you, George. Let's see. I guess if you can't if your mic's not working, can you put something in the chat? I don't even see a chat here.
>> Maybe stop sharing, Scott. I don't know if the chat function will come back up if you stop sharing. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> I'll look under more. I don't see any chat button. Is that something about the the town's
subscription that they don't have a chat function? Any of you see a chat button? No, I'm searching too and I can't find it. >> It may be in the workplace Zoom there's a there's a different there may be some different settings or parameters that
are allowed and not allowed with the public meetings because I know that's been an issue. >> I clicked on participants and then it came up it says at the bottom you can send feedback or something. thing it says on the bottom there. Now, if you click on there, it says just the participants.
>> Okay. Triple dots. Ask to unmute. >> Yeah, I don't see anything like that on mine, but I'm the host, so anyway. Uh, well, George, you can text me if you have something important you want to say. Um
the the other consideration for the commission is that um well Kelly I want to double check with you to see if you have any questions or comments about this. >> No, I think I think every thing looks fine to me. Um apart from that bottom
section there. So, um, the one thing that concerns me about this now is that I'm worried about timing that if we need to get some additional work on the plan, I don't I feel uncomfortable with the idea of that
we would have to wait an entire month before our next meeting to then issue the determination of applicability, which then there's a 10-day appeal period. So then that means you're going to be into December before you have the green light to do the work. Um I'm
assuming Dave that that's not what you would like to have happen. Is that correct? >> Our driveway got pretty torn up after the last storm. So yeah, I was hoping to get this done before the winter. >> So here's a possible way of addressing
that. One is is that if the commission is comfortable doing this, we could uh you could vote to issue the deter negative determination of applicability conditioned on the submission of a
revised plan that shows a way to deal with that um the bottom of the driveway. And then uh you could uh that could be maybe authorize the chair or authorize Kelly
to review that plan and then decide to go ahead and actually issue the paperwork. So the idea would be to vote on it tonight, but to hold back the paperwork until the new design is submitted. If that new design is judged to be adequate, then the then the
paperwork would be uh issued. So >> that's fair. >> Either that or we >> or we do a special meeting, you know, in two weeks or something and try to pick it up there or we end up waiting until,
you know, the middle of uh third week in November. I think we should vote and then uh >> that's going to be right before >> hold the paperwork, you know. >> Yeah, that's going to be like right before Yeah. Thanks. The week before
Thanksgiving. Yeah, that'd be I think I agree with Ann. Just vote on it, but hold like you said, hold the paperwork. >> Monte, >> yeah, I'm good with that. and George, you got thumbs up. All
right. >> All right. So, um uh so Jeff, I I don't know how long it'll take you to sort of sort this out, but you think that this is a reasonable way to proceed and that you'll be able
to save some time by by just getting a plan to us in the next week or two? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I I'll reach out to him tomorrow and you know, hopefully it's it's not too complicated. Um, you know, barring any unforeseen things that I'm not aware of, but um, yes, provided
we can we can connect and have a quick discussion with with Todd, um, we should be able to generate a plan revision pretty quickly and and issue that. Um, so yeah, I think that seems in this that way at least Dave can, you know, they can start to pursue um, you know,
getting this lined up with a with a contractor. >> Okay. Another person that often is attends our meetings for the Haydenville Road project, a colleague of of um, Todd's is Kimberly Peace. >> Okay.
>> P E A C E. So, if for some reason you're not able to get in touch with Todd, you can try Kimberly and uh hopefully we can avoid any major delays in that way. >> Okay, great.
All right. So, the uh the option that we just talked about that were up for a vote is to issue a positive determination of applicability contingent on the submission of a final plan that that that is that that resolves the
remaining questions and that we would you are empowering the chair to make that decision that that we have a satisfy we have a you know, a
suitable plan and then uh issue the order uh upon that the u the determination. I know I was not very articulate in expressing that, but I'm sure that I can write it down when it comes to writing the minutes. So, um
>> are there any comments or questions before we vote? >> All right. All in favor of all that stuff I said. >> I >> I >> I >> And uh I had you covered for a minute, George. Did you also give a thumbs up to
that? >> Yes. I Okay. >> Oh, we can hear you now. That works. >> Great. Well, thank you very much for the Yeah. discussion and and considerations. >> Yeah. Dave, how are you feeling about it? >> Good. Yeah, I really appreciate you all
uh taking into consideration um coming up on winter. So um yeah, we'll do our best to figure out the the plan for the bottom of the driveway and um get this resolved. I appreciate it and thank you Jeff for presenting. >> Absolutely.
>> All right. Thank you very much and uh yeah, just email to this email address uh you know conservation commission.org. Sure. and uh you know, we'll I'll I'll check that out as soon as you get it to me.
>> Great. All right. Thank you all. >> All right. Have a good night. >> All right. Second up on the agenda. It's uh Megan West and uh with Terry Reynolds and um hi Megan. Good to see you again.
It's been a long time. Yesterday, >> the whole over 24 hours, I guess. So, we did a sitewalk yesterday, so the commission is familiar with the situation, but because this is a public open meeting and it's recorded for other
people to see, uh, if either you or Terry could give sort of an overview of what it is you're asking of the conservation commission. >> Terry, do you want to do it or >> Sure, I can go ahead and do that. So um
everybody was out there yesterday and got a good look at it. Um, so the driveway is basically been failing for a bit and it's gotten to a point where it's uh generally half the well a third of the driveway is caved in and washed
down. Um, and then additionally there's a a stone retaining wall that leads up to it. um that is on the verge of collapsing also. Um so what's being proposed is to
replace um the clay cover that is currently there um with a 48 inch plastic cover that would be semi-mbbedded um coming near to meeting the the stream well probably does meet the stream crossing standards at that point. Um but
adding that in and then two um supplemental twoft diameter pipes set up higher um to allow for high flows to go through. Um,
so on on the north side of the driveway, um, we propose to put in a gravity block wall, a retaining wall to replace the stone wall that's there and also use it as a head wall for the inlet of the pipe
and the stream going in. um on the downstream end, the south side of the driveway, we just uh bury the pipe in in um a bank and then armor it with a rip wrap stone uh treatment. Um
so, uh that that seems to be the most cost effective way and quickest way for them get to get in there. Um, so it's uh I think that that that's we've come down to that that's what's going to be most effective
in the moment. >> Okay, thanks Terry. Um, and then just for more context, um, again, we we talked about this out in the field, but this is for anybody that's observing the recording and wants to know what's going on. Um the request is for us to treat
this as an emergency certificate uh a request for an emergency certificate because um the co the driveway has been failing for a number of months now and has gotten to the point where it's very sketchy to try to drive a car into or
out of that u entrance way now. And there's also potentially an opportunity now to be able to replace that culvert when the stream is dry. Uh it's listed on the topographic map as a perennial stream, but because we're in a drought,
it's been dry for weeks now. And you never know when that drought's going to break. And so by allowing this to be permitted as an emergency uh certificate, that would then cut down the amount of time that it would take to get mobilized and get the driveway
fixed. Uh so recognizing that that's the request and and Terry described the potential solution um and and and the the idea of the doing it in the dry is um
is one of the key factors of this because otherwise you might say well we could just put a metal plate on it and save it for now and then file a notice of intent. The problem is is that process might we would lose our window for trying to get it fixed while it's still dry. So, that's the context. Uh,
ask the conservation commissions and Kelly, uh, if you have any questions or any comments, go right ahead. >> I will say real quick, too, I actually inquired about putting on a metal plate and the wall and stuff, the way it's failing, it's not stable enough to do that.
>> I did look into that as an option if it needed, but um, that was not an option. So, what say you commissioners? >> Is it uh your intention to try and do this before winter? >> Yeah, we have somebody who said they can
be pretty much ready to go um in the next like week or two. >> Oh, okay. Great. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's the idea is that we want to get it done while it's dry and while it's not winter. Um just just a point I want to uh just
say is there there are three um trees that probably need to be taken out as part of this process. Um there are two there's a pine tree on the south side on the easterly corner of
the bank um that uh will will end up getting buried with the fill. Plus it's not in a good place for the future where it could take out the bank. There's also another small oak tree on the edge of the bank also on that south side on the
um west side of the the bank there that should come out. Um, additionally, there's a red oak um that's leaning towards into the wall um on the north side that's pinching the the stream
channel. Um it's also leaning into their power line and uh and eventually will become an issue. Um, so I would recommend those three trees be taken out as part of this process. And I guess one other observation too
about the situation is that even though uh you can get a small um you know sedan in and out at this point until it deteriorates further. If there was ever a need to bring an ambulance in there or a firet truck, you probably would not be
able to cross over the stream with the culbert in the situation that it is. Um, so just another r another another uh bit of the rationale for why an emergency might be an appropriate way to
handle this. Um, so I don't hear any objections. So does that mean everybody else is sort of okay with this? >> I'm okay. >> Okay with it. >> Okay. Um,
Kelly, any questions or comments? No, I think from the state of it, it seemed pretty emergent to me to get it taken care of. >> Yeah. So, >> with every rain, I think, oh no, please let me >> Yeah.
>> Let our driveway still work. >> Yeah. So um the when when we issue emergency certificate, it it authorizes work for 30 days. So, you would have a 30-day
window to to do the work. And I'm glad you have somebody that's ready to go. Um, and it still would be helpful if you could send a formal request in writing so that we can have it for the file. And
so, you just need to describe what the emergency is and have a brief description of what you're going to do. removing the three trees, putting in that retaining wall and uh replacing the culverts.
Uh you know, and then you know what efforts will be taken to make sure that you don't degrade the stream while you're doing that work. And a key aspect of that is just doing the work while the stream is dry. So, uh that will solve a lot of it. Um,
so if you can pull that together and send it to me, uh, I will ask the commission to authorize me to issue the emergency certificate as soon as I get your request. >> Okay, no problem. Um, quick question though. Does the work need to be completed in 30 days or at least or just
started in 30 days? >> Ideally completed or largely completed. Okay. >> Yeah. I guess I didn't ask him like what his timeline for the project is, but I can't imagine that it would be like weeks to do, but
>> yeah, I wouldn't think so, Terry. >> Yeah, I mean, it all depends on how soon he can get started really. Um, so, um, you know, the the little the wall might take a little bit of time to do that properly.
Um, but I can I can help expedite things and and make sure it's clear on what what they're doing. Uh, the pipe is all available. Um, the block we I'm not sure about, so we'll have to figure out figure that
out. Um, so I'll ask the commission to take a vote that would authorize the chair to issue an emergency certificate upon re receipt of the written request uh authorizing them to do the work that
they described uh to us tonight. So, all in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. It's unanimous and uh hopefully everything will fall into place and it won't rain too hard between
now and and uh Thanksgiving and you'll have it all ready uh soon. Thank you for uh for coming in and explaining it. Thank you, Terry, for for helping to sort this out with us. >> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> Yes. Thank you everybody. >> All right. Have a good night. >> Night. >> Good night. >> All right. Next up is the approval of the minutes from last month. Anybody read them? Uh, anybody see anything that needs to be corrected or added to?
>> Read and approved. >> All in favor of approving the minutes? >> I. Very good. >> All right. >> Uh, under reviewing the mail, I sent you today the thing that came in from Eversource about the repair work that
they're doing or or planning to do. Um, this all seems to fit under the exemption for m maintenance of existing utilities. So, I don't think we have any jurisdiction. It's nice to get an explanation of what it is they're planning to do. And uh
there's also on the letter the contact information for the the BSC people that'll be monitoring the project. So if anything happens and you have questions about it, I think we can uh contact the BSC uh and uh
and then then they'll probably give us tell us what's going on. Anybody have any questions or concerns about that letter? >> No. I think we went out there last year or the year before when they first asked for the uh determination of
applicability. Um all right, moving on to updates and other business. Uh Monzerat, you had questions. Why don't we take care of that next? >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so I have some questions from the
housing committee and um, you know, frankly when they're talking developer stuff, most of it just goes right over my head. So I hope I can ask the right questions and bring the right information back. Um, so first of all, what I asked yesterday,
I want to repeat that and write down the answer. Uh, what's the process for approving a new building's wastewater system? And does it make a difference whether it's a leech field or this other system they're proposing, which is like a mini um
um like water processing. It cleans the water and discharges it into a stream. Yeah. So I went back and just double checked the regulations so that I could get the language correct that there is a presumption in the regulations that if
uh the system is approved as under title 5 by the board of health and complies with that then they have satisfied any concerns about water quality related to the wastewater management. And so we
would no longer be considering that when we review the installation of that wastewater uh system. So um we would still have jurisdiction over the construction. Uh but the location and the design would be something that the
board of health would be covering under title five. >> Okay. Let me catch up to you. Board of Health covers location and what? And construction. >> And design. >> And design. And we cover construction.
>> And we cover construction. Yeah. >> And you know, I can write this up in the minutes and send them to you so that you can see. >> Okay. >> I can, you know, I can I can put it in writing so you don't have to try to write it all down. No. >> So, but we care about how close it is to
the stream or the wetland. And does the board of health care about that? >> Yeah, because it is part of Title 5 that it has to be 50 ft away from a wetland or or a water body. So, the board of health should be enforcing that
requirement. And if they come to us with a proposal that's not consistent with Title 5, then that triggers our jurisdiction to tell them no, it has to be at least 50 ft away. >> Okay. >> Um do you remember that um
that that site and >> and um you know how close the wetland is? behind it. >> Yeah, the wetland is all around it. I remember uh when Fred Arloski wanted to sort of see what could be done with the
site, I I went out and flagged the wetlands and they just sort of wrap all the way around. My guess is is that old lobster pot site was fill, you know, they filled in part of the wetland and then they built on top of it. So basically, you know, they're the
wastewater system is going to have to be in a more central portion of that site. And you know, how they can design around that, I don't know. But, you know, apparently there are people that think it's still developable. >> Okay.
Um, and then my second question is, um, the three the three proposals that we're relooking at, um, they didn't say anything about storm water runoff. If a developer wanted to develop that,
um, what would they need to be aware of from Concom's point of view about storm water runoff? >> Yeah. So, in some ways it depends on what they're going to development as. So, if it was going to be a single family home, they're not required to
meet the storm water standards in the regulations. >> No, they're they're talking about um those proposals were like eight units or something like that and they're talking about um a developer wouldn't want to do it unless it was like at least 30 units.
>> Yeah. So for that they would be required to meet all of the storm water uh standards in the regulations and there's actually a storm water handbook that goes through all of those standards in in detail. So the expectation would be
is they would have to meet all of those standards. You know some of the standards are you know no direct discharge to wetlands or water bodies. uh that has to be pre-treated >> where those >> uh well some of that's in the regulations themselves. So um if you
don't have a copy handy, I can send you uh a PDF of the regulations. >> Okay, I'll take it. >> Um you know, but there you like no direct discharge. Uh you have to try to infiltrate as much water as you can. The
idea is to try to uh to recreate the amount of mitigation, a lot of the amount of infiltration that was already there. It's not always possible, but sometimes by using infiltration basins, you can try to, you know, infiltrate
that water rather than having it run off the site. You want to try to make sure that the amount of water running off the site or the rate at which water is running off the site doesn't increase post construction compared to what it was pre-construction. Um
so there and you there's also a requirement to that you pre-treat the water before it's discharged so that you remove 80% of the total suspended solids. So these are just some of the easy ones that I can remember off the top of my head. Um, but the key thing
about this site is is it's mostly all impervious surfaces right now. You know, it's it's parking lot, it's the building slab, and so there's really not much infiltration happening now. And so there's probably the fact that they're surrounded by wetlands is going to limit
their ability to infiltrate water. But then again, there's very little infiltration that they're trying to recreate. So they can probably work out some kind of storm water management that would satisfy the regulations uh and the standards
>> because if it were developed it would some of it would be an improvement over what's there now and just all >> that might be the case too but really it's it's like if it was a an undeveloped parcel that you know was just a piece of forest land you would
expect that there's water being infiltrated. there's water being it's not a lot of water is running off of that land because it's forest land and so then if you turn it into impervious surface you're going to have an increase in the rate of water being discharged off the site. So then you have to use
some kind of a detention basin or some other way to slow the water down so that it's not going to flood the downstream areas after it discharges at that at that site. Now there's it's mostly impervious. So water is just
running off of that site already. So if they develop it and water continues to just run right off the site, they really haven't changed it. They haven't changed the the rate at discharge. >> But in fact, there's probably a lot of opportunity for improvement.
>> I'm sorry, what did you say? >> I I said it's getting less impervious every day. >> Yeah. Right. A lot of cracks and things in it. But the thing is is that if they actually tear up some of that imperousness and put it into lawn or some other amenity, they will in improve
the situation over what it is now. So that's one way that they can meet the storm water standards is, you know, if you keep the roof runoff separate from the street runoff, keep the clean water clean and the dirty water dirty, then you only need to treat the the runoff off the the parking lot and the
driveway. and the roof runoff can be discharged because it's clean water. So, I'm sure there are ways they can handle it. They just have to it' probably be good for them to acknowledge in their proposals that they're going to meet this the
storm water standards in under the wetlands protection act. >> Okay. And one last question. I should know where to find this, but um where can I find a um that flagging that you did? Is that is that uh
somewhere? >> Um I don't I don't know if it's still out there, you know. I mean, I hung the flags out in the field so that people would know where the weapons were. >> Did anyone um chart that? >> I I think that in that report, that feasibility study, I think it has the
the wetland. >> There's a lot of pages. I'll see if it's in there. >> Yeah, I think there's a a plan that shows the wetland delineation, and it probably is based on the flags that I hung. But I don't know how many of those flags remain. They they might actually have
done it again themselves. >> Okay. I think that's all my questions. Thank you. >> Sure. Anybody else want to comment or have questions about Monty's questions? Nope. Okay. Time to move on. All right,
the last two items on the agenda are things that Kelly is doing for us to try to uh streamline our processes and make us more efficient. Um, so the first one I want to talk about is the electronic signature one.
And um, I'll share my screen in case you don't have it handy. Um, I've read it and I don't have any problem with it as it's written. I didn't really have any edits that I would suggest. Does anybody else have
any questions or suggested changes or thoughts about whether this is the way you want to go? >> Makes sense. Yeah. Kelly, can you tell us again who else is doing this and and and where you got this this language?
>> So, um I believe that I took the actual certificate of vote from the MACC website. >> Um but, uh Williamsburg and Buckland have accepted this already. Um, Ashefield has a version of it that they
had before I came on, but they don't typically use it because they meet in person every meeting. Um, and yeah, it's been it's been super helpful um, for for those towns where, you know, everybody isn't always in person and, you know,
things are issued, you know, days after a meeting and, you know, just so everybody doesn't have to come in and physically sign something. And those things that are highlighted down there are what's subject to change
based on how the vote goes. >> And so this would allow us to take a vote at a meeting, not this vote, but a voting on like a notice of intent, order of conditions or determination, and then say, Kelly, please attach our
signatures. And we all sort of agree to have our signatures and then you you take it from there. >> Yes. Yeah. And what happens from there? Usually I I just have an electronic copy of everyone's signature or you can I can just type it in. Um and then this
certificate gets attached to whatever document is being issued. And um for notices of intent, I think I have to physically sign it with wet ink. So the registry will accept it. But yeah, it's been it's been good. It's been helpful.
>> Do you have to sign this every time you use the electronic signatures or just once? Usually what I do is I'll just add my signature on the signature page just at the bottom and just note that I'm the conservation agent and that it's a wedding signature on behalf of the
commission because that the registry does require at least one wedding signature on a document. So in other words, in order to record an order of conditions, there has to be a wedding signature.
Uh but that's not necessarily needed for a determination. >> No. >> Right. Okay. Anybody else want to comment or have thoughts about this? >> Sounds good to me.
>> Yeah, it seems like a good idea. >> So, I have one question that I don't know the answer to uh because I don't ever play around with Robert's rules of order or at least very rarely do. But is the chair allowed to make a motion or is this one of you going to have to make
that motion uh in the top beginning the second paragraph? >> I think you are allowed because this is language that I took from MACC. So I can't imagine that they're wrong. >> Okay.
>> Does that sound right to everybody else? >> Yes. A nice second. >> All right. So, I move Monty seconds and everybody in favor >> I >> I >> I got all the yays in there and we did
it on the 15th. So, that all of that stays the same. And um then all that's left is uh well, I guess this is now official. And so Kelly, you can go ahead and and >> have it notorized. It looks like that's what you have set it up for.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So I can just have it notorized and then it has to be recorded at the registry before we can use it. Um and I I think that's something that I can figure out with uh with the administrator or the treasurer or whoever can write me a check so I can
take it there. >> Okay. Um, and um, that means each of us needs to send Kelly an electronic signature or authorize her to just type your name. So, I don't know. I have a I
have an image file that I can send you for mine. >> Yeah, that works. >> I have one, too. >> Even if you just send me like a a PDF scan of your signature, I can always just trace it and pop that in. All right. Well, I think we've already
taken the vote, so I guess we've already finished with this one. All right. Thank you, Kelly. This will make life a lot simpler for me. >> Um, and you know, having to sort of put stuff down at the town hall because we meet on Wednesday.
Basically, if you guys don't get down there to sign it on Thursday, then the the office isn't open on Friday or Saturday or Sunday. So we end up losing like half a week. Uh so this will this will help us a lot. Um so let me move on
to the other thing which was this tree cutting administrative approval. Now, we haven't had a lot of requests for this, but we have had a few in the past. As I remember there was one on
five and 10 close to the Hatfield Town line. Uh, and we have sometimes had issues where there's a tree on a stream bank that's about to fall into the stream in a way that could uh, you know, be problematic
in terms of opening up the bank and creating erosion uh, or a vulnerability there for further erosion or or potentially blocking up the stream and creating a a hazard to somebody's property. So, I imagine there's a whole different there's a whole range of
different scenarios that could come up where somebody needs to remove a tree or a couple of trees, especially if there's a a storm uh that creates such a circumstance. And so, having a mechanism whereby Kelly
can react quickly to those requests and get out there and act on our behalf, I think makes sense. Um, I found some some things that I might change in terms of the wording on this, but uh, conceptually I think it's a good idea.
How about the rest of you folks? >> Yeah, makes sense. >> Yep. >> Yeah, no problem. >> I can actually hear you, George. So, >> Oh, you can. So, I I'm back. I'm back. Yeah.
>> So now you can catch up with all the other comments you were going to make throughout the meeting that you never could make or you hadn't until now. Um so where did you get this one from, Kelly? >> This one was from Ava. Um and I have
minimally changed the wording. Um this has been adopted in three other towns so far. Um, so I've added a couple things here and there, but no big changes. Um, so this is what they use in East Hampton.
>> Okay. >> So I' I've made some, you know, some small changes. Um, you know, wetland resource areas. I sort of simplified it to 100red-year flood planes, wetlands, and water bodies so
that we're not having to keep naming, you know, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands. Um, and um the buffer zones are just land within 100 ft of wetlands and water bodies. It's not within 100 ft of resource areas
because riverfront is a resource area. land subject to flooding is a resource area, but there's no buffer zone to those resource areas. So, I've sort of made that correction. Um, and then also where it says no trees may be cut or altered
from or within any jurisdictional area unless permission's been granted by the conservation commission. That's technically not true because you have the forest forestry exemption for people who are doing a a commercial harvest and also people are allowed to harvest trees
for their own use with some restrictions on that. But if they stay within those restrictions, then it's an exempt activity. It doesn't uh need to come to us. So that put this preface there to try to capture that uh where it just says unless trees are proposed to be cut
as part of a commercial harvest or a harvest of trees for landowners own use, no trees may be cut, altered, etc. Um uh the one area that I think it's worth us discussing is this idea of
mitigation. And I think in in towns where there's more development, maybe like East Hampton, towns in Eastern Mass, they sort of want to see a replacement tree for tree. Every time a tree is cut, you
got to have another one in its place. um in in areas that are relatively natural. You know, when you cut a tree, there's no problem with other trees coming up naturally on their own. So, in a lot of cases, I don't even recommend that they
try to replant because naturally you're going to get trees sprouting out. And often that'll happen faster than these uh planted trees can actually recover and and start to grow. Uh but there may be some circumstances in which you would want them to
mitigate. So you know like if it's right on the bank of a stream and and a tree is falling over and you what you generally what you're going to do is cut it and leave the roots in place but then you'd like to get another tree started so that
you can get that gap filled on the bank and don't leave you know a vulnerability there. So, I'm not quite sure um how to word this section or but I think conceptually I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think in terms of um you
know how we should handle that issue. >> I will say that was a concern for a couple of other of the um commissions that have adopted this so far. Um, and what we ended up doing was putting the language in, where is it? Under
mitigation criteria, um, trees would be replaced at the discretion of the conservation agent. So, in scenarios where it wouldn't make sense to have someone plant another tree, like in a heavily forested area, um, I could just say, you know, you
don't have to replace it for this one. >> Yeah. So maybe we can um sort of loosen up the wording because where it starts off with any trees proposed to be cut must be mitigated. Uh it sounds pretty absolute. So maybe we can make that a
little gentler and just say you know at the discretion of the conservation agent mitigation you replacement of trees uh may be required something like that. Are others supportive of that change? Sounds reasonable to me.
>> Yeah, sounds good. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> And then uh a related question then is if we going to give the agent discretion about mitigation, do we need to prescribe it? Do we need to say, you
know, for trees larger than 12 in, it's going to be this or for less than 12 in going to be that? Can we just say up to the discretion of the agent some mitigation may be required? >> Yeah, sounds fine. >> I don't think it needs to be too specific.
>> Yeah, I think the discretion is better. >> Do we do we want to add um the commission to that? up to the discretion of the agent or commission just looking down the road. >> Um,
yeah, we could say that, you know, >> I think as long as that doesn't undo the purpose of what we're doing this for, which is to make it so that people don't have to come to us when they're trying to do something quick. But in other places on here it does say that if the agent feels
like it needs to go to the commission for their opinion. Uh so this would then you know be consistent with that kind of language. >> Okay. Um [Music] so people are generally in favor of
doing this. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. And um does anybody want to make notes on theirs and sort of we'll collect all of the suggested edits together before we make another draft or do you want
Kelly and me to work it out at this point between the two of us? >> I'm fine with you two working it out. >> Sounds good. >> Me too. >> Same here. >> It'll be between you two your discretion. So yeah, that makes more sense for you too to work out the
language. >> Yeah. So, Kelly, maybe what I'll do is just send you what I have here with my comments and suggested changes and then you've heard our conversation about mitigation. Maybe you can see if you can make another version of this with all of
those comments accounted for. And then uh you know between going back and forth between us, we can get a a version to vote on at our next meeting. Yeah, that sounds fine.
[Music] >> All right. Now, my hand is raised and I now I found the lower hand thing. It's the one thing about AI. It's like if you're if you have some Italian blood and you like to talk with your hands,
suddenly your hands get raised up or sometimes a bunch of balloons go flying up. It's Oh, tries to read your mind. Any other business for tonight.
>> The only other thing that I sort of wanted to make note of, Scott, is I am on vacation next week. Um, so I was going to just leave an away email signature that directs people to the Concom timesensitive matters.
>> Yeah, good for you. Are you going away? No, I was kind of just going to do a few little day trips. I just had the time and I needed to use it. So, >> Oh, good for you. Anybody else have anything?
So, you've had enough for one night. Um, all right. Well, thank you. We've had a lot to do tonight. Um, and who knows what we'll have next month, but uh could be anything. Um, so thanks for coming out and we'll see you next month
or for a site visit in between as needed. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Good night. >> Good night everybody.